richardmurray

Leo D. Sullivan, an Emmy-winning pioneer in animation with a career of over 50 years and work on dozens of cartoons, has died. He was 82. Sullivan died March 25 of heart failure at Kaiser Permanente West Los Angeles Medical Center. Throughout his career, Sullivan helped bring characters to life through his animation, storyboarding, directing and producing. His work spanned numerous television shows, including “Hey, Hey, Hey, It’s Fat Albert,” “The Incredible Hulk,” “My Little Pony” and “Flash Gordon,” along with companies like Hanna-Barbera, Warner Brothers and Spunbuggy Works. Sullivan contributed to the opening animation on “Soul Train” which premiered in 1971. The Lockhart, Texas, native moved to Los Angeles in 1952, and soon entered the industry running errands for “Looney Tunes” animator Bob Clampett. In the 1960s, Sullivan joined former Disney animator Floyd Norman to help co-found Vignette Films, a company that created educational films for U.S. students about historic Black figures. The pair would go on to found AfroKids, a website and streaming service with a mission of providing “a stellar experience for the whole Black family.” More recently, Sullivan launched his own foundation, Leo Sullivan Multimedia Inc. Sullivan has twice been awarded by the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame in Oakland, Calif. and had his artistic work displayed in San Francisco Cartoon Museum and the Los Angeles African American Museum. He also taught classes in digital animation and 2D animation for three years at the Art Institute of California-Orange County. He is survived by his wife Ethelyn, daughter Tina Coleman, and son Leo D. Sullivan Jr. Afrokids https://afrokids.com/ Article reference https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/leo-d-sullivan-animator-fat-albert-flash-gordon-dies-82-rcna78508

@KENNETH yes I know and most in AALBC or most in the USA have the same definition.

@KENNETH your first question is provocative, for the work. why? Your first question does three things. These three things are merely displayed for multilog, not to make a relevant point. 1) it separates the word race or class in terms of their definition. when I use race or class I use them interchangeably. Race in the usa, for most people is phenotypical race. but religious race/gender race/financial race/age race also exist. Race is an unbounded word for me. So when I use the word race I am not suggesting it refers to the phenotypical only. In parallel, Class in the usa , for most people is financial class. But religious class/gender class/phenotypical class/age class also exist. Class is an unbounded word for me. When I use class or race, I see them equal in value to the words rank , order, classification, status, culture, heritage which all have the same root definition, at least to me; Arrangements based on a value. Yes heritage is what you carry, the value is your forebears way of life. Culture is what you grow, the value is your choice of way of life. Status is a label, the value is how others mark you. But all of said words are arrangements based on a value. 2) you dont' mention it explicitly, but you place phenotypical race/class under or less than financial class/race. Personally, I think the emphasis or potency of orders/ranks/races/classes between themselves is based on a given populace to mull over. In the USA many people are fiscal capitalist, not all, but many. But the problem is many people in the USA are socialist, and socialism at its core is a system of one financial race. The worker. The problem with socialism is, the landless vagrant when they have a house may want more. And socialism doesn't have a financial upward mobility. It doesn't have downward, but it doesn't have upward. financial risk+reward is absent. Thus why most in humanity speak in socialist terms, the 1% in every country in humanity is majority fiscal capitalist. So, it financial orders greater than phenotypical orders. In my historical view, no. But, it all depends on the time and place. In the USA many, across class/racial lines want to create a consensus of finance>phenotype. but why? 3) why does a multiclassist or multiracial community in the USA accept the concept of financial arrangements being superior to non financial arrangements? They feel it is the solution to peace. The USA is too multicultural in religion, phenotpye, language, gender, age, to use one of those factors for the majority. BUt, many in the USA feel that the commonly called middle class, is a financial race a majority can be a part of in the usa. Sequentially, financial race is superior to phenotypical class for said folk. Now, I argue, the USA has never had a majority above poor and below rich. The majority in the usa have always been poor. Before the war between the states that is unquestionable. After is where statistical assessment comes into play. The USA has been in the business of using statistical assessment, which is arithmetically proven can be used to attest to anything, to suggest a middle financial class has existed and needs to be reclaimed. What is the relevant point? None of what I said before. I did say the prior wasn't relevant, just for multilog. The relevant point is aracial. It is not going beyond race into class. As you alluded to, race/class go hand in hand. But, systems of classification always go hand in hand in any government in humanities history. The reality is, governments are themselves a class or race. Which undercuts why those who try to get away from races or classes ala aracial/aclassist usually fail. To restate, the usa is a fiscal capitalistic country, which demands poeple in it exists in races/clases/orders based on the trading of goods. Those with the most as you said ... ...which I concur to, in the modern usa , maintain the system of inequality, though I add it is also those that do not have who want to be in the advantaged inequal position as well. But the question I posed to cynique is , maybe the flaw isn't that the have's abuse the have not, but the legal system in the usa, suggests that the have's shouldn't. I think the problem in the USA is the legal system is aracial or aclassist or at its core absent an arrangement. I daresay the usa legal structure allows for global citizenry. But the functional problem is the populace in the usa or the larger humanity is using a system of intermingled races/classes to align itself. which doesn't fit the legal system of the usa, and thus the constant clashes. The legal system is the problem. Most in the USA don't desire it but live under it, don't live by it, but live under it. and that creates problems when it comes to how privilege is approached.

