Political Randomness

[malchior]

New Jersey is America's Canary in a Coal Mine. Great piece - it feels exactly right - especially since we see this every day. And the next phase when our pension funds start failing over the course of next decade it will only further illustrate how true this piece is.

[gilraen]

Good for you, Twitter

Twitter has launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration, after the Department of Homeland Security sought to unmask an anonymous user of an anti-Trump account.

According to Twitter’s suit, filed today in Northern California District Court, US Customs and Border Protection has attempted to use a “limited-purpose investigatory tool” to unmask the owner of the Twitter account “@ALT_USCIS.” The account, one of several “alt” or “rogue” government accounts that appeared in the wake of Trump’s ascent to the presidency, was used “to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration,” according to Twitter’s complaint.

[Max Peck]

So what is the power-couple name for Ivanka and Jared, anyway? Ivanred? Jarvanka?

I'm pretty sure that Steve's would have to be Satannon.

[Max Peck]

Good for you, Twitter

Twitter has launched a lawsuit against the Trump administration, after the Department of Homeland Security sought to unmask an anonymous user of an anti-Trump account.

According to Twitter’s suit, filed today in Northern California District Court, US Customs and Border Protection has attempted to use a “limited-purpose investigatory tool” to unmask the owner of the Twitter account “@ALT_USCIS.” The account, one of several “alt” or “rogue” government accounts that appeared in the wake of Trump’s ascent to the presidency, was used “to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration,” according to Twitter’s complaint.

That didn't last long.

The legal battle between Twitter and the U.S. government ended Friday as the Department of Homeland Security withdrew its demand that the tech company release information to identify an account holder whose tweets have been critical of President Trump.

The lawsuit threatened to become a major battle between Silicon Valley and Washington over free speech. But it was over almost before it began. The social networking site filed a lawsuit Thursday to protest the order, saying that it violated the user's First Amendment right to free expression. But Twitter dropped its suit Friday, saying in a court filing that because “the summons has now been withdrawn, Twitter voluntary dismisses without prejudice all claims.”

The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

[Max Peck]

Eta disarms: French police secure weapons near Bayonne

Police in France have begun to make safe eight caches of weapons handed over by Basque separatist group Eta.

At a ceremony in Bayonne on Saturday, Eta passed details of the sites to the authorities in a move signalling the end of the last insurgency in Europe.

Eta killed more than 800 people in some 40 years of violence as it sought to carve out an independent country straddling Spain and France.

The Spanish government called on Eta to apologise to its victims and disband.

Eta declared a ceasefire in 2011 but did not disarm.

The caches contain 120 firearms, three tonnes of explosives and several thousand rounds of ammunition, according to a spokesman for the Artisans of Peace, the group which mediated between Eta and the French authorities.

[Smoove_B]

Chris Christie is the least popular Governor in America. Good.

The poll, conducted by Morning Consult, found that Christie's disapproval rating stands at 71%. Just 25% of New Jerseyans polled approve of their state's governor.

I would not have imagined he was related to 25% of the people polled, but I cannot think of another logical explanation.

[Zarathud]

20% of the population will troll your poll either intentionally or because they're clueless.

[El Guapo]

Special election time! Tonight it's the Kansas 4th congressional district. It's 29 points more Republican than the nation, and Trump won it by 27 points in November, but it's close.

Right now it's looking like the Republican (Estes) is going to win, but it looks to be way, way closer than it should be - current results have him up by ~ 6 points. Even if Estes wins (very likely) if he wins by less than 10 points, Republicans are likely to freak the F out. Pending what happens in Georgia's 6th next week, which is a more plausible democratic win (since Trump only won it by 1 point, albeit in Gingrich's own district which Romney won by 20+ points).

[El Guapo]

Special election time! Tonight it's the Kansas 4th congressional district. It's 29 points more Republican than the nation, and Trump won it by 27 points in November, but it's close.

Right now it's looking like the Republican (Estes) is going to win, but it looks to be way, way closer than it should be - current results have him up by ~ 6 points. Even if Estes wins (very likely) if he wins by less than 10 points, Republicans are likely to freak the F out. Pending what happens in Georgia's 6th next week, which is a more plausible democratic win (since Trump only won it by 1 point, albeit in Gingrich's own district which Romney won by 20+ points).

Looks like they've called it for the Republican (Estes). With 99% reporting hte margin (per the NYT) is 8.3%, which means that the democrat beat the lean of the district by about 20 points. This follows up on a California special election last week where they beat the lean of the district by 19 points.

It'll be very interesting to see the Georgia results next week.

[Max Peck]

Charging Bull artist wants removal of Fearless Girl statue

The sculptor that erected Wall Street's Charging Bull statue is complaining about New York City's decision to allow a nearby statue to remain in place.

