“I didn’t understand how a senior executive like George Cheeks could tell me that this was a high priority for the network and for his boss, and yet the executives at CBS News showed producers anchors could refuse that,” she said. //

Here we have yet another news story showing that the press is full of incognito activists posing as journalists. If the details of Herridge’s story are accurate – and there's no reason to think they're not – it is clear that CBS News’ executives were acting more as political operatives and preventing the news outlet from discussing issues that could have reflected negatively on President Biden and Democrats.

Yet, these same people will claim the network is a neutral journalistic outlet when it is abundantly clear that it is little more than a propaganda mill for Democrats. //

Intheknow
7 hours ago
Hunter Biden may have accidentally saved America. By CBS covering this up, it allowed people to see the trainwreck that Biden was and it led to the massive win for Trump. I am convinced that 2024 Trump will be better than 2020 Trump would have been due to what has been exposed over the last 4 years both policy wise and the lengths that desperate government employees will go to to keep their power. I see the Biden WH as a gift. //

Largo Patriot
7 hours ago
"I did everything I could to put CBS first on a story that was not popular among a lot of people in that network."

Journalists with integrity report all the news, not just the news that's popular with network staffers.

“They were both red, white and blue. The difference is in literary style. Trump is like Hemingway and James Joyce, direct and stream of consciousness, Reagan had a more restrained, poetic style,” Davi said.

That's a fair observation; Ronald Reagan was cheerful, optimistic, always smiling and upbeat, while Trump can be short-tempered and acerbic. //

Ronald Reagan, though, is hard to compare to any other president in living memory. Without him, the Cold War may not have ended peacefully or as soon as it did. He oversaw a generation of economic growth and, more importantly, replaced Jimmy Carter's "malaise" and "turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater" austerity with "morning in America."

I remember the Reagan years as sunny and prosperous. That's an America we need to go back to. And, yes, I've already bought my copy of the film. I recommend everyone do likewise.

In other words, the Trump-Vance Transition Team confirms it has the requisite ethics plan and will post it on the GSA website as required under the Act, but oh, by the way, it won't be availing itself of taxpayer funding or government buildings or technology via the GSA. Chalk that up to Trump learning the hard way the pitfalls of trusting too readily in an outgoing administration.

Hans Mahncke
@HansMahncke
·
Follow
Trump says that his transition team will not use government resources because they want to save money. However, this is merely a smokescreen. What's really happening is that Trump has learned from past experiences, particularly what they did to @genflynn during the previous… Show more
4:17 PM · Nov 26, 2024

The report Jennings referred to was one last week. CNN admitted that X represents voters in the U.S. "far better" than ever before.

"The party ID among those who regularly use X/Twitter for news — back in 2022, 65% of those who regularly used Twitter/X for news were Democrats," said the CNN reporter. "Just 31% were Republicans.""Look at where we are today. Just a completely different picture. Now it's basically split between Democrats at 48%, Republicans at 47%."

"Now, this new overall makeup, matches the overall electorate FAR better," he continued. //

Musicman
4 hours ago
Here is the problem with Dems in a nutshell. It would be OK for Bill Gates to own a big media platform because he's "sane." While I am glad that Musk saved free speech from the Left's censorship regime, I am very skeptical of ANY billionaire having that kind of influence. Lord Acton said it best: power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The difference between Dems and us is that they don't understand human nature. We know--correctly--that humans regardless of their politics are frail, weak and often succumb to temptation. That's why we believe in limiting government as much as possible. //

Blue State Deplorable
3 hours ago
Liberals loved Twitter before Musk bought it because it served as their own little echo chamber. Now that it isn’t and they’re encountering pushback from conservative viewpoints, they’re fleeing it for other media and apps. That tells you a lot about liberals and the intellectual heft of their ideas.

mopani Blue State Deplorable
a minute ago
Leftists who lose the argument in the public square don't try to make a better argument or be more convincing, they just go behind the scenes and try to open trapdoors under their opponents. Illuminating about how much they actually believe in their own arguments.

Conservatives try better arguments.

REPORTER: I noticed that when you urge people to action, you often include the word 'peacefully.'

