Let's not forget that Karoline Leavitt, right outside the event, told a reporter to expect "shots fired tonight" (she was referring to Trump's speech, but if Kimmel can be misread, so can she).
Powerhouse was a Raymond Scott song that Carl Stalling used in lots of classic Warner Bros cartoons. Given that this lawsuit is basically a cartoon, "powerhouse" may just be an accurate description.
Afroman, after the trial: "When life gives you lemons, make lemon pound cake." Also, one of his supporters was passing out slices of LPC after the verdict.
And lest we forget, she had her lap dog Lewandowski fire a pilot mid-flight (and then rehire him) for not bringing her special blankie from the disabled plane they had to move from. (Though there is now reporting that the blanket was a cover - no pun intended - for something - unreported what - more embarrassing that was in the same bag.)
What makes this even worse is that most crops planted on glyphosate-treated fields are genetically modified; the seeds are advertised as "Roundup ready" and are sold by -- yup, Bayer/Monsanto. And of course, you can't plant the seeds produced by those crops legally.
(For clarity: I have no issue with GMOs per se, I just find this to be another level of hypocrisy.)
There's even more of a straight line from Carr to ABC than Mike mentions: The press release from Sinclair about deplatforming Kimmel explicitly mentions Carr's statements.
OK, there are admittedly bigger questions (how did the classified info get into this non-classified system? who did Waltz mean to add instead of Goldberg? why didn't anyone ask who JG was? what about the FRA vs. disappearing messages? how much more have they been using Signal improperly? what were they thinking? why were they using Signal instead of a classified system?) but one I haven't seen enough: What the hell was the Secretary of the Treasury doing on this chat?
As Adam Schiff pointed out, despite Waltz's "no sources or methods" BS, the fact that they knew it was his girlfriend's building would suggest to the Houthis how they might know that (presumably non-public) information -- which means they could tighten up their opsec, making the next time more difficult, and possibly endangering one of our human assets if that's how we found out.
According to the latest report there are 8 more deputies currently suspended over the incident. Looking forward to more charges, though not really expecting them.
I heard that interview on CNN, and the whole time RFKJr was prattling on about censorship, I was shouting at my radio, and wondering why the CNN anchor didn't push back. She did some gentle push back on other issues, but apparently didn't know enough about Murthy or any of the other relevant lawsuits, which is unfortunate. When you interview a nonsense peddler, you need to go in fully informed and ready to push back.
Again, being far too rational: That passage is just in the title, which is not part of the actual law. The part that actually amends the criminal code doesn't include the phrase about "a commercial enterprise". The part that refers to "commercial enterprise" (p1, lines 18-21) explicitly says it applies only in the presence of minors.
Although: I see two other interesting provisions. First, apparently any city can choose to (in essence) ban strip clubs -- maybe this was already true. Also, maybe this is normal in Texas laws, but no matter where the offense occurs, it can be tried in Travis County (which is where the state capital, Austin, is located, which is why I think it might be a standard thing, but I'm no expert on Texas law).
As I said, I think football games might be in trouble (and wrestling). But I don't see how this will affect strip clubs. Or, presumably, "adult" bookstores, again assuming they check ID.
Look, I'm no fan of this law, but you have to read these definitions in context. The law doesn't outlaw all the things listed in that section outright, only in the context of a "sexually oriented performance" that is either on public property or in the presence of a minor (p 4, lines 12ff). So yes, many R-rated (and maybe even some PG-13) movies would be illegal, or would de facto become X-rated, but assuming a proper bouncer checking IDs, a strip club would not, since it's private property with no minors. And admittedly, the part designed to keep dancing and football games out is vague, requiring a performer who "engages in sexual conduct" and "appeals to prurient interest" (4, 6-9). Certainly a lot of rock concerts would be affected.
Or am I missing something?
I really hope the people implementing these protocols have looked closely at NNTP and USENET -- not to copy them, but to learn from them. These protocols dealt with distributed moderation and similar problems over 30 years ago, though admittedly imperfectly and after the fact. From the comments I'm reading here, I'm not convinced that has happened.
Actually, as I point out in my other post, while Fntastic applied for the trademark, it has not yet been approved, and in fact is currently denied pending more input/a corrected filing.
OK, I looked up the registration(s) in TESS. Fntastic has a registration pending for The Day Before in the expected game-related categories, filed January 27, 2022. The Trademark office has issued a preliminary denial, dated November 16, based in part on the other registration (below) and in part on deficiencies/errors in Fntastic's application. Fntastic has 6 months to respond (i.e., by about May 16). Complicating things somewhat is that Fntastic apparently moved/changed owners from New Zealand to Singapore during the time since the original filing.
Someone named Sun Jae Lee from Korea has a registration for The Day Before, applied May 21, 2021, granted November 1, 2022, not only for the categories one would expect for a calendar app, but also a number of newsletter/photo/music related categories that don't seem connected to a calendar app. The record shows that the initial application was also much broader and vaguer, specifying "Downloadable electronic publications; downloadable music files; downloadable image files; downloadable electronic books; downloadable computer software applications; downloadable computer programmes; downloadable coupon; downloadable ticket; operating system programs; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones; computer application software for mobile phones; computer software applications for mobile phones; computer game software; computer software; computer firmware." -- the USPTO forced them to narrow many of these descriptions.
And what about Karoline Leavitt?
Let's not forget that Karoline Leavitt, right outside the event, told a reporter to expect "shots fired tonight" (she was referring to Trump's speech, but if Kimmel can be misread, so can she).
"Powerhouse" in the Carl Stalling sense
Powerhouse was a Raymond Scott song that Carl Stalling used in lots of classic Warner Bros cartoons. Given that this lawsuit is basically a cartoon, "powerhouse" may just be an accurate description.