@Troy well, at some point one has to chose to self or the group with no option in between and in human history either are chosen but the one not chosen always suffers. Well, you say the wbe wasn't designed to work this way but the web was designed to be flexible. As always people forget that nothing in the usa starts equal. sequentially, it doesn't grow equal. And I argue the people in control comprehend this. Yes, the internet's design is absent manipulation more collaborative, but the internet's design is open to manipulation and sequentially will be manipulated. I comprehend your point but I see the current internet as inevitable. yeah, well you are doing great @Troy the key is to be able to continue. getting the masses requires changes in human community that are not happening at the moment

@Cynique when i look at the history of the USA. The community of people in the USA who publicly+functionally act aracial + equal in treating every other human being has grown since the time of the thirteen colonies. the problem is, not all blacks , not all whites, not all native americans, not all men, not all women, not all christians, not all muslims, not all anglos, not all latinos, not all elders, not all children, have embraced the idea of equality for all races. And the reason is simple. the people who have financially profited in the usa the most , always take advantage of others. always. Now anyone can argue, that happens in human history , anywhere. but the problem is what you allide to in your last sentence in your prose Cynique. You talk of rights. that is the USA problem. The USA is like all other governments in human history , based on one group taking advantage of others, whether internally or externally or both. but, the USA has the oldest legal code among current governments in humanity where equality is inferred as a universal right. So if you look at historical fact aside the usa legal projection, the solution is to end the idea that equality should be a right. The preamble of the consitution of the USA written by white slaveowners is the problem. the community of people in the usa who adhere by it, while larger than ever before, are not necessarily the majority populace in the usa.

haha @Pioneer1

@Troy i concur that unity of a purpose is a foundation for any organization that wants cohesive members. I know it isn't as straightforward as you said it, but when I think of unity it is a collectiveness about a thing while organization to me is a thing structured about a thing. they are not the same for me, I think both have equal value. Collectiveness + Structure is ideal and rare in most settings. To google, being able to print back issues. When Ebony was sold to clearview one wonders what they signed or agreed to. Firms that buy other firms in financial distress have a sell mentality. Clearview wants to break up and sell what it can. It wasn't and isn't looking to grow anything. They are just a fancier shark from the 1970s and 1980s. http://www.clearview-group.com/services.html So more than likely the time ebony was owned by clear view have google the opportunity to show the backlog, let alone anything that happened while Johnson, the original owner was dead and Ebony was owned by his relatives, I assume. yeah, bridgeman is one of many blacks in the entertainment field who found themselves at the growing fast food franchise industry at the right time. Bill Cosby was a big bottler. A number of black entertainers invested in the fast food industry in the 70s/80s which was a great time, during the 1980s in particular. Fast food places would explode all over the place and people like bridgeman who actually had money and was black could afford to start one or two and go from there. Now he is in the Black owned investment firm market, which is relatively hot right now. To the web being siloed, that is the way it should be , shouldn't it? Most human beings are not online. But as the populace grows online, it will make outreach harder, which makes sense to me. Let alone that the social firms online are many and even though some may be deemed small they tend to have millions .

