[UPDATED] DeSantis and Florida's Six Week "Heartbeat" anti-abortion bill signing. If he gets the nomination it will be interesting how he handles his willingness, and touting in April his willingness.

 Strib carrying an AP feed, mid-item:

Even before he signed the law, DeSantis' team was eager to highlight his willingness to fight for, and enact, aggressive abortion restrictions. The Florida governor's position stands in sharp contrast, they say, with some Republican White House hopefuls — most notably former President Donald Trump — who are downplaying their support for anti-abortion policies for fear they may ultimately alienate women or other swing voters in the 2024 general election.

"Unlike Trump, Gov. DeSantis doesn't back down from defending the lives of innocent unborn babies,'' said Erin Perrine, a spokesperson for DeSantis' super PAC, when asked about Florida's six-week ban.

Product differentation in April, 2023, gets what after a GOP primary where general election voters are next? Hope for a short attention span? It will get mention if DeSantis is the GOP nominee. 

More aggressive than Trump on opposing abortion is not a stance allowing much play. 

There is a tightness of the box-in DeSantis faces, and he'd look bad if trying to walk back his policy if once getting past GOP primaries, and facing a general election for President.

_____________UPDATE_____________

Rolling Stone, quoted by Breitbart, suggest GOP mega donors are unhappy about DeSantis polling far behind Trump, etc.

What to make of that, before DeSantis has even declared a candidacy, is unclear. 

Readers can look at the man, online (20min. at 2022 CPAC), and decide whether they empathize. Does he have a Presidential demeanor? Does he come across as a bully? As too doctrinaire and opinionated? Not folksy? Trump can walk the tight track of being a MAGA-minded bigot without showing too mean of a demeanor. Can DeSantis? 

What real need is there of DeSantis, if the donors already have Trump, with a base?

Product Differentiation: How does "the devil we know" represented by Trump, really differ from DeSantis, and vice versa, with DeSantis being one about whom we may wonder and doubt? Trump, him we know. As now, with Biden.

What carryover does the decisive Florida DeSantis reelection majority represent, nationwide? Is Florida and its electorate representative of anything, being strongly GOP with DeSantis the GOP incumbent?

Trump took the 2020 Florida electorial votes, but not by as large a percentage as DeSantis achieved in his reelection. His speech upon being reelected.

...........................................................

(While Crabgrass has no high regard for either Trump or DeSantis, Biden is also not ringing any loud bell here either. Lesser evil is still the belief and the governing factor looking ahead to the 2024 election. Opinions can differ.)

____________UPDATE___________

April 23, 2023, Seattle Times carrying an AP feed:

Inside the Florida statehouse, Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Republican allies say they’re working “at warp speed” to finish their legislative business.

In South Carolina and Nevada, early voting states that are critical in a presidential primary, his operatives are moving quickly to build out a political team that is essentially a campaign in waiting. And in Washington, his most vocal supporters are urging him to announce his White House intentions now.

Just six months after a dominant reelection sent his national stock soaring, a palpable sense of urgency is growing among DeSantis’ allies as increasingly emboldened critics within his own party — particularly former President Donald Trump — work to undermine his presidential campaign before it begins.

Questions about DeSantis’ apparent slide followed him to Japan on Monday as he launched a multi-country international trade mission.

“I’m not a candidate, so we’ll see if and when that changes,” the Florida governor told reporters in Tokyo.

The answer, a consistent refrain from DeSantis for much of the year, is frustrating some allies who worry that it’s time to move even faster.

“I would prefer him to be in the race right now. In fact, I encouraged him to get in the race right now,” said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., who hosted a visit by DeSantis to Washington last week that was overshadowed by Trump’s efforts to pick off support among Florida’s congressional delegation.

In an interview, Massie, who is one of just three members of Congress who has endorsed DeSantis for 2024, acknowledged the governor is losing some political strength.

