T1B

mvskkkal thinks that the gubmint should step in and arrest non-members of Costco who entered the store w/o a membership card, likely with the permission of store management because they saw it as an opportunity to get free advertising. No surprise that mvskkkal wants to tell private businesses how to operate.

Mikey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:49 pm You have to pay a membership fee to shop at Costco, hence you have to show your membership card. Good or bad, right or wrong, that's their business model. In California you can enter Costco without a membership if you're buying wine or booze. That's the law in California. You just can't buy anything else.

WA also allows non-members to purchase prescription medication at Costco.

They do treat their employees very well compared to all, or at least most, other retailers.

I've heard the same for the WA stores.

Mikey wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 1:39 am

FiatLux wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 12:48 am If you like cheese. I think they let you order online.


https://pointreyescheese.com/

From Google Maps it looks like they’re east of Tomales Bay and Hwy 1, and outside the National Seashore area. So maybe not affected?

Actually, I think they'll be fine. Parts of West Marin are nothing but farms. And once you get out of Petaluma. Heading towards the ocean. It's nothing but dairy farms and things like that. I just thought it would be cool see pictures of cows grazing right up to the sand on the beach. So I posted that article.

The Tully elk used to be fenced in on parts of the Point Reyes. Now I think they're just going to let them roam free. Those farms go right down to the beach and right near the lighthouse where the elephant seals breed. Some of those farms go back like 200 and something years. Kind of sad to see them shut down.
The farms go down to Drake's Beach. Where Sir Francis Drake landed in the 1500s. Pretty cool area. Drake's Bay is protected from the strong winds and waves that you get on the other side of the lighthouse.

mvscal wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 12:59 am

Meat Head wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 12:45 am You haven't renewed for a few years but you go there for cheese?

As long as it can scraped off the head of an uncircumcised penis, mstool will spread it on a cracker and happily munch it down while getting fucked up the ass. Don't ask. That cheese goes on a different cracker.

That's unnecessarily graphic.

Red is Mvscal, Roux. You love to cook, and the nurses have loved when you cook. Red has posted more recipes, though, using more variety of ingredients.

And then there's 88 and his affinity for onions. No one needs that much onion in any meal. But whatever.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2025 2:54 am
And then there's 88 and his affinity for onions. No one needs that much onion in any meal. But whatever.

Onions cover up his bad breath.

I’m sorry if that’s too graphic.

Mikey wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:49 pm You have to pay a membership fee to shop at Costco, hence you have to show your membership card. Good or bad, right or wrong, that's their business model. In California you can enter Costco without a membership if you're buying wine or booze. That's the law in California. You just can't buy anything else. They do treat their employees very well compared to all, or at least most, other retailers.

And that's the point. Costco has a very good reputation as a store and as an employer. But no one is gonna boycott Costco for the inequity of demanding memberships to make grocery purchases.

Why is Uncle Al telling black folk to support Costco by buying memberships to shop at Costco to support DEI -- but he can't support safeguarding the integrity of the vote by supporting voter ID laws?

Why is ID unimportant in voting, but important in consuming?

The Seer wrote: ↑Mon Jan 27, 2025 10:51 pm Jooos bad, kneegrows good....yawn.

Jews need to pay up. Reparations isn't happening because jews would have to pay up. Bottom line.

Not just pay up, but be forced to confront just how much they've not just passively benefited from slavery and its aftermath, but actively -- successfully -- profited from slavery and its aftermath.


https://www.npr.org/2023/03/27/11648695 ... ery-oppose

Before the activist push for them, "fundamentally there was a lack of knowledge about what happened," says historian Alice Yang of the University of California, Santa Cruz. Then in 1980 and 1981, Congress held hearings in 20 cities around the country, and they included powerful testimony from people who'd been incarcerated with their families as children.

"Those hearings had a major impact on public perception of what happened during the war, how Japanese Americans were affected by it, and why redress might be appropriate," Yang says.

It helped convince some Japanese Americans who'd opposed the idea of reparations. But Yang says public opinion overall was not much of a factor. Japanese Americans at the time were only .5% of the population, mostly in California and Hawaii. The campaign for reparations was really about persuading members of Congress, and "if there had been a lot of public opinion opposing it, I think it might have affected [them] differently," Yang says.

Who controls our members of Congress?

An ethnicity of beancounters calculated the numbers, and figured they could get away with paying off Japanese survivors of the internment camps. Those same beancounters ...

Explicitly racist federal policies were key in creating the wealth gap, and only the federal government could come anywhere close to compensating for harms that some have calculated at as much as $14 trillion.