MY COMMENT I read the article. Franlin leonard said:"when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression" but he chose the wrong phrase. He talks about feelings but the issue is desires. The equation is simple. Fiscal capitalism in the USA doesn't work on merit or knowledge or erudition or wisdom. It works on inheritance + opportunity. Whites are accustomed to a greater inheritance + opportunity than any other. That is why their forebears killed the native american for this land and enslaved blacks, no matter where we came from, to till it. This was to provide their future generations greater inheritance + opportunity. But whites comprehend what equality is, beyond what it feels like. Equality financially is a lessening of inheritance + opportunity for those getting the most. It is a simple financial loss. Black people do ourselves a disservice making equality an issue of feelings, and not a financial loss, for whites. Black people want equality not to feel free, freedom doesn't come from equality. Black people want equality to gain more inheritance + opportunity. Another issue is the word slavery is never mentioned in these sort of articles. I quote the article:"Hierarchy-flattening programs like affirmative action wouldn't be necessary if Black Americans received equal opportunities. " Black Americans were enslaved to white americans, that heritage is the basis to inequality. The USA didn't start with Native Americans+Blacks+Whites free and equal and Blacks+Native Americans had their equality taken away by whites. The USA was born with Blacks+ NAtive Americans enslaved/murdered/oppressed. It wasn't like when the war between the states ended blacks+whites were equal. The author makes it seem like the modern era from 1968 to now matters. But it doesn't. The inequality black people refer to is American, is historic, is a heritage. I think the inability of Black people to mention fiscal capital context when it comes to the phenotypical racial relationships as well as the inability or lack of desire to connect slavery to the modern situation are dysfunctions.

Queen plushie from MysticSkillz

To Order personal message here https://www.deviantart.com/mystic-skillz or place order her https://www.twitch.tv/mysticskillzms ANimations + games from Mystic SKillz https://aalbc.com/tc/search/?&q=mystic skillz&type=blog_entry&quick=1&nodes=62&search_and_or=or&sortby=relevancy

Alex Roca Campillo Cerebral palsy marathon completer https://rmfantasysetpieces1.tumblr.com/post/713459327312216064/magnificent-barcelonas-alex-roca-campillo-made