Many GOP voters have rallied behind Trump in the wake of his recent criminal indictment in New York. Some DeSantis donors are pausing their donations, citing concerns about his readiness for the national stage. Other would-be supporters have begun to worry that the policy victories he celebrates in Florida — including the six-week abortion ban he signed earlier in the month and an ongoing crackdown on Disney, the state’s largest employer — may ultimately become political liabilities.

“If there is any urgency, it’s to make sure no third-place candidate emerges. Right now, it’s a heads-up race between Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis,” Massie said. “The urgency I feel is, the more cats and dogs that get in the race, the more they could siphon from Ron DeSantis.”

The Republican Party won’t formally choose its next presidential nominee until August of next year at its national convention. But with the first presidential debate little more than three months away, several Republicans have launched campaigns already. More are expected to join in the coming weeks.

DeSantis, who has operated for much of the year with a quiet confidence that he could enter the race on his terms, isn’t likely to make any announcements until after the state legislature concludes its business in early May.

He's not a candidate. Sure. And I don't blog, this space just fills itself up. 

Ted Cruz has been silent. Parler is under new ownership. AND -

Times of San Diego reports,

La Jolla-Raised Tucker Carlson Out at Fox in Wake of $800 Million Defamation Suit Settlement 

Whether there is cause and effect as that headline implies, NPR thinks there is.

So, Tucker and Parler are each retooling. At  https://parler.com/

While the Parler app as it is currently constituted will be pulled down from operation to undergo a strategic assessment, we at Starboard see tremendous opportunities across multiple sectors to continue to serve marginalized or even outright censored communities – even extending beyond domestic politics.

Advancements in AI technology, along with the existing code base and other new features, provide an opportunity for Starboard to begin servicing unsupported online communities – building a home for them away from the ad-hoc regulatory hand of platforms that hate them.

The terms of the acquisition are not being disclosed although Starboard expects the deal to be accretive by the end of Q2 2023.

About Starboard: Founded in 2018 by Ryan Coyne, Starboard (Formerly, Olympic Media) is a digital media conglomerate that houses business lines focused on digital advertising, fundraising, publishing, and consumer brands. The publishing vertical has expanded aggressively with several recent acquisitions amounting to several-hundred million engaged content consumers annually. Starboard was named the 13th fastest growing company in the nation on the INC 5000, and the fastest growing in advertising / media in 2021. Starboard is based in Arlington, Virginia.

 Media Inquiries: Press@Starboard.Co

"accretive" Parler is to have an accretive future. Woo, woo.

Ramping up for the 2024 is a good time to accrete. 

Ask DeSantis.

 

Seattle Times carried an AP feed about the SpaceX Starship launch, which lifted from the pad and traveled somewhat before failure. A flaky thing on the report's conversion factor usage.

Link. Quoting:

SOUTH PADRE ISLAND, Texas (AP) — SpaceX’s giant new rocket exploded minutes after blasting off on its first test flight Thursday and crashed into the Gulf of Mexico.

Elon Musk’s company was aiming to send the biggest and most powerful rocket ever built on a round-the-world trip from the southern tip of Texas, near the Mexican border. The nearly 400-foot (120-meter) Starship carried no people or satellites.

SpaceX later said multiple engines on the 33-engine booster were not firing as the rocket ascended, causing it to lose altitude and begin to tumble. The rocket was intentionally destroyed by its self-destruct system, exploding and plummeting into the water.

Instead of a best-case-scenario 1 1/2-hour flight with the spacecraft on top peeling away and taking a lap around the world, the whole thing lasted four minutes. The rocket reached a maximum speed of about 1,300 mph (2,100 kph) and as high as 24 miles (39 kilometers), before going sideways and dropping.

Throngs of spectators watched from South Padre Island, several miles away from the Boca Chica Beach launch site, which was off-limits. As Starship lifted off with a thunderous roar, the crowd screamed: “Go, baby, go!”