Italian-born sculptor Arturo Di Modica says the Fearless Girl statue, which was placed nearby during International Women's Day, is a copyright violation.

His lawyers argue that the new sculpture's presence changes the artistic meaning of his famous statue.

Mr Di Modica's statute was installed in 1987, without any city permits.

The 7,000 pound (3,175 kg) structure was placed on a New York City street after a financial collapse in the middle of the night, but was eventually moved to the Financial District, steps away from Wall Street, after the public called for the statue to be allowed to stay.

Mr Di Modica objects to Mayor Bill de Blasio's decision to allow the Fearless Girl statue to remain in place opposite of the Bull for one year, after a public clamouring for the statue to become permanent.

His lawyers argue that proper procedure was not followed by city officials when choosing to grant the permit.

Mr Di Modica has argued that the girl is not a work of art, but rather an "advertising trick" since it was sponsored by investment firm State Street Global Advisers, and erected by advertising firm McCann.

The work was created to draw attention to women in leadership and the lack of women in Wall Street boardrooms.

"Everybody loves the bull," Mr Di Modica told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday, adding that the renewed attention to his original work is "negative".

"The girl is like - 'I am here, what are you gonna do?'", he told reporters, his voice breaking at times.

His lawyers are requesting unspecified damages, due to a "copyright violation".

Mayor de Blasio responded on Twitter on Wednesday, writing: "Men who don't like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl."

[El Guapo]

Sounds like a good way to have the Fearless Girl statue become permanent.

[Max Peck]

At least he understands the idea of the Fearless Girl -- 'I am here, what are you gonna do?' pretty much nails it.

I hope for his sake that he embraces the philosophy that any publicity is good publicity, because I'd wager that's as close as he gets to a positive outcome from this.

[Isgrimnur]

Him griping about permits is a bold move.

[El Guapo]

I totally get his point about how it changes the meaning of his statue. I'm less sold on that as a basis for a copyright violation in this case.

[stessier]

I'm less sold on that as a basis for a copyright violation in this case.

I'm really hoping this is you underselling your position.

[El Guapo]

I'm less sold on that as a basis for a copyright violation in this case.

I'm really hoping this is you underselling your position.

IINACA, but my understanding from my one course on IP / copyright in law school is that copyright gives an artist some control over their creation. So if New York re-did his statute by painting a swastika on the side and making the bull give a Hitler salute, my understanding is that he would have a non-frivolous copyright claim (not sure whether that *should* be the case, but I believe that it is the case).

His argument, from what I can tell, is that NYC is changing his artwork, similar to the above situation, or painting over part of a painting, etc.

[malchior]

Looks like they've called it for the Republican (Estes). With 99% reporting hte margin (per the NYT) is 8.3%, which means that the democrat beat the lean of the district by about 20 points. This follows up on a California special election last week where they beat the lean of the district by 19 points.

It'll be very interesting to see the Georgia results next week.

The only thing the Rs need to worry about is all the VOTER FRAUD!

[stessier]

I'm less sold on that as a basis for a copyright violation in this case.

I'm really hoping this is you underselling your position.

IINACA, but my understanding from my one course on IP / copyright in law school is that copyright gives an artist some control over their creation. So if New York re-did his statute by painting a swastika on the side and making the bull give a Hitler salute, my understanding is that he would have a non-frivolous copyright claim (not sure whether that *should* be the case, but I believe that it is the case).

His argument, from what I can tell, is that NYC is changing his artwork, similar to the above situation, or painting over part of a painting, etc.

That is where a reasonable person would say his argument fails. The artist is not in control of the entire tableau - indeed his original method of installation suggests as much (unpermitted and dumped on the street). Assuming his argument is correct, where would it end? Could the city move it to a different street without affecting copyright? Could they allow cars to park next to it? Plant a tree?

They haven't touched the bull - it remains as it always has. Indeed from most angles, it doesn't look any different at all. It is only from one angle that the backdrop to the art has changed. Granted, this backdrop has enabled a new interpretation of the original art, but this is hardly something that is covered by copyright. Of course IANACA either, but I read a lot, stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and am a random dude from the internet, so my opinion is clearly worthy.

[El Guapo]

I'm less sold on that as a basis for a copyright violation in this case.

I'm really hoping this is you underselling your position.

IINACA, but my understanding from my one course on IP / copyright in law school is that copyright gives an artist some control over their creation. So if New York re-did his statute by painting a swastika on the side and making the bull give a Hitler salute, my understanding is that he would have a non-frivolous copyright claim (not sure whether that *should* be the case, but I believe that it is the case).

His argument, from what I can tell, is that NYC is changing his artwork, similar to the above situation, or painting over part of a painting, etc.