Almost
Well, they did find a few joints, but nothing close to trafficking amounts.
Making lemon pound cake
Afroman, after the trial: "When life gives you lemons, make lemon pound cake." Also, one of his supporters was passing out slices of LPC after the verdict.
Don't forget the blankie!
And lest we forget, she had her lap dog Lewandowski fire a pilot mid-flight (and then rehire him) for not bringing her special blankie from the disabled plane they had to move from. (Though there is now reporting that the blanket was a cover - no pun intended - for something - unreported what - more embarrassing that was in the same bag.)
And what about GMOs?
What makes this even worse is that most crops planted on glyphosate-treated fields are genetically modified; the seeds are advertised as "Roundup ready" and are sold by -- yup, Bayer/Monsanto. And of course, you can't plant the seeds produced by those crops legally. (For clarity: I have no issue with GMOs per se, I just find this to be another level of hypocrisy.)
Correction
You may have missed it, but Don Lemon was rather noisily fired by CNN a couple years ago, so he is no longer "CNN's Don Lemon".
Even more traceable
There's even more of a straight line from Carr to ABC than Mike mentions: The press release from Sinclair about deplatforming Kimmel explicitly mentions Carr's statements.
So many questions
OK, there are admittedly bigger questions (how did the classified info get into this non-classified system? who did Waltz mean to add instead of Goldberg? why didn't anyone ask who JG was? what about the FRA vs. disappearing messages? how much more have they been using Signal improperly? what were they thinking? why were they using Signal instead of a classified system?) but one I haven't seen enough: What the hell was the Secretary of the Treasury doing on this chat?
It's worse
As Adam Schiff pointed out, despite Waltz's "no sources or methods" BS, the fact that they knew it was his girlfriend's building would suggest to the Houthis how they might know that (presumably non-public) information -- which means they could tighten up their opsec, making the next time more difficult, and possibly endangering one of our human assets if that's how we found out.
And 8 more deputies suspended
According to the latest report there are 8 more deputies currently suspended over the incident. Looking forward to more charges, though not really expecting them.
And what about CNN's role?
I heard that interview on CNN, and the whole time RFKJr was prattling on about censorship, I was shouting at my radio, and wondering why the CNN anchor didn't push back. She did some gentle push back on other issues, but apparently didn't know enough about Murthy or any of the other relevant lawsuits, which is unfortunate. When you interview a nonsense peddler, you need to go in fully informed and ready to push back.
There was another...
I would argue that Google had one other good April Fool's creation: In 2014, they created something that eventually evolved into Pokemon Go.
Well, there's always Smeat...
If you don't want to use Spam, you can use Smeat: https://www.theearlhayspress.com/memorabilia-prop-shop/p/smeat-label
Title vs text
Again, being far too rational: That passage is just in the title, which is not part of the actual law. The part that actually amends the criminal code doesn't include the phrase about "a commercial enterprise". The part that refers to "commercial enterprise" (p1, lines 18-21) explicitly says it applies only in the presence of minors. Although: I see two other interesting provisions. First, apparently any city can choose to (in essence) ban strip clubs -- maybe this was already true. Also, maybe this is normal in Texas laws, but no matter where the offense occurs, it can be tried in Travis County (which is where the state capital, Austin, is located, which is why I think it might be a standard thing, but I'm no expert on Texas law).
No, I get that...
As I said, I think football games might be in trouble (and wrestling). But I don't see how this will affect strip clubs. Or, presumably, "adult" bookstores, again assuming they check ID.
OK, I'm confused.
Look, I'm no fan of this law, but you have to read these definitions in context. The law doesn't outlaw all the things listed in that section outright, only in the context of a "sexually oriented performance" that is either on public property or in the presence of a minor (p 4, lines 12ff). So yes, many R-rated (and maybe even some PG-13) movies would be illegal, or would de facto become X-rated, but assuming a proper bouncer checking IDs, a strip club would not, since it's private property with no minors. And admittedly, the part designed to keep dancing and football games out is vague, requiring a performer who "engages in sexual conduct" and "appeals to prurient interest" (4, 6-9). Certainly a lot of rock concerts would be affected. Or am I missing something?
Learning from the past
I really hope the people implementing these protocols have looked closely at NNTP and USENET -- not to copy them, but to learn from them. These protocols dealt with distributed moderation and similar problems over 30 years ago, though admittedly imperfectly and after the fact. From the comments I'm reading here, I'm not convinced that has happened.
Not so
Actually, as I point out in my other post, while Fntastic applied for the trademark, it has not yet been approved, and in fact is currently denied pending more input/a corrected filing.
From TESS...
OK, I looked up the registration(s) in TESS. Fntastic has a registration pending for The Day Before in the expected game-related categories, filed January 27, 2022. The Trademark office has issued a preliminary denial, dated November 16, based in part on the other registration (below) and in part on deficiencies/errors in Fntastic's application. Fntastic has 6 months to respond (i.e., by about May 16). Complicating things somewhat is that Fntastic apparently moved/changed owners from New Zealand to Singapore during the time since the original filing. Someone named Sun Jae Lee from Korea has a registration for The Day Before, applied May 21, 2021, granted November 1, 2022, not only for the categories one would expect for a calendar app, but also a number of newsletter/photo/music related categories that don't seem connected to a calendar app. The record shows that the initial application was also much broader and vaguer, specifying "Downloadable electronic publications; downloadable music files; downloadable image files; downloadable electronic books; downloadable computer software applications; downloadable computer programmes; downloadable coupon; downloadable ticket; operating system programs; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones; computer application software for mobile phones; computer software applications for mobile phones; computer game software; computer software; computer firmware." -- the USPTO forced them to narrow many of these descriptions.