PRESLER: Peacefully

REPORTER: Is that to avoid another Jan 6 type incident?

PRESLER: With all due respect, it's to avoid people like you guys saying that I'm anything but. My motto is to just be super cute, have my data and facts, treat everyone with love and respect, and as you can see, an army of people will follow.

The bias was displayed before the reporter even got the question out of her mouth. Notice that the chyron refers to Presler as a "controversial activist." I'm struggling to determine what is controversial about legally registering people to vote. Is it the reaching out to the Amish part? Or just the fact that it helped Trump win Pennsylvania, which no doubt, CNN finds very controversial? //

I remember when Stacey Abrams, who refused to concede her 2022 election loss to Brian Kemp, was pushing disinformation on voting machines. Her get-out-the-vote organization was also caught up in a scandal, eventually being shut down. Has CNN ever described her as "controversial" in her many appearances on the network? Of course, not.

More than 120 corporate giants have just issued a joint letter putting themselves squarely on the side of patent infringers and against America’s smaller innovative companies.

They present their case in the appealing-sounding language of “disclosure” and “transparency.” But when smaller inventors are in court trying to enforce their lawful patent rights against infringement, the main effect of a sweeping new disclosure requirement would be lengthier proceedings, more expenses, and a big advantage for deep-pocketed infringers.

The letter’s proposal, now under consideration in Congress in draft legislation known as the Litigation Transparency Act, is aimed directly at the ability of such inventors to pay legal bills and other expenses they incur when they go to court to enforce their patents. The legislation would impose a strict disclosure requirement on sources of funding for their lawsuits.

Yet such funding has nothing to do with whether infringement has taken place and, if so, what damages are due. For the sake of smaller inventors who depend heavily on intellectual property rights, this legislation needs to go back to the drawing board.

The letter-writers and Rep. Darrell Issa, the legislation’s author, claim that withholding information about financing is “unfair” and “fundamentally alters the dynamics” of legal cases.

I disagree. Rather, imposing invasive disclosure requirements would reduce or eliminate funding, and therefore, access to justice.

America’s startups and small businesses are facing unprecedented attacks on their intellectual property. Rather than taking the proper steps to legally license patent rights on their product, some wealthy corporations are simply appropriating the patented technologies they want. When caught, they call on their vast financial resources to prolong lawsuits and make them as expensive as possible. In many cases, such tactics have forced startups to surrender or, at best, settle out of court for a fraction of their losses.

Though unfair, the practice is frequently effective. It’s known as “efficient” or “predatory” infringement.

Infringers simply treat any damages they end up paying as a cost of doing business. In fact, predatory infringement is so pervasive that CEOs are willing to boast about it publicly. //

Courts have demonstrated their ability to strike an appropriate balance between transparency and safeguarding privileged information. An invasive mandatory disclosure rule would place small businesses and startups at a disadvantage by revealing their legal strategies and financial resources. Infringers could exploit this information to prolong trials, inundate opponents with motions and challenges to court filings, and launch damaging harassment campaigns against third-party investors.

We as a nation have made great strides in our battle against racism and intolerance, and I would argue that we’ve mostly been successful in that effort. But the “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” movement is not forwarding that goal; in fact, it’s just deepening divisions. //

Anti-woke activist and filmmaker Robby Starbuck, who has been leading a campaign exposing major corporations' woke policies, said on X on Monday that he warned Walmart executives last week that he would be doing a story on "wokeness" at the retail giant.

"Instead," Starbuck shared, "we had productive conversations to find solutions."

Starbuck outlined the changes Walmart agreed to make, including working to remove sexual and transgender products inappropriately marketed toward children and reviewing grants to Pride events to avoid funding sexualized content targeting kids. //

anon-tf71
3 hours ago
No, slavery is not the ultimate evil. It is a symptom of the ultimate evil: not recognizing the humanity of another person. Which is the same thing DIE does today. It was also at the root of Nazism.

anon-zr9w anon-tf71
23 minutes ago
God said that the love of money is the root of all evil. Slavery, including Africans selling Africans of other tribes, and the purchasing of those Africans to do agricultural work as slaves was primarily driven by a profit motive. Searing one's conscience to deny the humanity of another is truly an evil fruit of the love of money. //

reddotbluestate 2 hours ago

To quote Candice Owens, "White people didn't invent slavery. They ENDED it."