Musk, in a tweet, called it “an exciting test launch of Starship! Learned a lot for next test launch in a few months.” SpaceX termed it a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”

In the weeks leading up to the flight, Musk gave 50-50 odds that the spacecraft would reach orbit. He stressed that clearing the launch tower and not blowing up the pad would be a win.

“You never know exactly what’s going to happen,” said SpaceX livestream commentator and engineer John Insprucker. “But as we promised, excitement is guaranteed and Starship gave us a rather spectacular end.”

At liftoff, the rocket kicked up huge plumes of sand and dust around the pad. In Port Isabel, about 10 miles (6 kilometers) away, particles covered cars and other surfaces. The only other report, said John Sandoval, assistant to the city manager, was a shattered window at a local business. “Yes, it shook, rattled and rolled,” he said of the rocket.

Mainstream media used to hire and use proof readers.

 

The RESTRICT Act.

Wikipedia posts, so start there. It opens with a link to the bill text Crabgrass readers can follow. Quoting:

 The RESTRICT Act (S. 686) is proposed legislation that was first introduced in the United States Senate on March 7, 2023.

Introduced by Senator Mark Warner, the Act proposes that the Secretary of Commerce be given the power to review business transactions involving certain information and communications technologies products or services when they are connected to a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and pose an "undue and unacceptable risk" to the national security of the United States or its citizens.

Overview

The RESTRICT Act is described as "a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans."^[1][2] It grants the Secretary of Commerce the authority to review transactions by certain foreign entities who offer "information and communications technologies products or services" (ICTS), in order to identify, investigate, and mitigate "undue and unacceptable" risks to the national security of the United States or its citizens. This includes but is not limited to:^[3]

• Impact to the country's critical infrastructure and digital economy,
• "Sabotage or subversion" of ICTS in the United States
• Interference and manipulation of federal elections
• Undermining the democratic process to "steer policy and regulatory decisions in favor of the strategic objectives of a foreign adversary to the detriment of the national security of the United States".

The Act applies to ICTS entities that are held in whole or in part by, or otherwise fall under the jurisdiction of a country or government that is designated under the Act as a "foreign adversary" of the United States, and has more than one million active users or units sold in the United States.^[1][2] The initial text of the Act classifies China (including Hong Kong and Macau), Cuba, Iran, Russia, and the Nicolás Maduro regime of Venezuela as foreign adversaries.^[3]

It would be unlawful for any person to violate any order or mitigation measure issued under the RESTRICT Act, with civil penalties of up to $250,000 or twice the value of the transaction that served as the basis of the order, whichever is greater, and criminal penalties of up to $1 million and up to 20 years imprisonment.^[4][3]

Reception

While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok from conducting business in the United States.^[1][2][5][4]

The bill has faced bipartisan criticism for having a lack of judicial oversight and transparency in its enforcement mechanisms,^[6] and for containing wording broad and vague enough to potentially cover end-users (such as, for example, potentially criminalizing use of a VPN service or sideloading to access services blocked from doing business in the United States under the Act, due to the text stating that no person may "cause or aid, abet, counsel, command, induce, procure, permit, or approve the doing of any act" that violates orders issued under the Act).^[5][4] Many individuals have negatively compared the bill to the Patriot Act.^[6][7]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) expressed their opposition, arguing that the blocking of entire services violates the First Amendment rights of citizens.^[6][7] Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) believed in regard to the bill's implied target that the federal government should instead prioritize internet privacy legislation that also impacts U.S.-based companies.^[6]

Republican U.S. Senators J. D. Vance, Josh Hawley, and Rand Paul have all expressed their opposition, with Paul considering it contradictory for Republicans to advocate "censor[ing] social media apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese" while at the same time being opposed to censorship.^[6] Vance and Hawley both noted that while they support a ban on TikTok, they felt the RESTRICT Act possessed too many negative implications.^[6][7] Several Democratic officeholders, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, also criticized the legislation, with Ocasio-Cortez believing that it was being rushed, and citing that Congress had never received any classified national security briefings related to TikTok.^[6] Libertarian groups including the Mises Caucus and Reason Foundation condemned the bill, with the former arguing that it "gives the government authority over all forms of communication domestic or abroad."^[6][7]