Copyright Registration Guidance: Works Containing Material Generated by Artificial Intelligence A Rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress on 03/16/2023 HTML https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence PDF https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023-03-16/pdf/2023-05321.pdf Printed version: PDF Publication Date: 03/16/2023 Agencies: Copyright Office Dates: This statement of policy is effective March 16, 2023. Effective Date: 03/16/2023 Document Type: Rule Document Citation: 88 FR 16190 Page: 16190-16194 (5 pages) CFR: 37 CFR 202 Document Number: 2023-05321 AGENCY: U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress. ACTION: Statement of policy. SUMMARY: The Copyright Office issues this statement of policy to clarify its practices for examining and registering works that contain material generated by the use of artificial intelligence technology. DATES: This statement of policy is effective March 16, 2023. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhea Efthimiadis, Assistant to the General Counsel, by email at meft@copyright.gov or telephone at 202-707-8350. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background The Copyright Office (the “Office”) is the Federal agency tasked with administering the copyright registration system, as well as advising Congress, other agencies, and the Federal judiciary on copyright and related matters.[1] Because the Office has overseen copyright registration since its origins in 1870, it has developed substantial experience and expertise regarding “the distinction between copyrightable and noncopyrightable works.” [2] The Office is empowered by the Copyright Act to establish the application used by applicants seeking registration of their copyrighted works.[3] While the Act identifies certain minimum requirements, the Register may determine that additional information is necessary for the Office to evaluate the “existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.” [4] Because the Office receives roughly half a million applications for registration each year, it sees new trends in registration activity that may require modifying or expanding the information required to be disclosed on an application. One such recent development is the use of sophisticated artificial intelligence (“AI”) technologies capable of producing expressive material.[5] These technologies “train” on vast quantities of preexisting human-authored works and use inferences from that training to generate new content. Some systems operate in response to a user's textual instruction, called a “prompt.” [6] The resulting output may be textual, visual, or audio, and is determined by the AI based on its design and the material it has been trained on. These technologies, often described as “generative AI,” raise questions about whether the material they produce is protected by copyright, whether works consisting of both human-authored and AI-generated material may be registered, and what information should be provided to the Office by applicants seeking to register them. These are no longer hypothetical questions, as the Office is already receiving and examining applications for registration that claim copyright in AI-generated material. For example, in 2018 the Office received an application for a visual work that the applicant described as “autonomously created by a computer algorithm running on a machine.” [7] The application was denied because, based on the applicant's representations in the application, the examiner found that the work contained no human authorship. After a series of administrative appeals, the Office's Review Board issued a final determination affirming that the work could not be registered because it was made “without any creative contribution from a human actor.” [8] More recently, the Office reviewed a registration for a work containing human-authored elements combined with AI-generated images. In February 2023, the Office concluded that a graphic novel [9] comprised of human-authored text combined with images generated by the AI service Midjourney constituted a copyrightable work, but that the individual images themselves could not be protected by copyright.[10] The Office has received other applications that have named AI technology as the author or co-author of the work or have included statements in the “Author Created” or “Note to Copyright Office” sections of the application indicating that the work was produced by or with the assistance of AI. Other applicants have not disclosed the inclusion of AI-generated material but have mentioned the names of AI technologies in the title of the work or the “acknowledgments” section of the deposit. Based on these developments, the Office concludes that public guidance is needed on the registration of works containing AI-generated content. This statement of policy describes how the Office applies copyright law's human authorship requirement to applications to register such works and provides guidance to applicants. The Office recognizes that AI-generated works implicate other copyright issues not addressed in this statement. It has launched an agency-wide initiative to delve into a wide range of these issues. Among other things, the Office intends to publish a notice of inquiry later this year seeking public input on additional legal and policy topics, including how the law should apply to the use of copyrighted works in AI training and the resulting treatment of outputs. II. The Human Authorship Requirement In the Office's view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans. The Office's registration policies and regulations reflect statutory and judicial guidance on this issue. In its leading case on authorship, the Supreme Court used language excluding non-humans in interpreting Congress's constitutional power to provide “authors” the exclusive right to their “writings.” [11] In Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, a defendant accused of making unauthorized copies of a photograph argued that the expansion of copyright protection to photographs by Congress was unconstitutional because “a photograph is not a writing nor the production of an author” but is instead created by a camera.