Or to quote me, "Nobody in my lineage owned slaves. You were never a slave - so get off my back.". //

anon-beag
4 hours ago edited
Agree with almost everything you said. Yes, slavery was, is and will always be horrific and wrong. But the ultimate evil that pervades our society is something, believe it or not, even worse. And that’s the barbaric and heinous act that has butchered tens of millions of babies—abortion. Somehow the Dems have been on the wrong side of these issues throughout history.

His latest endeavor, "Landman," centers on the oil industry and contrasts the lives of Texas-based tycoons and workers, and one clip is already going viral. Billy Bob Thorton, who plays "Tommy Norris" in the show, lays out the reality of wind turbines and the human need for fossil fuels in a way that will have you fist-pumping. //

TOMMY NORRIS: Do you have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete? Or make that steel and haul this ** out here and put it together with a 450-foot crane? Do you want to guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that ***** thing? Or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan, it won't offset the carbon footprint of making it. And don't get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Telsa battery. //

TOMMY NORRIS: And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don't have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It'd take 30 years if we started tomorrow. And unfortunately for your grandkids, we have a 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure. Our lives depend on it. And hell, it's in everything. That road we came in on. The wheels on every car, including yours. It's in tennis rackets and lipstick, refrigerators and antihistamines, pretty much anything plastic, your cellphone case, artificial heart valves, any kind of clothing that's not made with animal or plant fibers, soap, hand lotion, garbage bags, fishing boats, you name it. Every thing, and you want to know what the kicker is? We're gonna run out of it before we find its replacement. //

I will mention that some people have questioned that last sentence which states "We're gonna run out of it before we find its replacement." Is that true? In a macro sense, sure. Humans will eventually reach a point where they can't get to what is left of the Earth's fossil fuels. With that said, past hysteria surrounding the specific timeline has proven to be false and will likely continue to be proven to be false as more reserves are discovered and newer extraction techniques are developed. //

TOMMY NORRIS: No, the thing that's gonna kill us all is running out before we find an alternative, and believe me, if Exxon thought them things right there were the future, they'd be putting them all over the place. Getting oil out of the ground is the most dangerous job in the world. We don't do it because we like it. We do it because we've run out of options.

For my money, this is the most important part of the clip. No one has more of an incentive to pursue and dominate the market for "renewables" than the oil companies. They also happen to have the most capital to do so.

If the oil companies thought wind turbines or solar panels were a viable alternative to fossil fuels, they'd be first in line to seize the market because, in the end, it's all about sustainability in making money for them. That they aren't is the biggest tell. Yes, Chevron and Exxon dabble in the sector, mostly for public relations reasons, but it's clear they aren't believers. //

DavidW
14 hours ago
If the wind is not blowing hard enough to get the turbines to turn, they have to use electricity (from gas/coal) to turn the blades, otherwise they will warp if they are in one position too long. In the winter they have to use electricity to keep the gear boxes unfrozen (if they are using oil-based gearboxes). AND, while the life of the turbine might be 20 years, the life of the blades are less thanks to the sandpaper effect of dust-laden wind on them. And of course ethanol isn't the miracle either - I read that it can take several gallons of "fossil" fuel (diesel or gas) to create one gallon of ethanol.

Let's hope that Trump can break this cycle of stupidity and get us on the right track toward real energy independence. //

headhunt DavidW
13 hours ago
The amount of water needed to produce ethanol dwarfs what is needed from oil based product.
Huge areas of the Midwest/west have sunk well over 20' all to feed a political, ineffective, fuel additive. //

mopani Geowhiziker
a few minutes ago
Given how essential and useful they are for so many non-fuel products, people in the future will look back on this era with astonishment that we wasted hydrocarbons by burning them. //

mopani Jason A Jones
10 minutes ago
Look at the distribution of the most common elements in the universe: hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon are in the top 5 (H2 is #1 of course).

