In a move that has left many industry insiders both stunned and intrigued, Chick-fil-A, the fast-food giant synonymous with fried chicken and conservative values, is launching its own streaming service. Set to debut later in 2024, this unexpected venture marks Chick-fil-A's foray into the entertainment world, positioning itself as a competitor in the increasingly crowded streaming market. As reported by Deadline, Chick-fil-A's streaming platform will focus on what the company describes as "family-friendly" content. The service will include a mix of original programming and licensed content, primarily targeting families looking for wholesome entertainment options. With streaming giants like Netflix, Disney+, and HBO Max dominating the space, Chick-fil-A's entry raises questions about whether there is room for another player, especially one with such a specific content niche. EXCLUSIVE: Chick-Fil-A is moving aggressively into the entertainment space with plans to launch a slate of originals for its own streaming platform https://t.co/ePS5P54TTl — Deadline (@DEADLINE) August 21, 2024 The decision to launch a streaming service comes at a time when the streaming industry is undergoing significant shifts. While many companies are bundling services or consolidating, Chick-fil-A's move appears to be a strategic attempt to carve out a space for conservative-leaning family entertainment. This approach may resonate with the company’s existing customer base, known for their loyalty to the brand's values as much as to its menu offerings. The exact nature of what Chick-fil-A defines as "family-friendly" remains to be fully clarified. However, given the company's history, it is expected that the streaming service will likely avoid content that clashes with its conservative Christian values. Chick-fil-A has been a lightning rod for controversy due to its past donations to organizations that oppose LGBTQ+ rights, a stance that has generated both significant backlash and strong support from different sectors of the public​. First episode of the Chick-Fil-A series on their streaming platform https://t.co/wUmfMkNY3y — Ahmed/The Ears/IG: BigBizTheGod (@big_business_) August 21, 2024 The programming slate for the streaming service is said to include a variety of unscripted shows, documentaries, and potentially, scripted series in the future. Notably, the service has already ordered a 10-episode family game show from Glassman Media, the producers behind "The Wall" and "Match Made in Heaven." This initial offering suggests a focus on light, non-controversial entertainment, possibly in the vein of traditional family game shows that have long been staples of American television. Chick-fil-A's venture into streaming is being spearheaded by industry veterans. Brian Gibson, who has an impressive resume including work on "Top Gear USA" and "Wayne Brady's Comedy IQ," is leading the charge as the head of programming. His involvement hints at a serious commitment to creating content that can stand alongside offerings from more established streaming services​. Moreover, Chick-fil-A has also dipped its toes into the world of animated content. The company recently released a short film titled "Rocky Road," about a cow who gets trapped in a food truck. This project could be a precursor to a series, indicating that animation may become a significant component of the streaming service's lineup​. From a business standpoint, Chick-fil-A's entry into streaming could be seen as both bold and risky. The fast-food chain is venturing far outside its core competency of serving chicken sandwiches. However, the brand’s strong customer loyalty could provide a built-in audience for the service, particularly among those who align with its values. The post Chick-fil-A Hatches Surprising Move into Streaming with Family-Friendly Service appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Montana Senator Jon Tester (D-MT) has sparked controversy by reversing his earlier stance on endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential election. Just a day after stating that it was more critical to elect Harris than for him to win re-election, Tester now says he will not endorse Harris, signaling a shift in focus to his own re-election campaign. During a press conference in Missoula, Tester explained his decision to abstain from endorsing Harris or any presidential candidate. He cited two primary reasons: his need to concentrate on his own Senate race and his desire to prevent his campaign from being "nationalized." Tester emphasized that the issues at stake in his re-election are specific to Montana and should not be overshadowed by the national political scene. "I’m not going to endorse for the presidential, and I’ll tell you why," Tester said. "Because I’m focused on my race, and number two, people want to nationalize this race, and this isn’t about national politics. This is about Montana." Now get rid of John Tester for the WIN. https://t.co/GR3BG0h7v3 — JohnMBrowning (@KenRoamer) August 19, 2024 This backtrack is notable because just the previous day, Tester had suggested that Harris’s success in the presidential election was more critical than his own re-election, a statement that aligned him with those urging President Joe Biden to step down and allow Harris to lead the Democratic ticket. "There’s a lot at stake here. There’s democracy at stake, there’s rural America at stake, there’s how we treat one another at stake," Tester had stated. However, his sudden change of heart has led to accusations of political opportunism, with critics suggesting that Tester is attempting to distance himself from the increasingly polarizing figure of Harris. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was quick to respond, with spokeswoman Maggie Abboud accusing Tester of being a "two-faced politician" who cannot stand by his record of voting with Harris. "This embarrassing backtrack is the latest in a series of flip flops from a desperate, two-faced politician who lies to voters as easily as he breathes," Abboud stated, underscoring the NRSC's view that Tester’s refusal to endorse Harris is a calculated move to appeal to Montana’s conservative electorate. Vote out the hippopotamus John Tester Montana. It's time to retire the proven liar and radical agenda Tester has pushed on Montana. pic.twitter.com/3x4bPGKZWe — Patriot Lady (@angelwoman501) August 10, 2024 Tester’s dilemma is compounded by the political climate in Montana, where national Democratic figures, particularly Harris, are deeply unpopular. Harris's potential candidacy could be a significant liability for Tester, who is already facing a challenging re-election battle against Republican candidate Tim Sheehy. Polls show Sheehy leading Tester, highlighting the uphill battle the three-term senator faces​. The Montana Democratic Party has also been cautious in its approach to Harris’s ascent as the presumptive Democratic nominee. Party officials, including state chair Robyn Driscoll, were notably absent from a call where other state party committees endorsed Harris. A spokesperson for the Montana Democratic Party indicated that the party was waiting for further guidance from the Democratic National Committee before making any formal endorsement. This hesitancy reflects the broader unease among Montana Democrats about fully embracing Harris, given the state’s conservative leanings​. Tester’s refusal to endorse Harris is in line with his history of distancing himself from national Democratic politics during re-election years. Throughout his 18-year Senate career, Tester has never endorsed a presumptive Democratic nominee during a year when he was up for re-election. He has also never attended a Democratic National Convention in such years, a tradition that appears to be continuing in 2024. The implications of Tester’s decision are significant, both for his campaign and for the Democratic Party’s strategy in Montana. As Tester navigates the challenges of running in a red-leaning state, his refusal to endorse Harris may be an attempt to appeal to moderate and independent voters who are wary of the national Democratic agenda. However, this move could alienate the party’s progressive base, potentially weakening Tester’s support among Democrats. The post Jon Tester Backs Away from Kamala Harris Endorsement, Prioritizes Montana Race Amid Re-Election Battle appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

A group of "uncommitted" delegates, representing voters who are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party's stance on Israel, staged a sit-in outside the United Center in Chicago, where the Democratic National Convention (DNC) is being held. The protest, which took place on Wednesday night, was organized by the Uncommitted National Movement and attracted around 50 supporters, along with a few prominent political figures, such as Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). Their primary demand was for a Palestinian-American speaker to be given five minutes on the main stage to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The protest was sparked after the DNC repeatedly rejected requests to include a Palestinian speaker in the convention's lineup. The delegates argue that the party’s refusal is indicative of a broader issue: the silencing of Palestinian voices and the unconditional support the Democratic Party provides to Israel. Despite the sit-in and mounting pressure from within the party, DNC officials have not budged on their decision, fearing that such a speech could disrupt the unity that the convention aims to project​. NOW: "Oink Oink Piggy Piggy We Gonna Make Your Life Shitty!" thousands chant as DNC Protest march has been standing in place for over 20 minutes, after their official permit ended at 8pm and they were unable to negotiate an extention. pic.twitter.com/b2iJj664K3 — Oliya Scootercaster (@ScooterCasterNY) August 23, 2024 The protestors, led by Abbas Alawieh, a former chief of staff for Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO), held banners demanding an arms embargo against Israel, with slogans such as "Not another bomb." Alawieh, a Lebanese immigrant, shared his own traumatic experiences of surviving an Israeli bombing in 2006, emphasizing the personal stakes involved in their demands. The Uncommitted delegates represent approximately 740,000 voters who, during the primaries, chose not to endorse any Democratic candidate, instead voting "uncommitted" as a statement against the U.S. government's military support for Israel. The sit-in continued throughout the night, with participants expressing their determination to stay until their demands were met. Some of the protestors, including individuals with serious health conditions, endured significant physical discomfort to make their voices heard. Mohammed, a delegate from Minnesota with multiple sclerosis, described the pain he was experiencing due to the cold ground, but insisted that it was worth it if it meant their message would reach the DNC leadership. #BREAKING Pro-Palestinian protesters march through Chicago ahead of DNC 08/19 Thousands march in protests ahead of Democratic National Convention in Chicago 08/19 pic.twitter.com/ftOtx4g7Hh — ❀ N ✿ (@8zal) August 19, 2024 The movement has garnered support from various progressive groups, including the Jewish-American organization IfNotNow, which opposes the Israeli occupation. Rabbi Jason Kimelman-Block, a member of the group, briefly joined the sit-in, stressing the importance of acknowledging the pain felt by Palestinian Americans. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) also voiced her support, calling on the DNC to recognize the humanity of Palestinians and allow them a platform to speak​. The refusal of the DNC to accommodate the Uncommitted Movement’s request has highlighted the deep divisions within the party over U.S. policy toward Israel. Many progressive delegates, who have been vocal in their criticism of the Israeli government's actions in Gaza, see this as a critical moment for the Democratic Party to reevaluate its stance and align itself more closely with the values of its base. However, the DNC’s leadership remains cautious, concerned that any deviation from the current course could jeopardize party unity ahead of the 2024 election​. With the convention set to conclude on Thursday, the window for the DNC to reverse its decision is rapidly closing. The Uncommitted delegates have vowed to continue their protest until the very end, insisting that their demand is the “bare minimum” the party could do to acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians under Israeli bombardment. As the tension mounts, the protestors remain resolute in their fight to have Palestinian voices heard on the national stage. The post Uncommitted Delegates Stage Sit-In Outside DNC, Demand Palestinian Speaking Slot appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

A Channel is born In 1992 A&E Networks produced a historical series called The Real West, hosted by country music icon Kenny Rogers. The Real West aired from 1992 to 1995 and was A&E’s highest CONTINUE READING... The post The History Behind The History Channel appeared first on The Retro Network.

Media Claims Elon Musk Is A Threat To Democracy – But Is “Democracy” Even Worth Saving?

The Widow in the Woods: Part 14

Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart and New York Times columnist David Brooks recapped the Democratic National Convention on Friday’s PBS News Hour by contrasting its “jubilation” and “patriotism” with the “hate” that came out of the RNC’s “weighted blanket.” Host Amna Nawaz began with Capehart, “The Democrats spent rallying behind their ticket and rolling them out to the nation. What stood out to you from those days?”     Capehart gushed, “The jubilation and relief. There were people who were dreading the convention coming up, and then once the change in the top of the ticket came, you started hearing about people from all over the country trying to figure out how they could get tickets to get inside the hall.” Contrasting the two conventions, he continued, “People wanted to be there. People wanted to be a part of it. And the jubilation is also around a candidate and around a party that is — like, people are hungry. I think they're exhausted by all the negativity and the hate and the heaviness, and they want to be joyful in solving the country's problems, and so over four days, whereas in Milwaukee, every night I felt like when we left the set, I was — like a weighted blanket. Four days in Chicago is a completely different experience.” He concluded by declaring, “And so I think Democrats are — they are happy, they're excited, and I think they have rocketed out of Chicago ready, willing, and able to push Kamala Harris over the finish line.” Capehart is the liberal half of Brooks and Capehart, so such comments were not surprising. However, Brooks agreed, “Yeah, well, certainly the emotional change in the Democratic Party is as stark as it's possible to imagine.” He also praised the DNC as better than the RNC: But if you look at the two parties, the two conventions, I'd say the Republicans doubled down on their core story, and the Democrats expanded their story. And so, by doubling down, I mean, their core story is the elites have betrayed us, we're going to build a working-class army to overthrow the system, and picking JD Vance just doubles down on that story. And then having Dana White and Hulk Hogan and all that, that's just like, yes, this is our story and this is who we're going for, but it's like 46 percent of the country. Democrats had more than their fair share of celebrity speakers and performers too, but Brooks still tried to argue, “If you had stereotypes about the Democrats, this convention did not fit them. The vice presidential candidate is shown hunting. There's a bunch of football players lined up on stage. There's a bunch of military people showing up on stage. There's as much patriotism as you can possibly imagine.” Hunting does not negate the fact that Tim Walz is still further left than the vast majority of the country. Still, Brooks ended by adding, “She describes American foreign policy in a pretty hawkish way, and so expanding. And so, I don't know if it'll work. And it may be — and the mood of the country may be dark, and that would be good for Trump. But — or as