When Tatishe Nteta began polling about it several years ago he expected money would be the biggest issue. Or perhaps the workability of such a complex undertaking. It turns out those are the smallest concerns among the two-thirds of Americans who say they're against cash payments to the descendants of slaves.

"A plurality of Americans," Nteta says, "don't believe the descendants of slaves deserve reparations."

And why would that be.

"You can't take what we know now and try to superimpose yourself onto 150 years ago," says Jeff Bernauer, visiting from Huntsville, Alabama. He calls racism a sin and says of course slavery was wrong. But to try and make amends at this point makes no sense.

"The generation that would be paying for it have nothing to do with what was done in the past," he says. "And then you're paying people that have nothing to do with it in the past."

Terry Keuhn of upstate New York agrees, and does not like the idea of a targeted program that would only help some people.

"We're all immigrants at some point, whether it was voluntary or forced," she says. "And nobody needs a handout anymore. Everybody, you know, pulls themselves up by their own bootstraps and works for a living and makes their way in this world."

Bullshit.

Jews owe FBA.

Jews are bleeding Germany, where all of those arguments against also come into play, and recently sought for the State of New York to pay cash reparations to the Six Million (tm)...but they don't want a real discussion about what is owed to the descendents of slavery and Jim Crow, who owes it and how it's going to be funded.

So in answer to your question 88, to start:
- Blood quatum: lineage-based, descendents of the 1865 census. Not immigrant blacks from the Caribbean or Central America or South America, not Africans, not latinos, not Arabs and South Asians. Descendents of US Chattel slavery only, with the exception of
- Black Native Americans would also be included. Anybody who was de-listed from the Dawes Roll at its inception and reclassified as black. Anyone de-listed like the Cherokee Freedmen as well.
- Re-establishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands (Freedmen's Bureau)
- Exemption from federal, state and city taxes for life.
- An FHS system which improves upon the best of the IHS system, and discards the chaff
- Guaranteed tuition-paid to any non-profit or state educational institution from pre-K to post-secondary (again, improving upon the best of the BIA system, and discarding the chaff). For-profit school are banned from this program for obvious reasons.
- Zero percent loans from bankers for life - because Heter Iska needs to be publicly kicked in the ass, and God hates usury.

That's just me. I'll look up what others are proposing.

Are you a 'the debt can't possibly be paid' anti-reparationer, or an ' you ni.gg.ers don't deserve shit' anti-reparationer?

Ruskies are red,
Libtards are blue,
IB isn’t wild about my onions,
But she really hates them damn Jews.

They hate me too.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021 ... lan-scrut/

The Crimson Klan
BY SIMON J. LEVIEN, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
MARCH 25, 2021



Post-Harvard, Bond became one of a few prominent Black architects in the 20th century. After his death in 2009, his widow, Jean Carey Bond, released an 11-page retelling of his life.

In it, Jean reveals that the University threatened Bond or any Black student with suspension should they go to the media with the cross burning. Bond, who graduated Phi Beta Kappa and finished undergrad in three years, was never suspended.

Meanwhile, the two freshman perpetrators were handed temporary probation by the Administrative Board.

The pair, hailed as pranksters by administrators and students alike, made a half-hearted apology, saying it was a practical joke. Freshman Union Committee secretary Geoffrey H. “Geoff” Ball ’55 told The Crimson at the time the Union would have taken action if there was “any maliciousness” uncovered. Ball did not respond to a request for comment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/04/us/h ... renty.html

Images of Slaves Are Property of Harvard, Not a Descendant, Judge Rules

A Massachusetts judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a woman claiming that she, not Harvard University, is the rightful owner of haunting images of an enslaved father and daughter who she says were her ancestors.

The judge acknowledged that the daguerreotypes had been taken under “horrific circumstances” but said that if the enslaved subjects, Renty and Delia, did not own the images when they were taken, then the woman who brought the lawsuit, Tamara Lanier, did not own them either.

(behind a paywall)

They didn't even own themselves. The deepest pits of hell aren't deep enough.

What legal bullshit is this. That's like saying someone doesn't owe compensation to someone else, because property can't own property rights.

What's the other argument? Slaves aren't owed compensation, they owe their owners compensation for the loss of wealth their emancipation represents?

LOL It is what it is.

Am I following this right?

IB, let's say that your great-great-great grandfather took a photo of my great-great-great grandfather. Are you saying that I should be the owner of that photo, and not you?

That appears to be the case. A strange notion, eh?