Warner's office stated that the bill was intended to target corporate entities "engaged in 'sabotage or subversion' of communications technology in the U.S." (such as causing harm to "critical infrastructure" or tampering with federal elections), and not target end-users necessarily, despite such wording not having been used in the bill itself, and has not commented on complaints about possible uses beyond the bill's stated intent.^[5][4][6]

Israeli interference in our elections is not included, and they interfere far, far more than any other nation, so that is a non-starter.

AOC, the ACLU, EFF and Josh Hawley all are critical. That is some spectrum.

Also, look at this thought from within the Wikipedia item:

While it was not mentioned by name by its sponsors, the RESTRICT Act has been characterized as a means to potentially restrict or prohibit the Chinese-owned video sharing service TikTok from conducting business in the United States.^[1][2][5][4]

Well, if there is no hidden agenda to worry over, why not draft a bill saying, Tik Tok will be banned; dressed up a little but simply that, and be done?

Okay. There must be a hidden agenda, or as many critics think, overreach. 

Looking at cosponsorship of the bill is a bit of a hoot.  At least as presently aligned.

The bill gives the Commerce Secretary far reaching new censorship powers, and yet neither the Chair nor Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee - Maria Cantwell and Ted Cruz respectively - have signed on as sponsors.

Strange indeed.

Next what's with White House opinion, one way or another, on what's characterized as primarily intended as a proposed Tik Tok ban bill? What does Biden say? Well, go to whitehouse.gov and search, Biden says nothing, Jake Sullivan likes it and wants prompt passage. So ---- Huh? The bill gives the Secretary of Commerce powers, and neither Commerce nor Biden go on record? 

Jake Sullivan? Have a look.

click image to enlarge and read

 The full explanatory Sullivan statement, in its entirety:

 We applaud the bipartisan group of Senators, led by Senators Warner and Thune, who today introduced the Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act. This legislation would empower the United States government to prevent certain foreign governments from exploiting technology services operating in the United States in a way that poses risks to Americans’ sensitive data and our national security. 
 
The information and communications technology products and services supply chain is integral to the lives of Americans and the functioning of U.S. businesses. This bill presents a systematic framework for addressing technology-based threats to the security and safety of Americans. This legislation would provide the U.S. government with new mechanisms to mitigate the national security risks posed by high-risk technology businesses operating in the United States. Critically, it would strengthen our ability to address discrete risks posed by individual transactions, and systemic risks posed by certain classes of transactions involving countries of concern in sensitive technology sectors. This will help us address the threats we face today, and also prevent such risks from arising in the future. 
 
We look forward to continue working with both Democrats and Republicans on this bill, and urge Congress to act quickly to send it to the President’s desk.

He likes it.

Either the search function on the site is crap, or somebody is bullshitting us, with all that unrelated stuff showing up via the site's search function, and only Jake saying "love it."

Not that whitehouse.gov is being used by the Biden administration to inform us of much anyway. (Why depart from precedent?)

But, Jake Sullivan. With vague "national security" doublespeak. Only. Short, sweet, do it.

Noteworthy, a little over two year ago, this June 9, 2021, Executive Order required an investigation of Tik Tok and We Chat, etc.,  in more general terms of threat to private sector data of firms and individuals, to wit:

Not later than 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the heads of other agencies as the Secretary of Commerce deems appropriate, shall provide a report to the Assistant to the President and National Security Advisor with recommendations to protect against harm from the unrestricted sale of, transfer of, or access to United States persons’ sensitive data, including personally identifiable information, personal health information, and genetic information, and harm from access to large data repositories by persons owned or controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of, a foreign adversary.  Not later than 60 days after the date of this order, the Director of National Intelligence shall provide threat assessments, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide vulnerability assessments, to the Secretary of Commerce to support development of the report required by this subsection.

