Missing Mirrors

This platter is loaded with bloated, and frankly unsanitary, link sausages inspired by "people" displaying an utter lack of self-regard, self-awareness, and self-knowledge.

• The US Chamber of Commerce pleas for an end to Congressional gridlock while pretending that its choices of candidates to back and methods for doing so have nothing to do with gridlock. Maybe all gridlocks are appalling, but some gridlocks are more appalling than others? More likely they need to find a new psychiatrist (one who's in-system or even the Chamber won't be able to afford all the therapy it really needs).
• Then there's the record-label chief whingeing about how streaming is depriving artists of revenue. Really? Please remind me what the industry custom is for the artist's share versus the label's share… and maybe listen to an actual artist making the same case thirty months ago.
• But that's (marginally) more honest than new-car dealers whingeing about direct-to-consumer sales of new electric vehicles because The Law Says Consumers Must Buy Only From Dealers. One wonders who got that law passed, and how it relates to the two preceding items… but not as much as one wonders about Illinois car dealers. Yes, I still remember y'all; wanna try your lament again some time?
• Then there's one that got rather burnt: MetaFaceplant complaining that a surveillance firm "misused" private data silently collected by, well, MetaFaceplant. <SARCASM> Only MetaFaceplant has the right to misuse and exploit that data for commercial advantage! </SARCASM> At least it wasn't government surveillance — this time. Or, worse yet, scrapings at the bottom of the bird cage.
• At least it's not trademark disputes in the fashion industry. This one gets even more amusing when pondering that the "famous mark" wasn't originated by That Brand — as noted in the story, it was purchased after someone else developed it.
• Which is the same blind spot as the current owners of Dungeons & Dragons have with monetizing third-party content — a process that, not incidentally, has the same conceptual flaw as the misnamed Creative Commons License (which is not a license at all, merely a revocable covenant not to sue that could provide at best a limited defense in equity after revocation, and arguably even before revocation if the rightsholder asserts that a particular use exceeds the scope of the CCL). It was only a matter of time, though; there are streaming rights to be exploited! Wait a minute — didn't I already throw some of those on this platter?