[12] The Court disagreed, holding that there was “no doubt” the Constitution's Copyright Clause permitted photographs to be subject to copyright, “so far as they are representatives of original intellectual conceptions of the author.” [13] The Court defined an “author” as “he to whom anything owes its origin; originator; maker; one who completes a work of science or literature.” [14] It repeatedly referred to such “authors” as human, describing authors as a class of “persons” [15] and a copyright as “the exclusive right of a man to the production of his own genius or intellect.” [16] Federal appellate courts have reached a similar conclusion when interpreting the text of the Copyright Act, which provides copyright protection only for “works of authorship.” [17] The Ninth Circuit has held that a book containing words “authored by non-human spiritual beings” can only qualify for copyright protection if there is “human selection and arrangement of the revelations.” [18] In another case, it held that a monkey cannot register a copyright in photos it captures with a camera because the Copyright Act refers to an author's “children,” “widow,” “grandchildren,” and “widower,”—terms that “all imply humanity and necessarily exclude animals.” [19] Relying on these cases among others, the Office's existing registration guidance has long required that works be the product of human authorship. In the 1973 edition of the Office's Compendium of Copyright Office Practices, the Office warned that it would not register materials that did not “owe their origin to a human agent.” [20] The second edition of the Compendium, published in 1984, explained that the “term `authorship' implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being.” [21] And in the current edition of the Compendium, the Office states that “to qualify as a work of `authorship' a work must be created by a human being” and that it “will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author.” [22] III. The Office's Application of the Human Authorship Requirement As the agency overseeing the copyright registration system, the Office has extensive experience in evaluating works submitted for registration that contain human authorship combined with uncopyrightable material, including material generated by or with the assistance of technology. It begins by asking “whether the `work' is basically one of human authorship, with the computer [or other device] merely being an assisting instrument, or whether the traditional elements of authorship in the work (literary, artistic, or musical expression or elements of selection, arrangement, etc.) were actually conceived and executed not by man but by a machine.” [23] In the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of “mechanical reproduction” or instead of an author's “own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.” [24] The answer will depend on the circumstances, particularly how the AI tool operates and how it was used to create the final work.[25] This is necessarily a case-by-case inquiry. If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it.[26] For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt [27] from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office's understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material. Instead, these prompts function more like instructions to a commissioned artist—they identify what the prompter wishes to have depicted, but the machine determines how those instructions are implemented in its output.[28] For example, if a user instructs a text-generating technology to “write a poem about copyright law in the style of William Shakespeare,” she can expect the system to generate text that is recognizable as a poem, mentions copyright, and resembles Shakespeare's style.[29] But the technology will decide the rhyming pattern, the words in each line, and the structure of the text.[30] When an AI technology determines the expressive elements of its output, the generated material is not the product of human authorship.[31] As a result, that material is not protected by copyright and must be disclaimed in a registration application.[32] In other cases, however, a work containing AI-generated material will also contain sufficient human authorship to support a copyright claim. For example, a human may select or arrange AI-generated material in a sufficiently creative way that “the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship.” [33] Or an artist may modify material originally generated by AI technology to such a degree that the modifications meet the standard for copyright protection.[34] In these cases, copyright will only protect the human-authored aspects of the work, which are “independent of” and do “not affect” the copyright status of the AI-generated material itself.