That is where a reasonable person would say his argument fails. The artist is not in control of the entire tableau - indeed his original method of installation suggests as much (unpermitted and dumped on the street). Assuming his argument is correct, where would it end? Could the city move it to a different street without affecting copyright? Could they allow cars to park next to it? Plant a tree?

They haven't touched the bull - it remains as it always has. Indeed from most angles, it doesn't look any different at all. It is only from one angle that the backdrop to the art has changed. Granted, this backdrop has enabled a new interpretation of the original art, but this is hardly something that is covered by copyright. Of course IANACA either, but I read a lot, stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and am a random dude from the internet, so my opinion is clearly worthy.

I do agree, by the way. This sort of situation seems like it would best be covered by contract between artist and purchaser. But I think that's his argument.

[Unagi]

I think it's based off the new work relying on the work it's placed next to (and not part of the 'copyright': changing the meaning of his work, is pissing him right off).

[Isgrimnur]

They could always melt it down and bill him for the removal costs, as well littering and...

[Combustible Lemur]

They could always melt it down and bill him for the removal costs, as well littering and...

Littering and..... Littering and ...... Littering and smokin' the reefer.

As an artist, this guy is just being a douche. Those laws are meant to protect creators who have a specific perspective that use a controlled distribution in an alloted time not to mention cooperation with venues. If you drop a project in a public place and leave it, it's not yours anymore.

[Max Peck]

They could always melt it down and bill him for the removal costs, as well littering and...

Littering and..... Littering and ...... Littering and smokin' the reefer.

As an artist, this guy is just being a douche. Those laws are meant to protect creators who have a specific perspective that use a controlled distribution in an alloted time not to mention cooperation with venues. If you drop a project in a public place and leave it, it's not yours anymore.

It appears that he's always been a litigious douche. This isn't his first time at the rodeo.

[gilraen]

It appears that he's always been a litigious douche. This isn't his first time at the rodeo.

But now many more people will actually know his name...no such thing as bad PR, and all that?

[Kurth]

I'm less sold on that as a basis for a copyright violation in this case.

I'm really hoping this is you underselling your position.

IINACA, but my understanding from my one course on IP / copyright in law school is that copyright gives an artist some control over their creation. So if New York re-did his statute by painting a swastika on the side and making the bull give a Hitler salute, my understanding is that he would have a non-frivolous copyright claim (not sure whether that *should* be the case, but I believe that it is the case).

His argument, from what I can tell, is that NYC is changing his artwork, similar to the above situation, or painting over part of a painting, etc.

That is where a reasonable person would say his argument fails. The artist is not in control of the entire tableau - indeed his original method of installation suggests as much (unpermitted and dumped on the street). Assuming his argument is correct, where would it end? Could the city move it to a different street without affecting copyright? Could they allow cars to park next to it? Plant a tree?

They haven't touched the bull - it remains as it always has. Indeed from most angles, it doesn't look any different at all. It is only from one angle that the backdrop to the art has changed. Granted, this backdrop has enabled a new interpretation of the original art, but this is hardly something that is covered by copyright. Of course IANACA either, but I read a lot, stayed at a Holiday Inn last night, and am a random dude from the internet, so my opinion is clearly worthy.

I do agree, by the way. This sort of situation seems like it would best be covered by contract between artist and purchaser. But I think that's his argument.

In the U.S., he's pretty much SOL on the copyright front (and all others), but in many other jurisdictions around the world, he'd have a non-frivolous claim based on the author's "moral rights." I hate the very idea of "moral rights," since it seems to me to be 100% in contradiction to the first sale doctrine, which basically says that once you've legally purchased a copyrighted work, the purchaser is free to do what they want with that particular copy.

I love it when IP law makes its way into R&P!

[El Guapo]

Georgia Sixth congressional special election (for Tom Price and Gingrich's former seat) is tomorrow. FiveThirtyEight has a handicap of the race.

It's a jungle primary, and the most likely outcome is that the democrat (Ossoff) will win a plurality of the vote by a wide margin over the rest of the field (mostly Republicans), while Republicans collectively will win a narrow majority of the votes. There's an outside chance that Ossoff will get a majority of the vote and win the seat outright, but most likely he'll fall short and there will be a runoff in June between Ossoff and the #2 vote getter (who will be a Republican).

Overall looks like Ossoff has about a 50/50 chance of winning overall. Which is good, insofar as the district has been reliably Republican for decades (Romney won it by ~ 27 points, Price won reelection handily). But is also arguably disappointing insofar as Trump won it by less than 1 point in 2016, so if that's the new benchmark then democrats should be winning it handily in a democratic-leaning national political environment.

[Max Peck]

That looks like an ideal* situation for gaming the primary by diverting some of Ossoff's support to one of the pro-Trump wingnuts in order to bump them into 2nd place and make the second round all about Trump.