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 12:52 pm Am I following this right?

IB, let's say that your great-great-great grandfather took a photo of my great-great-great grandfather. Are you saying that I should be the owner of that photo, and not you?

Did my family own your family? How does my family make the theft of your family right?

Harvard 'owns' the remains of people who were denied the ability to consent to the collection, storage and profiteering of their bodies. Their families aren't allowed to give them the peace of burial.

Those two people in the photo were legally incapable of giving consent to being photographed. That woman doesn't want Harvard treating her family as anonymous curios anymore. She wants her family home.

Reparations is so much more than cash. There is a reckoning to it, an acknowledgement of theft and abuse beyond the fields, beyond the grave itself.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 1:33 pm That appears to be the case. A strange notion, eh?

Explain.

Ok, assume my great-great-great grandfather was a slave, and your's wasn't.

Because mine was a slave, therefore the photo belongs to me?

This is one of the photographs in question (it depicts Renty):



I'm not sure if this link will work. But here is the decision by the Court dismissing the property-related claims of the plaintiff:

https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/se ... 8183001870

The suit continues, but only for two claims: (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (2) reckless infliction of emotional distress. Sketchy claims from a legal standpoint. But they are still pending.

If the link above does not work, you can read the case file by going to the following link:

https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/home.page.8

Click to search public records

Then select the Superior Court Middlesex and then enter the last name (Lanier) and first name (Tamara) of the plaintiff. It is the only case that will come up (Case No. 1981CV00784). If you click on the "Docket" tab, you can read images of the court documents on the right. The order dismissing the claims to the photos is document 27 dated 03/02/2021. The decision on appeal affirming the dismissal, in part, is document 36 dated 07/25/2022.

If there is anyone who owes anyone anything regarding slavery, I would say the entire planet owes the UK.

Prior to the early 19th century, slavery was an accepted universal practice.

Then those pesky old limeys decided, ya know, them niggahs is our brothers in Christ. It ain’t right that they not have their freedom.

Then they used their status as the day’s only Superpower who had absolute supremacy of the seas to attempt to wipe out slavery world wide.

This led to a great reduction it it’s practice, but the end of the 19th century.

Then the 20th century came along and it was revived under various socialist mobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:49 pm The suit continues

What about prescription? I think y'all may call it statute of limitations?

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:05 pm Harvard 'owns' the remains of people

Wait. I thought this was about photos. Harvard has possession of their bodies?

If that is the case, I still suspect that legally, Harvard is entitled to keep the bodies. Or maybe not. Legally, it doesn't matter to me.

Because regardless of the law, if the descendants of those persons want the bodies, Harvard should return them.

How about we tell these folks, sorry some balck dude in Africa sold your great, great….grandpappy into slavery.

Sorry if even after he was freed, he got some shabby treatment.

For about 60 years we’ve attempted to settle the score through various AA programs.

If you feel you still haven’t been made whole, here’s 50k and a one way plane ticket back to the motherland. You must also release citizenship rights to the US.

I suspect we wouldn’t have too many takers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:07 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:05 pm Harvard 'owns' the remains of people

Wait. I thought this was about photos. Harvard has possession of their bodies?

If that is the case, I still suspect that legally, Harvard is entitled to keep the bodies. Or maybe not. Legally, it doesn't matter to me.

Because regardless of the law, if the descendants of those persons want the bodies, Harvard should return them.

There is no allegation in the Complaint that Harvard 'owns' the remains of anyone. There are a few daguerreotypes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype) in Harvard's possession, which depict direct lineal ancestors of the plaintiff. She claims Harvard should be forced to give them to her because her ancestors did not consent to be photographed. The claims relating to the photographs have been dismissed on statute of limitations and lack of any legal basis grounds. The remaining claims are for negligent/reckless infliction of emotional distress ostensibly because Harvard used the images and they upset the plaintiff in question. I don't see how she will prevail. But Benjamin Crump is going to give it a try.

Oh Crump is the attorney? He's had some success in civil rights cases, but this truly is weak sauce. This is throwing a bunch of shit at a wall and hoping something sticks. I've seen stronger cases articulated by pro se inmates.

It would be fun to have plaintiff on the stand under cross examination re actual injury and then quantum.

What a worthless case.

IB could be a juror. There is a chance.

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 10:07 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:05 pm Harvard 'owns' the remains of people

Wait. I thought this was about photos. Harvard has possession of their bodies?

If that is the case, I still suspect that legally, Harvard is entitled to keep the bodies. Or maybe not. Legally, it doesn't matter to me.