[35] This policy does not mean that technological tools cannot be part of the creative process. Authors have long used such tools to create their works or to recast, transform, or adapt their expressive authorship. For example, a visual artist who uses Adobe Photoshop to edit an image remains the author of the modified image,[36] and a musical artist may use effects such as guitar pedals when creating a sound recording. In each case, what matters is the extent to which the human had creative control over the work's expression and “actually formed” the traditional elements of authorship.[37] IV. Guidance for Copyright Applicants Consistent with the Office's policies described above, applicants have a duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration and to provide a brief explanation of the human author's contributions to the work. As contemplated by the Copyright Act, such disclosures are “information regarded by the Register of Copyrights as bearing upon the preparation or identification of the work or the existence, ownership, or duration of the copyright.” [38] A. How To Submit Applications for Works Containing AI-Generated Material Individuals who use AI technology in creating a work may claim copyright protection for their own contributions to that work. They must use the Standard Application,[39] and in it identify the author(s) and provide a brief statement in the “Author Created” field that describes the authorship that was contributed by a human. For example, an applicant who incorporates AI-generated text into a larger textual work should claim the portions of the textual work that is human-authored. And an applicant who creatively arranges the human and non-human content within a work should fill out the “Author Created” field to claim: “Selection, coordination, and arrangement of [describe human-authored content] created by the author and [describe AI content] generated by artificial intelligence.” Applicants should not list an AI technology or the company that provided it as an author or co-author simply because they used it when creating their work. AI-generated content that is more than de minimis should be explicitly excluded from the application.[40] This may be done in the “Limitation of the Claim” section in the “Other” field, under the “Material Excluded” heading. Applicants should provide a brief description of the AI-generated content, such as by entering “[description of content] generated by artificial intelligence.” Applicants may also provide additional information in the “Note to CO” field in the Standard Application. Applicants who are unsure of how to fill out the application may simply provide a general statement that a work contains AI-generated material. The Office will contact the applicant when the claim is reviewed and determine how to proceed. In some cases, the use of an AI tool will not raise questions about human authorship, and the Office will explain that nothing needs to be disclaimed on the application. B. How To Correct a Previously Submitted or Pending Application Applicants who have already submitted applications for works containing AI-generated material should check that the information provided to the Office adequately disclosed that material. If not, they should take steps to correct their information so that the registration remains effective. For applications currently pending before the Office, applicants should contact the Copyright Office's Public Information Office and report that their application omitted the fact that the work contained AI-generated material.[41] Staff will add a note to the record, which the examiner will see when reviewing the claim. If necessary, the examiner then will correspond with the applicant to obtain additional information about the nature of the human authorship included in the work. For applications that have already been processed and resulted in a registration, the applicant should correct the public record by submitting a supplementary registration. A supplementary registration is a special type of registration that may be used “to correct an error in a copyright registration or to amplify the information given in a registration.” [42] In the supplementary registration, the applicant should describe the original material that the human author contributed in the “Author Created” field, disclaim the AI-generated material in the “Material Excluded/Other” field, and complete the “New Material Added/Other” field. As long as there is sufficient human authorship, the Office will issue a new supplementary registration certificate with a disclaimer addressing the AI-generated material.[43] Applicants who fail to update the public record after obtaining a registration for material generated by AI risk losing the benefits of the registration. If the Office becomes aware that information essential to its evaluation of registrability “has been omitted entirely from the application or is questionable,” it may take steps to cancel the registration.[44] Separately, a court may disregard a registration in an infringement action pursuant to section 411(b) of the Copyright Act if it concludes that the applicant knowingly provided the Office with inaccurate information, and the accurate information would have resulted in the refusal of the registration.[45] V. Conclusion This policy statement sets out the Office's approach to registration of works containing material generated by AI technology. The Office continues to monitor new factual and legal developments involving AI and copyright and may issue additional guidance in the future related to registration or the other copyright issues implicated by this technology. * * * * * Dated: March 10, 2023.