* ideal - adj - existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality

[El Guapo]

That looks like an ideal* situation for gaming the primary by diverting some of Ossoff's support to one of the pro-Trump wingnuts in order to bump them into 2nd place and make the second round all about Trump.

* ideal - adj - existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality

ehhh, sort of. The thing is that Ossoff does have a shot at winning the race outright tomorrow by getting more than 50% of the vote, especially what with all the turnout uncertainty in special elections. Even if you could divert some percentage of Ossoff's vote to a Trump wingnut, you would essentially eliminate Ossoff's chance of doing that, and on top of that you would be elevating a pro-Trump wingnut, who could easily wind up winning (since this is still a fairly republican district in general).

[Defiant]

Overall looks like Ossoff has about a 50/50 chance of winning overall. Which is good, insofar as the district has been reliably Republican for decades (Romney won it by ~ 27 points, Price won reelection handily). But is also arguably disappointing insofar as Trump won it by less than 1 point in 2016, so if that's the new benchmark then democrats should be winning it handily in a democratic-leaning national political environment.

Given that Trump was weak in what had been traditionally a Republican district (likely because it's a more educated district), maybe the anti-Trump vote was already baked in already?

[gilraen]

That looks like an ideal* situation for gaming the primary by diverting some of Ossoff's support to one of the pro-Trump wingnuts in order to bump them into 2nd place and make the second round all about Trump.

* ideal - adj - existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality

Ideal situation would be Ossoff just taking his 50% and avoiding the runoff...everything else in this political climate is an unnecessary gambit (although it would make for a few entertaining nightly newscasts).

[Skinypupy]

Sam Jackson is encouraging people to channel their "channel their great vengence and furious anger" by voting in this special election.

No, really.

[Max Peck]

That looks like an ideal* situation for gaming the primary by diverting some of Ossoff's support to one of the pro-Trump wingnuts in order to bump them into 2nd place and make the second round all about Trump.

* ideal - adj - existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality

Ideal situation would be Ossoff just taking his 50% and avoiding the runoff...everything else in this political climate is an unnecessary gambit (although it would make for a few entertaining nightly newscasts).

But that is "perfect" ideal, rather than "desirable but not likely to become a reality" ideal. Where's the fun in that?

[El Guapo]

Overall looks like Ossoff has about a 50/50 chance of winning overall. Which is good, insofar as the district has been reliably Republican for decades (Romney won it by ~ 27 points, Price won reelection handily). But is also arguably disappointing insofar as Trump won it by less than 1 point in 2016, so if that's the new benchmark then democrats should be winning it handily in a democratic-leaning national political environment.

Given that Trump was weak in what had been traditionally a Republican district (likely because it's a more educated district), maybe the anti-Trump vote was already baked in already?

Could be. It's also a question of what (if anything) that Trump+1 vote in November means for the district in general (especially in non-presidential elections). In general it is pretty alarming for the GOP that GA-6 is 50/50 when in general it's something like 10 points more Republican than the median district.

We'll see what happens tomorrow, in any event.

[El Guapo]

Sam Jackson is encouraging people to channel their "channel their great vengence and furious anger" by voting in this special election.

No, really.

Also, Alyssa Milano is driving voters to the polls.

Though the national attention and Hollywood involvement could easily backfire on the democrats, by creating a "rally around the party" effect in a mostly Republican district.

[LordMortis]

http://www.avclub.com/article/alex-jone ... -at-253829

Alex Jones: It's just a joke to make a few bucks, now give me my kids.

I have no idea who his wife is, but I'd feel deeply for any children raised by him.

[Skinypupy]

Which would be amusing...if he didn't have the direct ear of the POTUS.

[Holman]

So when Alex Jones was persuading gullible idiots that Sandy Hook was an anti-gun false-flag operation and that the grieving parents were all government actors... that was just performance art?

[Pyperkub]

Which would be amusing...if he didn't have the direct ear of the POTUS.

Not his fault our president is an ignoramus.

[Skinypupy]

Yeah, I'm sure this is all just a coincidence.

On April 6, Ivanka Trump's company won provisional approval from the Chinese government for three new trademarks, giving it monopoly rights to sell Ivanka brand jewelry, bags and spa services in the world's second-largest economy. That night, the first daughter and her husband, Jared Kushner, sat next to the president of China and his wife for a steak and Dover sole dinner at Mar-a-Lago.

[Defiant]

A House Democrat has introduced legislation to enhance the Constitution’s presidential removal procedures in response to concerns about President Trump’s behavior.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) filed the bill during the House's two-week April recess to empower former presidents and vice presidents of both parties, in coordination with the sitting vice president, to determine if a president is fit for office.

link