Because regardless of the law, if the descendants of those persons want the bodies, Harvard should return them.

No. Harvard doesn't own their bodies. Harvard owns other peoples' bodies. (Harvard also got in trouble for selling human body parts a year and a half ago. But that wasn't jews. That was neo-pagan/halloween b.s.)

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:17 pm Ok, assume my great-great-great grandfather was a slave, and your's wasn't.

Because mine was a slave, therefore the photo belongs to me?

Person A is a pedophile
Person B is a child
Institute C was given the photos.

Why can't the descendents of Person B demand the photos?

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 6:51 pm

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:17 pm Ok, assume my great-great-great grandfather was a slave, and your's wasn't.

Because mine was a slave, therefore the photo belongs to me?

Person A is a pedophile
Person B is a child
Institute C was given the photos.

Why can't the descendents of Person B demand the photos?

What would the legal basis for the request be? That is the same problem the plaintiff in the Harvard case had. The author (person who took the photographs) owns them.

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 8:49 pm This is one of the photographs in question (it depicts Renty):



I'm not sure if this link will work. But here is the decision by the Court dismissing the property-related claims of the plaintiff:

https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/se ... 8183001870

The suit continues, but only for two claims: (1) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (2) reckless infliction of emotional distress. Sketchy claims from a legal standpoint. But they are still pending.

If the link above does not work, you can read the case file by going to the following link:

https://www.masscourts.org/eservices/home.page.8

Click to search public records

Then select the Superior Court Middlesex and then enter the last name (Lanier) and first name (Tamara) of the plaintiff. It is the only case that will come up (Case No. 1981CV00784). If you click on the "Docket" tab, you can read images of the court documents on the right. The order dismissing the claims to the photos is document 27 dated 03/02/2021. The decision on appeal affirming the dismissal, in part, is document 36 dated 07/25/2022.

The link includes: "March-1950_courtesy-of-the-peabody-museum-of-archaeology-and-ethnology-harvard-university"

That man was dehumanized. His culture wasn't being studied or preserved. His life only had meaning so far as it related to his owner. But his own hopes, dreams, desires, fears, day to day life .... he was made to take off his clothes and show his body.

Did he have a choice?

The same was done to his daughter.

It is emotional distress to see your family dehumanized without consent, to have other people continue to not only dehumanize them but make money off that dehumanization.

This is Delia, his daughter



That isn't the only photo of her. Why is it blurred?

She was not able to consent.

dan's college room mate wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 9:19 pm If there is anyone who owes anyone anything regarding slavery, I would say the entire planet owes the UK.

Prior to the early 19th century, slavery was an accepted universal practice.

Then those pesky old limeys decided, ya know, them niggahs is our brothers in Christ. It ain’t right that they not have their freedom.

Then they used their status as the day’s only Superpower who had absolute supremacy of the seas to attempt to wipe out slavery world wide.

This led to a great reduction it it’s practice, but the end of the 19th century.

Then the 20th century came along and it was revived under various socialist mobs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the USAToday article on Renty, Delia and Tamara Lanier. For whatever jewish legal reason, USA Today has to keep specifying that the DNA link between Renty and Lanier is only alleged.

Even the testimony - the link - of oral tradition is denied us, as it was denied to the descendents of Madison and Eston Hemings. Every link has to be officially destroyed, dismissed. That is American history.

But USA Today gives us the Lanier oral tradition of Renty side by side with what remains of the Lanier documented historical record of the 15 year old boy-child abducted against his will by the Spanish, at a time when most American slaves were being bred domestically not captured feral, sold to the Taylor family who owed most of the land which would become Columbia, SC, and who became a pillar of the community respected enough to be nicknamed 'Papa Renty'.

How does USA Today describe the man who took the photos?

The photos were commissioned by Louis Agassiz, a 19th-century Harvard biologist, who had daguerreotypes of 13 slaves taken to reinforce his racist belief that white people are superior to African-Americans.

You can also read about Louis at the Britannica website: "He achieved lasting fame through his innovative teaching methods, which altered the character of natural science education in the United States."

If the photos are returned to the Lanier family, what precedent does that set for the rest of Harvard or any American university's antebellum collections of human remains and photos commissioned without consent?

The UK owes its former colonies, the victims of its colonialism, a price too high to pay.

And the jews owe that much more, for taking all of those reparations as insurers and bankers and owners recouping the loss of wealth represented by the loss of manumitted human cattle.

As for 'socialists' ...