Assume that this same distribution existed when the earth was formed and the large amounts of hydrogen, oxygen and carbon were trapped inside our planet.

H2+O2 + heat+ pressure = water

H2 + C + heat + pressure= hydrocarbons (not fossil fuel!)

Is being squeezed out of the earth under pressure.

The fuel today with the greatest energy density is nuclear fuel; a chunk of enriched uranium the size of a thumbnail contains as much energy as one ton of coal, 120 gallons of oil, or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas.

So when our nearest neighbor, Canada, has the potential to become the Saudi Arabia of uranium, the United States should sit up and take notice. //

Nuclear power is the energy source of the future. We can't wait for the day when fusion power becomes economically viable, either. America's energy requirements in coming decades will be increasing, not decreasing, and anyone who has looked at the data knows that wind, solar, and other "green" sources won't meet the needs. We need nuclear power, we need reliable, friendly sources of uranium to augment our own production, and we need to streamline the process for approving new reactors.

Educating the public on the benefits of carbon dioxide is the mission of the CO2 Coalition, which I lead. We sponsor speakers and publish scientifically based materials for adults and children. Much of the information is about the role of CO2 as a beneficial greenhouse gas in moderating the extremes between daytime and nighttime temperatures and as a photosynthetic plant food.

“Fossil Fuels Are the Greenest Energy Sources” by Dr. Indur Goklany is an example of our work. Did you know that up to 50% of the globe has experienced an increase in vegetation and that 70% of the greening is attributed to plant fertilization by carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels? Or that nearly 200,000 square kilometers of the southern Sahara have been converted to a lush grassland from desert? //

Below about 150 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric CO2 is not compatible with plant life; in other words, below that level, plants would die, and all animal life, including humans, would follow.

Current CO2 levels are at about 440 ppm, and yes, they are rising, due to several factors. This is leading to the effects that are noted in the work of Dr. Indur Goklany: //

Based on satellite data, Zhu et al. (2016) found that from 1982–2009, 25–50% of global vegetated area had become greener while 4% had become browner. They attributed 70% of the greening to CO2 fertilization from emissions from fossil fuel combustion (which increases photosynthesis and water use efficiency, WUE, of most vegetation), 9% to nitrogen deposition (also from the use of fossil-fuel-derived fertilizers), 8% to climate change, and 4% to land use change. The first three, responsible cumulatively for 87% of the greening, are related to the use of fossil fuels. //

A slight increase in atmospheric CO2 is good for plants, good for human agriculture, and good for greening the Earth. //

anon-2hhh
9 hours ago
I’ve been suspicious of ‘experts’ motives ever since I realized that the scientific solution for the coming ‘Ice Age’ (1970s) and the scientific solution for ‘Global Warming’ was the same;
‘Stop using fossil fuels’. //

Val U Eigen
9 hours ago
There's one more benefit that NO ONE talks about—fewer violent tornadoes. Check this out.

https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html

Break this into 25 year segments, and you'll notice that:
in 1950–1974 we had 33 cat 5 tornadoes.
in 1975–1999 we had 17 cat 5 tornadoes.
in 2000–2024 we had 9 cat 5 tornadoes (and none in the last 11 years.)

This is due to global warming. The explanation comes from the second law of thermodynamics (and it's too complicated to explain here). But the bottom line is that tornadoes are getting weaker.

Cat 4's are getting much less common too, but the data isn't as easy to display. //

Val U Eigen Hoover the Great
9 hours ago
First, global warming mainly warms the coldest places at the coldest times (because the effect is essentially like insulation). So temperature differences are reduced. Technically, it's temperature "gradients" that are reduced. This is not in dispute.

Second, the second law of thermodynamics says that temperature differences, not simply heat, is the energy source for all heat engines. It is impossible to build a device that simply converts heat into energy (that is, gets cold while spitting out electricity or mechanical motion). Otherwise, you could build a refrigerator that produced electricity instead of consumed it.

Because this is a result of the second law of thermodynamics, this is cleverly called perpetual motion of the second kind. This is the complex part that takes a long time to explain. The best way to learn about it is to google perpetual motion of the second kind.

