Have you seen Canadian house prices?

No one knows. The creator decided that a source and a year of collection were not relevant information.

Nope just skimmed the complaint.

I have another comment on this post which may be helpful for you. TLDR Biden’s Admin had tried to protect trans people under the ADA via executive agency. Likely outcome is that will be reversed but the ADA (and similar or related protections) & IMO will not see broader impacts. This is because the law that passed Congress and was sign by the president specifically didn’t include trans people when it was signed (along with a number of other peoples most trans people would be offended to be grouped with).

Tldr tldr: this likely stops trans people from being in the ADA’s protection.

Full complaint is case 5:24-cv-00225-C filed in the US District Court Northern District of Texas.

It seems that the heart of the lawsuit is that the Biden Admin tried to get gender dysphoria to be a disability under the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and ADA by means of administrative rule making. The text of both of those laws as written *by Congress and signed by the Executive have clauses stating they do not encompass trans people. (Cites are in line 2 of complaint)

I’d wager the constitutional argument on the spending power is to preserve another option for appeal. Realistically I think they’ll probably win and get the Final Rule held to be a violation of the APA and struck down without the rest of Section 504 being touched. Their constitutional argument boils down to if the Final Rule isn’t violating the law the law is too vague to be enforceable.

*Edit

Big win for consumers, at least in the US. People tend to do better in courts here than they do in arbitration (where one side pays the judge(arbitrator)).

Haven’t played '06 but the '17 had the best first hour of any game I’ve played.

They are completely unrelated. They just had a really cool name they didn’t want to lose.

Webster offers a lay definition not a legal definition. Often in law words are interpreted to have meanings different than they normally would. For example a company would be considered to be a person for the purposes of a law saying “No person shall dump oil in the river”.

You don’t need permission for true parody but changing the lyrics (unless you do so to comment on the original work or author) isn’t that.

Take Amish Paradise. It commented a bunch on the Amish. But it didn’t say anything about Coolio or Coolio’s work.

The issue is there is not clear commentary on either Cash or the Barbie song. Perhaps it’s meant to be contextually interpreted in a specific situation to act as commentary on something else, where it might be satire. And the fact that the two melded together offers a funny juxtaposition isn’t necessary commentary.

What does the author think of Johnny Cash or the Barbie song? What does he mean when he has the Beach Boys sing 99 Problems? The Red Hot Chili Peppers video from 10 months ago probably would get parody status. Because what they sound like to people who don’t like them is actually commentary on the band. But so many of his works we can ask what should society walk away with from “Hank Williams sings Straight Outta Compton”? There simply is no message or commentary in most of these.

While a parody targets and mimics the original work to make a point, a satire uses the original work to criticize something else entirely.

Legal Zoom

If anything granting it satire status is generous.

It’s a composition in the style of Johnny Cash that’s meant to be funny. That’s parody.

That’s satire. In the US for something to be parody it has to be a commentary on the original work(s) or author(s). A parody of Johnny Cash would be something like if they used AI to copy his song note for note but had lyrics that criticized him for portraying himself as bluecollar in his music despite his wealth.

Parody receives higher protection than satire because the parodist is actually trying to make a statement. Most “music parody” like that of Weird Al is satire, which is why Weird Al asks for permission from the original artists.

The video’s maker claims this is parody but seems more like just (at best) satire which receives less legal protections typically. It doesn’t seem that there’s any commentary on the work original IPs, given the rest of his body of work.

Oh yes it’s absolutely an anecdote. I simply needed to refute a generalization. Every rule has its exceptions.

I have a friend who worked at a farm and she did harvest work at a farm in MA until she moved to a new place and got a job at a flower shop two years ago.

Definitely worth a trip if you like history. The Freedom trail connects the historical landmarks plus there’s tons of tours, museums, & educational experiences.

If you ever do a US trip Boston is a good choice.

I found it sold on this website that’s mainly focused on gifts for early US history buffs. You might be able to get a slightly higher resolution version there. But I suspect they probably have the actual file not publicly available as they sell prints of it.

Thanks for the correction.

A lot of General Washington’s strategy during the early war was tactical retreating. They were low on resources and it would prolong the war.

Unironically yes they did exactly that. If memory serves a good amount came from Breeds and Bunker hill (just North of the frame).