88BuckeyeGrad wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:05 pm

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 6:51 pm

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 4:17 pm Ok, assume my great-great-great grandfather was a slave, and your's wasn't.

Because mine was a slave, therefore the photo belongs to me?

Person A is a pedophile
Person B is a child
Institute C was given the photos.

Why can't the descendents of Person B demand the photos?

What would the legal basis for the request be? That is the same problem the plaintiff in the Harvard case had. The author (person who took the photographs) owns them.

So if a pedophile takes photos of a child, the photos belong to the pedophile and the child has no say in how the photos are distributed and/or sold (ie the child cannot demand they not be used to sell a brand of bikinis)?

These are not photos taken in a public place. The images are commissioned and non-consensual.

If a person has no rights to private photos taken without consent, what would a reasonable compromise be to address Ms. Lanier's family's concerns?

Roux wrote: ↑Wed Jan 29, 2025 11:27 pm Oh Crump is the attorney? He's had some success in civil rights cases, but this truly is weak sauce. This is throwing a bunch of shit at a wall and hoping something sticks. I've seen stronger cases articulated by pro se inmates.

It would be fun to have plaintiff on the stand under cross examination re actual injury and then quantum.

What a worthless case.

Crump isn't an attorney, he's a settlement grifter. He's been pilloried multiple times for not looking out for victim's or the communities best interests, but only seeking a headline and a check.

If she did take the stand, would her POV - her testimony -- be respected or ridiculed?

Why?

What would define whether her testimony has merit or not?

Why is reclamation of dignity and self-ownership worthless?

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:12 pm It is emotional distress to see your family dehumanized without consent, to have other people continue to not only dehumanize them but make money off that dehumanization.

One man's emotional distress is another man's pride. And what I mean by that is that the way one person reacts to a photograph may be different than another. There are photographs of native American Indians from back in the day. Some people get outraged when they see them. Others think it is spectacular that a photograph of an ancestor even exists for the world to see so many years later. I do not know how I would feel if I saw a photograph of someone many generations ago that I was related to. And I'm trying to think of a situation where the photo would be difficult to see, like a dead body on a Civil War battlefield or something. I don't think I'd have a case against the person who owned the photograph that my dead relative was not able to consent to his picture being taken. Do the Kennedy's have claims against Zapruder that they should own his movie of JFK's head getting pink misted?

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:12 pm That isn't the only photo of her. Why is it blurred?

I suspect because whoever posted the picture didn't want to show her tits.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:12 pm So if a pedophile takes photos of a child, the photos belong to the pedophile and the child has no say in how the photos are distributed and/or sold (ie the child cannot demand they not be used to sell a brand of bikinis)?

A pedophile would own the photos he took of a child (presuming the photos are not pornographic - no one is allowed to own that). But he could not use the photos to sell a brand of bikinis. A living person (and in some states, but not all, the estates of deceased people) have the right to control their own name, likeness and image during their lifetime - this means that the pedo could not use a photograph of the child (or anyone else without their consent) to sell a brand of bikinis. Different issue, and does not relate to the photograph, but rather the manner in which it is used.

Innocent Bystander wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 7:12 pm If she did take the stand, would her POV - her testimony -- be respected or ridiculed?

Why?

What would define whether her testimony has merit or not?

Why is reclamation of dignity and self-ownership worthless?

Those are impossible questions to answer. If she provided compelling testimony of real hurt, perhaps a jury would find that she is entitled to some compensation. That is why we have juries. I still do not see a good legal basis for the claim. Should we all be entitled to sue if we can locate a photograph of an ancestor that makes us pissy?

manumitted - to be released from slavery or servitude, essentially setting someone free from captivity.

I learned a new word today. Thanks, IB!

p.s. my copy of Fata Morgana arrived today.

I'll start reading it this weekend. No spoilers, please.

StrawMan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:45 am Fata Morgana

Was she a great big fat person?

Python wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 3:53 am

StrawMan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:45 am Fata Morgana

Was she a great big fat person?

She is Morgana the Kissing Bandit's overweight sister.

StrawMan wrote: ↑Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:45 am manumitted - to be released from slavery or servitude, essentially setting someone free from captivity.

I learned a new word today. Thanks, IB!

p.s. my copy of Fata Morgana arrived today.

I'll start reading it this weekend. No spoilers, please.

Hope you like it. I love everything I've come across of Boyett. I wish he wrote more. Your taste may vary, though.

Who's another author?

Project Hail Mary lives up to the hype.
Anathema is dope.
I want to eventually tackle The Three Body Problem.