Temperature gradients are the energy source for tornadoes. //

ibt
9 hours ago
The next time your climate change deranged relative talks about CO2, ask, "What is the ideal atmospheric PPM of CO2 for the planet?" Show your work. Then ask what the current PPM is. You can also remind them that 4 times as many people die of cold than of heat related issues so a warmer planet would save lives. That's a "good" thing right? ///

What's the ideal temperature for the planet? Why?

Legal Insurrection readers will recall that in my post on the United Nations climate conference in Azerbaijan this week, its president boldly declared that oil and gas were a ‘gift from God’.

The eco-activists attending the event were enraged.

The climate cultists will likely be working themselves up into even more hysteria because of another climate conference that occurred mid-November in the Czech Republic city of Prague.

The Czech division of the International Climate Intelligence Group (Clintel) organized a two-day climate conference in Prague on November 12-13, 2024, where climate scientists declared that the “climate emergency” is over. The conference concluded with a communiqué drafted by the participating scientists and researchers that targeted the climate hysteria promoted by the United Nations body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which excludes participants and published papers disagreeing with its narrative, fails to comply with its own error-reporting protocol and draws conclusions some of which are dishonest, should be forthwith dismantled.’

Moreover, the scientists at the conference declared that even if all nations moved straight to net zero emissions, by the 2050 target date the world would be only about 0.1 C cooler than with no emissions reduction.

So far, the attempts to mitigate climate change by international agreements such as the Paris Agreement have made no difference to our influence on climate, since nations such as Russia and China, India and Pakistan continue greatly to expand their combustion of coal, oil and gas.

The cost of achieving that 0.1 C reduction in global warming would be $2 quadrillion, equivalent to 20 years’ worldwide gross domestic product.

The declaration has 18 different point referencing climate science and facts that counter the narratives being pushed by the IPCC and those who want to push their green agendas. //

1 The modest increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that has taken place since the end of the Little Ice Age has been net-beneficial to humanity.

2. Foreseeable future increases in greenhouse gases in the air will probably also prove net-beneficial.
3. The rate and amplitude of global warming have been and will continue to be appreciably less than climate scientists have long predicted.
4. The Sun, and not greenhouse gases, has contributed and will continue to contribute the overwhelming majority of global temperature.
5. Geological evidence compellingly suggests that the rate and amplitude of global warming during the industrial era are neither unprecedented nor unusual. //

Though I have to say, #17 is a favorite of mine:

17. Since wind and solar power are costly, intermittent and more environmentally destructive per TWh generated than any other energy source, governments should cease to subsidize or to prioritize them, and should instead expand coal, gas and, above, all nuclear generation.

But, perhaps most importantly, the conference attendees demand the end of persecution of those researchers doing real science who struggle to share their reasonable and reliable findings whenever the data counters the political narratives.

Rusty
@Rusty_Weiss
·
Follow
@billmaher loses his cool trying to get @neiltyson to admit a basic fact - that men have an advantage over women in sports.

8:55 AM · Nov 24, 2024 //

It's unclear if Tyson was able to identify the truck that just ran him over. Maher isn't always right, but when it comes to extreme leftists pushing a woke, anti-women agenda, he definitely gets it.

Scientific American, by contrast, does not. //

Scientific American
@sciam
·
Follow
As the daughter of a cancer researcher, Kamala Harris would bring a lifelong familiarity with science to the presidency, experts say
scientificamerican.com
What a Kamala Harris Presidency Would Mean for Science
9:15 AM · Jul 26, 2024

Bama_Jeans
@bamajayt
·
Follow
Not sure who the hell race-baiting @AyannaPressley thinks she is,demanding that MLKs name not come out of anyone's mouth but her own.
I guarantee MLK would be appalled at her constant attempts to divide the country.
So sick of this crap!
@RepClayHiggins isn't playing
💥💥💥
2:46 / 2:46
10:41 AM · Nov 23, 2024

Rep. Higgins responded forcefully, citing his service, his oath to the Constitution - and that he will continue to cite and quote Dr. King when and where he sees fit. That's the only possible response to a hateful, constitutionally ignorant rant like the one delivered by Rep. Pressley. //

Here is another quote from Dr. King that is illuminating -- probably not to Rep. Pressley, as I doubt she is capable of being illuminated by Dr. King or anyone else -- but just for the record:

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

That's an eloquent statement; darkness vs. light, hate vs. love. Which side of these things does Ayanna Pressley come down on? She is literally ranting at a fellow member of the House of Representatives for quoting someone who wanted his children judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin.