some small things are absolutely brilliant if you don't know prior entry

https://www.deviantart.com/yayacosplay/art/Lady-Dimitrescu-887386144

@Chevdove well, based on his policies he is no different than any other president. Schrumpf merely continued barack obama's immigration policy. Obama was the one who started separating the illegal immigrant children, not schrumpf. Schrumpf merely continued it. Schrumpf focused on china as an opponent and Biden is continuing it. The wild financial system has been given free reign since Reagan, all presidents since reagan have capitulated to the banks and financial sectors, all of them. Schrumpf differs from all the other reagan era presidents by one thing alone, his advertisements. From Reagan to Biden all the presidents outside SChrumpf don't advertise negativities. Reagan undercut public schools, which public schools never recovered from, but he never said, taxpayers money should go to taxpayers schools. Bush jr. went into iraq to continue the war machine to get control of oil but never said, the usa needs to reclaim the global oil supply to make cost of living like it was before 1970s for the usa empire. Clinton damaged the labor system with welfare to work and mismanaged the internet allowing the private sector to dictate its elemental structure. But he never said, I am unwilling to curtail the business plan of the private sector for the poor and I am willing to accept this new media outlet be a wild west to the detriment of all who interact with it. Bush jr. made two illegal wars. but he never said, the usa has to have a greater militaristic presence in the arab world whether they want it or not. Obama broke the first rule of fiscal capitalism and insulted every fiscal poor person in the usa giving a black check to the banks and automotive firms and others. but he never said, I don't have the courage or desire to destroy the generational wealth from the time of george washington in the white community and force everyone in the usa and the global economy to start on truly equal footing. Biden threatened the oil industry while wanting the oil industry to help him while financing a war with a country that supported the usa illegal invading another. but is unwilling to say, the usa empire has to spread its wings to show rivals what their place is and the military will force all including china to the usa's will if need be. Schrumpf said, russia is a friend, cause russia is, a fellow empire that spent from the end of the second phase of the world war to the fall of the soviet union joining the usa in using every other country as a proxy battlefield. Saving the ussr/russia and the usa from any of the war zones that plagued south america/eastern europe/africa/asia and china is an enemy, china is the first non white european country to achieve the military ability to be respected by the usa/the financial ability to be respected by the usa since the fall of japan. and china unlike the japanese has a much large anti european culture in their modern form. When schrumpf didn't go to the arizona senators funeral that was the correct thing to do, you don't go to the funeral of somebody you can't stand. Russia is willing to join the usa against china. Biden wants russia to join against china too but he also wants russia to allow western europe to dominate it. Cause with russia's help the usa can control the oil conveniently until the USA can control the next major energy technology. Schrumpf advertises his views and ways clearly. he doesn't trick, he uses blunt power and the whites/blacks/native americans/women who have money in the usa are used to forked tongue behavior. The Black church was a large supporter of the war on drugs which hurt the larger black community but couldn't admit their role and still don't admit it now. while many fiscally wealthy black people are part of black church communities designed to merely collate their wealth. Women say they want empowerment but whenever women have a chance to become the dominant owners of an industry, like a woman sport, they don't cause women are afraid to risk their money or believe in themselves. Whites in NYC talk about equality and speak ill of whites who are deemed "conservative" but the white liberals and goodie goods support policies that deny any opportunity in the black community whatsoever. Bill clinton and the white plus black democratic party officials in nyc were huge supporters of the harlem empowerment zone that didn't empower one black owned business in harlem, and led to the death of many of them. Schrumpf does what all his peers do but he doesn't talk like them. He doesn't tell black people he loves them or play the saxophone. He doesn't tell women he wants them to have a seat at the table or be his equal, and pays for women to service him. He doesn't tell immigrants he wants them for anything but cheap labor and he doesn't want to help their kids, knowing that is why many came to the usa. Is he positive? no. he is very negative. but he did nothing others didn't do or are doing. but he doesn't speak like his presidential peers and that is his true problem in the larger usa. The black senator from brooklyn hasn't helped the black community in brooklyn. Eric Adams is not raising the black community. Eric adams is helping a select set of blacks mostly related to black cop families, another 1%, financial black elite in nyc. De Sanctiss don't care about white farmers. He isn't trying to improve the white community, but simply ingratiate himself and his white elected elite stay financially safe, no matter the cost. But none of them say it. SChrumpf is willing to say things that show a level of unconcern to keeping up the lies that are at the foundation of the usa. This is why he has so many enemies on both sides. Schrumpf isn't a hero or worker or advocate for the common people, but his way of communicating goes against what the majority of the have's in government or the private sector like. @ProfD yes , those other presidents are not a threat to the system, everything they do is within a confine. They speak the way they are allowed to speak, they do the things they are allowed to do. Schrumpf loves going off script and that is something the others dont do. so nothing to talk about. The People in the usa need to do ask what will happen to themselves:) I Ask again, what I always ask in these post eventually. what do you want tomorrow for the group to be? I usually mean black people only, here or there. But in the usa context, what do you want tomorrow to be for the populace in the u.s.a.? That is the question, but that question is hard. It is easy to be about yourself alone. Look out for number one, I got mine get yours. I do for me. The problem is, the usa has a populace of over three hundred million people , with tons of hatreds/dislikes/financial inequalities /various criminal acts between them. Any group of a certain size needs management, needs to be governed. A group of individuals is not enough, not satisfactory. Schrumpf realizes that no one in power: the elected officials, the banks, the global firms, the fiscal elite, the military are interested in anything but an individual mantra. The only problem is, people will cluster until they either make it a public policy or start working towards organizing the group. But the reagan/bush sr or jr/clinton/obama/biden centrist individualism is just not enough for the group. Yes, a minority of whites/blacks/womens/men/christian/muslims/atheitst/latinos/anglos/sinos/native americans are thriving and will thrive, but the majority in every group needs more, needs more. Schrumpf doesn't offer it but he knows said majorities when they get angry enough, will want someone who will tell them how they truly feel , which is a truth his peers are unwilling or unable to do