Jonathan says, maybe we're just a little tired of dark and we want a vibe shift and so I thought both — I thought, in general, if you got a core story, you need to expand to win a majority. And so I thought Harris was a little smarter.” Are Brooks and Capehart really “a little tired of dark” if they forecast nothing but doom and gloom if Republicans win? Here is a transcript for the August 23 show: PBS News Hour 8/23/2024 7:31 PM ET AMNA NAWAZ: Okay, so for anyone who was not watching every hour of the conventions with us, although I can't imagine why you wouldn't have been, I just want to get your big takeaways here. From the last four days, Jonathan, that the Democrats spent rallying behind their ticket and rolling them out to the nation. What stood out to you from those days? JONATHAN CAPEHART: The jubilation and relief. There were people who were dreading the convention coming up, and then once the change in the top of the ticket came, you started hearing about people from all over the country trying to figure out how they could get tickets to get inside the hall. People wanted to be there. People wanted to be a part of it. And the jubilation is also around a candidate and around a party that is — like, people are hungry. I think they're exhausted by all the negativity and the hate and the heaviness, and they want to be joyful in solving the country's problems, and so over four days, whereas in Milwaukee, every night I felt like when we left the set, I was — like a weighted blanket. Four days in Chicago is a completely different experience. And so I think Democrats are — they are happy, they're excited, and I think they have rocketed out of Chicago ready, willing, and able to push Kamala Harris over the finish line. NAWAZ: What about you, David? Do you get that same sense? DAVID BROOKS: Yeah, well, certainly the emotional change in the Democratic Party is as stark as it's possible to imagine. But if you look at the two parties, the two conventions, I'd say the Republicans doubled down on their core story, and the Democrats expanded their story. And so, by doubling down, I mean, their core story is the elites have betrayed us, we're going to build a working-class army to overthrow the system, and picking JD Vance just doubles down on that story. And then having Dana White and Hulk Hogan and all that, that's just like, yes, this is our story and this is who we're going for. But it's like 46 percent of the country. Kamala Harris, on the other hand, I mean, it was not your — like, if you had stereotypes about the Democrats, this convention did not fit them. The vice presidential candidate is shown hunting. There's a bunch of football players lined up on stage. There's a bunch of military people showing up on stage. There's as much patriotism as you can possibly imagine. She describes American foreign policy in a pretty hawkish way, and so expanding. And so, I don't know if it'll work. And it may be — and the mood of the country may be dark, and that would be good for Trump. But — or as Jonathan says, maybe we're just a little tired of dark and we want a vibe shift. And so I thought both — I thought, in general, if you got a core story, you need to expand to win a majority. And so I thought Harris was a little smarter.

The term “democratization” typically evokes the ideals of freedom and the process of a government transitioning from authoritarianism to democracy. Today, however, we also use democratization in finance to describe reducing barriers to enter certain markets or activities. Although financial democratization appears to grant more people access to markets, it can also come at the cost of personal freedom, privacy, and property rights. While democratization of markets may sound benevolent, it is the path toward owning nothing tangible in the real world. A search for “democratization” on the World Economic Forum’s website reveals that everything — from tangible goods to intangible concepts — is being democratized through dematerialization. This process includes physical goods, precious metals, capital markets, cryptocurrencies, deepfake applications, media content, travel, computing, digital connectivity, access to technology, skills, growth — even the sky. Let’s focus on the “tokenization” of assets. Democratization of assets occurs through the process of tokenization. Essentially, tokenization dematerializes physical assets into digital assets (tokens) so they can be exchanged on a blockchain. Tokenized physical assets, such as real estate or art, are called real-world assets. Tokenized securities are called digital asset securities. When a real-world asset like a painting is tokenized, it exists in two forms: its original physical form and a newly created digital “twin,” called a token, which resides on a blockchain. Each token is linked to a “smart contract,” which details the asset’s fair value, ownership, and other attributes. Smart contracts contain code that instructs the blockchain to perform specific functions, such as buying or selling under certain conditions. As a result, even though the painting never leaves its physical location, it can still be instantly bought or traded multiple times on the blockchain. Tokenization aims to make markets more accessible by turning physical assets into liquid forms, similar to cash, which allows more people to participate in capital markets. Once assets are liquid, they can be used to buy and sell fractional shares of a real-world asset