No security briefing to Congress. With Biden ordering that inquiry, way back then, it is equally if not more noteworthy, as Salon reports, and AOC emphasized that Congress has NOT yet been briefed about anything related to the RESTRICT Act bill, nothing, zippo, (with Director Homeland Security and NSC boss Jake Sullivan being the persons to direct the staff report to Biden, on that two-year-old time frame):

Ocasio-Cortez actually joined the platform in response to the recent TikTok hearings, her first video included her thoughts on the bill's lack of congressional oversight.

"Do I believe TikTok should be banned? No," she said.

"The government can't impose this type of total ban unless it's necessary to prevent extremely serious immediate harm to national security."

Describing the legislation as "putting the cart before the horse," Ocasio-Cortez called out the rushed nature of the bill after Congress' recent marathon committee hearing where members grilled TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew. 

"Usually, when the United States is proposing a very major move that has something to do with significant risk to national security, one of the first things that happens is that Congress receives a classified briefing," Ocasio-Cortez said in her video.

"And I can tell you that Congress has not received a classified briefing around the allegations of national security risks regarding TikTok." 

Rep. Jamaal Bowman, a New York Democrat whose district adjoins Ocasio-Cortez's, stood outside the Capitol to lead a protest against a TikTok ban during the questioning of Chew. Surrounded by supporters who noted that Facebook and other platforms collect just as much data as TikTok, Bowman argued that TikTok has become a platform for small business and commerce — a crucial tool for a generation of gig workers and side-hustlers. 

Bowman, who supports data privacy legislation that focuses on consumer protection, has become the voice of TikTokers on the Hill and now leads the push against a full ban on the app. He says he's willing to listen to national security concerns, but so far has heard "a lot of fear-mongering and speculation and not as much actual evidence."

While Republican-led inquiries into TikTok and other social media platforms have been increasingly aggressive, not all members of the GOP are on board. That much became clear on Thursday when a vote on the measure was blocked in the Senate amid an intra-party fray. 

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., for instance, has called out the Restrict Act for failing to actually ban TikTok. Hawley has a competing bill that he claims would do that.

All of this has a miasma to it. As if Tik Tok is waved around as somebody's bad excuse for imposing constraints on citizen freedom, potentially if not directly, via turgid and lengthy language that has a frighteningly vague but broad reach. Why that much? What benefit is there, to whom? Why do it, anyway? What problem is there, really, to Tik Tok speech? Censorship always must be questioned.

............................

On YouTube Reclaim The Net dislikes it. Tucker Carlson dislikes it. A lesser known critic simply reads from the bill to make a point. 

As to posted text, ACLU here, EFF, here, here and here. Ars Technica.

websearch = restrict-act critical online content

Trying that websearch with "favorable" substituted for "critical" seems to not return different links. 

Who, besides Jake Sullivan and bill sponsors like it? You tell me. It seems the public, generically, smells a big-time anti-freedom rat. Calling it Patriot Act 2 is not meant to be complementary.

The most favorable coverage Crabgrass found online by mainstream outlets, Politico. And that covered what bill sponsors had to say, and did not get into bill text at all. Again, as noted, the opening Wikipedia link itself links over to the bill text. As long and as Draconian as it reaches, it does not get into naming Tik Tok, nor does it to do anything to constrain the extensive Israeli mucking around we see in U.S. elections.

UPDATE: commerce.gov did release a March 7, 2023, tout item favoring RESTRICT Act passage. It differed little from the Jake Sullivan item on the White House site. Clearly the Biden administration wants it passed, with little analysis and even without Biden himself directly touting it. 

Presuming the Republican controlled House might pass something, Senate passage of the RESTRICT Act would take things to a conference committee, so the nation might see some form of legislation passed into law. Hopefully final language, if any, might be more constrained than "Patriot Act 2" fears contemplate. Yet with what is now in the Senate, worded as it is, "Patriot Act 2" fears are well grounded.