@ProfD if it can happen it will I don't know how this will end, it is possible Schrumpf ends up behind bars, it is possible he will not. I don't think any outcome is certain. But for me, this is a witchhunt.

her website https://katetilton.com/

no @Delano because I didn't answer your original question. Whether schrumpf goes to jail or not, to me was less important than the question of the usa population itself. I admit being in the black community has taught me the importance of comprehending the internal multiracial condition of any community. I wish more black people would comprehend the internal multiracial reality of the black community in the usa or under any government. All black people are black, but we do not share the same ideas about tomorrow and that matters. And it extends to all communities. The over 300 million people in the usa don't have a consensus on tomorrow. and that is the real problem. The government of the usa isn't flexible enough to handle it so you get this chaos. I have said publicly many times, i don't like schrumpt, for many things before his presidential era. But, even though I dislike him, the problems surrounding him have little to do with him and more to do with the truth of the usa which sadly, many people in the usa want to ignore or not see or hope to override through a mix of media plus education programs plus peer pressure. To the case. The first legal fact is , this entire case hinges on the fact that donal trump isn't a new york city resident. if donald trump was listed as a nyc resident the statue of limitations on this case would not allow it, to go forward. which means this case is a witch hunt. The reality is, the district attorney , alvin bragg, could had given this case a pass. He chose not to... but , while I am no lawyer nor do I like schrumpf, i find the basis of this case, a case that would be thrown out if schrumpf lived in nyc, which concerns nothing but a payment to pornstar... people in nyc media are trying to spin this as good law but come on:) this is clearlya witch hunt. and why does that matter? witch hunts only make more witch hunts. cause the point of any witch hunt is to attack someone deemed undesireable by a group that has the power to take advantage, it is never for the betterment of any community. So will he go to jail, I still don't care, and it may happen, but the legal underpinnings, as a non lawyer, I see as soft.

the answers to questions https://entertainment.tumblr.com/tagged/dungeons and dragons https://www.tumblr.com/entertainment/713244388344659969/gather-your-dungeons-and-your-dragons-its-time

Richard Murray Chesspiece and amethyst Vase by richardmurray3d on Sketchfab The purple chesspiece is fine but I don't like the colors in the vase. Sketchfab displays it differently, so I need to be careful about lighting and colors. My second chessboard

Webinar with south side home movie project started by Jaqueline Stewart, my review of elements while experiencing. Positive Black life in home movies. Women and History in home movies. A 1940s party Community tagging using an interaction between Jeanette Forman side Justin Williams Oldest Black Home Movie in their collection https://aalbc.com/tc/profile/6477-richardmurray/?status=2300&type=status

@Chevdove yeah, the behind your birth time machine. The problem with people in history like Tituba is all that is known is irrelevant to knowing who she is. this is why I emphasize to all black people, leave a diary. Not for sale, not for making money, for making a record of you by you. This is not about getting an a or making a thesis for review to earn a piece of paper from a school, this is about comprehending that knowing who someone is , does not derive from the paper trail. Their travel log doesn't display who they are. census does not display who they are. a diary displays who you are. well, yes, in some ways I find a lot of value in her testimony, not truth in what it says but in truth in what it derives. here is an enslaved woman, unhappy/angry/bitter and she must have realized this is her chance to cause havoc. I find comfort in the truth of her actions.

@Pioneer1 at least from this author's words, tituba didn't start it, not in the least. it was started in a white pastors home. but what the author admits is tituba's claims were the most flamboyant or extravagant. Tituba didn't start it but tituba stoked it better than any other. And it wasn't anger at the white family, it was anger at the white community. One of the tragedies of modernity is black people living today don't seem to comprehend how enslaved black people hated whites. Maybe it is just hard for most modern black folks to accept such hate in the hearts our forebears when we have grandmothers talking about don't hate.