or digital security. Fractional ownership means purchasing a portion of the entire asset or stock. To be clear, fractional ownership of a real-world asset does not equate to true ownership. For example, you cannot physically hang your portion of a painting in your home. When you purchase fractional shares in a painting, you are essentially buying an “interest” in its future value, not the physical asset itself. While democratization of markets may sound benevolent, it is the path toward owning nothing tangible in the real world. DTCC Digital Assets, a division of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation — one of the world’s most powerful financial institutions and a leading advocate for tokenization — claims that digital securities have similar functions and rights as traditional securities. While this might sound reassuring to some, the reality is that our property rights to investment securities have already been completely subverted by covert changes to the Uniform Commercial Code, a set of state laws governing commercial transactions in the United States. Banking lobbyists and their allies largely drove the amendment of UCC Article 8 — which governs investment securities — by all 50 states 30 years ago. These changes revoked investors’ fundamental property rights to their securities, replacing them with a “security entitlement,” which is essentially just a contract for the securities that most investors believe they own. Now, legal ownership rights to traditional securities typically belong to the Depository Trust Company, a subsidiary of the DTCC, which holds approximately $87 trillion worth of pooled securities in trust for securities brokers and other financial institutions. Under this new arrangement, “entitlement holders” are treated as unsecured creditors rather than property owners. The “secured creditors” are the too-big-to-fail financial institutions to which securities brokers have pledged investors’ assets as collateral for loans and derivatives. In other words, if a securities broker or the DTC/DTCC goes bankrupt, their creditors — primarily the world’s largest banks — have priority over the securities that investors believe they own. When it comes to asset tokenization, the goal of the DTCC and other financial giants is to undermine our property rights to tangible assets, just as they have done with investment securities. Purchasers of tokenized real-world assets own an “interest” in the assets, similar to how securities buyers own “entitlements” to the securities. These “interests” and “entitlements” are intangible to individuals but provide tangible wealth-building opportunities for secured creditors. The dematerialization and tokenization of real-world assets could easily enable powerful financial institutions to take ownership of those assets. This is because the newly tokenized assets would reside on a blockchain centrally controlled by those same institutions, such as the immensely powerful DTCC. Suppose an individual wants to buy shares in the stock market but lacks the cash. After tokenizing his real-world assets — such as his house, car, and fractional “ownership” of a painting — these assets would reside in digital form on a blockchain. If his house and car are collateral for a tokenized mortgage and auto loan, the banks could continue leveraging them in the derivative market, as they do in the pre-tokenization world. This would allow the individual to enter the stock market by using his tokenized painting as collateral in a margin account. The individual’s shares would then become digital asset securities exchanged on a blockchain. This blockchain would likely be centrally administered by a powerful financial institution, such as DTCC Digital Assets, which is devoted to “establishing an industry-wide digital asset ecosystem to drive acceptance of tokenized assets.” Since this individual’s RWA tokens would serve as collateral for his margin account, his broker could use these tokenized real-world assets for its own trading purposes in derivative markets, likely on DTCC Digital Assets’ blockchain. In this scenario, the individual’s real-world and digital assets would be under DTCC’s control and possession in the derivatives complex. If the individual’s broker or DTCC Digital Assets became insolvent during an economic crisis, their creditors would gain ownership of the individual’s shares and tokenized real-world assets, just as creditors currently do with securities under UCC Article 8. While this “democratization” of financial markets claims to benefit participants, it simultaneously strips individuals of their rights to their property, representing the ultimate bait and switch. That doesn’t seem like a trade worth making.

While I truly adored Final Fantasy 16 on PS5, the PC reception to the demo has been mixed. Between issues with PC performance and the overall story and pacing (I promise you this part gets much better), the impending FF16 launch might still need some screws tightening. The good news is that Square Enix is aware of this, making some sweeping changes to the demo of Clive’s adventure. Not only does this bode well for how the RPG runs at launch, but also suggests that the PC demo will stick around, just like the one on PlayStation. Continue reading Square Enix drops some big fixes for the Final Fantasy 16 PC demo MORE FROM PCGAMESN: The best action-adventure games on PC 2022, Final Fantasy 16 release date, Best Final Fantasy games on PC