Agreed.

I always make this comparison with Eddie Murphy.

The long and short of it is

Eddie Murphy did some gay jokes in his stand up special Delirious. He then references how gay people were angry at him and his next stand-up special Raw.

It takes up a minute and a half.

He never references again and the rest of the special is mostly about men and women, Johnny Carson and his family; with some small jabs at Michael Jackson and Italians watching Rocky.

And of course a fantastic bit about Bill Cosby. I think it’s worth a watch just for that, considering everything that he has done.

That’s the first thing that jumped out to me as well. He doesn’t understand punk rock or punks.

By Chappelle standard it’s perfectly okay to have a former pedophile doing stand-up at this venue. Now, who in the right mind would allow that? Other than you know who lol

People need to read.

"For Europe, the negotiations are significant because they sit at the intersection of EU-level authority over data protection and border policy and member states’ control over their own national biometric databases.

After internal debate, the EU moved in 2024 and 2025 toward a collective approach, with the Council authorizing negotiation of an EU-level framework agreement in December 2025.

That framework would establish the legal conditions for transfers to DHS, while individual member states would later conclude implementing arrangements identifying the databases involved and setting the operational terms.

The negotiations are also exposing the main fault lines that could determine whether a final deal is possible.

European officials want strict limits on bulk or routine data collection, meaningful human oversight of decisions with adverse effects, restrictions on the handling of sensitive personal data, tight controls on onward transfers to third countries, and some form of effective remedy for individuals whose data is misused.

The EU also wants reciprocity, meaning member states’ authorities would be able to query corresponding U.S. databases rather than simply supplying data to Washington.

Those demands may prove difficult to reconcile with DHS’s broader vision for routine biometric screening tied to border encounters and related immigration or law enforcement matters.

Tensions also remain over how long transferred data could be retained, whether the agreement would cover only targeted border checks or something closer to systematic screening, and what kind of legal redress Europeans could realistically obtain under U.S. law.

Even so, both sides appear motivated by the same broad objective of tighter border control, which has made this one of the more consequential transatlantic data negotiations now underway.

If concluded, the agreement would mark a major expansion of U.S.-EU cooperation on biometric information sharing and could become a model for future border security arrangements.

But it will also test whether Washington and Brussels can strike a deal that satisfies Europe’s legal standards on privacy and proportionality while still delivering the operational access DHS wants."

Nothing has been signed.