Instead of venturing into radio range of their target, they found another vulnerable network in a building across the street, remotely hacked into a laptop in that neighboring building, and used that computer's antenna to break into the Wi-Fi network of their intended victim—a radio-hacking trick that never even required leaving Russian soil. //

In this newly revealed case from early 2022, Volexity ultimately discovered not only that the Russian hackers had jumped to the target network via Wi-Fi from a different compromised network across the street, but also that this prior breach had also potentially been carried out over Wi-Fi from yet another network in the same building—a kind of “daisy-chaining” of network breaches via Wi-Fi, as Adair describes it.

“This is the first case we’ve worked where you have an attacker that’s extremely far away and essentially broke into other organizations in the US in physical proximity to the intended target, then pivoted over Wi-Fi to get into the target network across the street,” says Adair. “That’s a really interesting attack vector that we haven’t seen before.”. //

The switch to hacking via Wi-Fi from a remotely compromised device rather than physically placing a spy nearby represents a logical next step following the GRU's operational security disaster in 2018, when its hackers were caught in a car in The Hague attempting to hack the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in response to the OPCW's investigation of the attempted assassination of GRU defector Sergei Skripal. In that incident, the APT28 team was arrested and their devices were seized, revealing their travel around the world from Brazil to Malaysia to carry out similar close-access attacks.

“If a target is important enough, they’re willing to send people in person. But you don’t have to do that if you can come up with an alternative like what we’re seeing here,” Hultquist says. “This is potentially a major improvement for those operations, and it’s something we’ll probably see more of—if we haven’t already.”

But they apparently weren't done yet. They hit the trifecta on Friday when they had to, for the third time in a week, read legal notes, and this time, they had to do it four times in a single show. //

Doug Powers
@ThePowersThatBe
·
Follow
“And now a word from our attorneys” has become my favorite daily segment on The View.
Nicholas Fondacaro
@NickFondacaro
Sunny Hostin sighs as she's forced to, for the third time this week, read a legal note about The View's claims against Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth.
Joy Behar then baselessly accuses Hegseth of witness tampering. No legal note was provided for that false claim.
Embedded video
1:52 PM · Nov 22, 2024

The curtains are beginning to close for the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog). The United States Air Force is set to retire 56 in fiscal year 2025 (around 20% of the remaining inventory), reducing the number of A-10s in active service to around 200. Meanwhile, the US Air Force has stated it is about to retire the last of its Warthogs based in South Korea, and these will be replaced by F-16 Fighting Falcons (upgraded with fifth-generation-like software).

Jaguar, what have you done?

I appreciate things have not been easy in recent years. That your once sparkling reputation has been tarnished by poor reliability and a garage full of often average cars. That you’ve been traded from one parent company to another with barely a thought for your brand. And that when you landed at Tata Motors you had to face the ignominy of being outshone by sister brand Land Rover. For every Jaguar sold last year they shifted six.

He predicted, “That ratio will disappear completely next year, when Jaguar stops producing or selling anything. For the next 12 months, perhaps longer, the company will make nothing but headlines.”

“Jaguar has rebranded when it needed to revitalize,” Ritson explained. “Jaguar’s bizarre new campaign marks a complete overhaul of its positioning, when instead it should have celebrated and updated what once made it great.”

But, according to Ritson, “Jaguar no longer cares about retaining its current customer base. … The company expects to retain only 10% to 15% of its current customer base. Jaguar will shift its targeting to younger, wealthier, more urban shoppers that the company describes as ‘design-minded’ and ‘cash-rich, time-poor.’”.

Since 2005, one spot in particular — the Solfatara crater — has been releasing increased volumes of gas, catching the attention of researchers and locals alike. //

Even without a major eruption, the Solfatara crater outs out between 4,000 and 5,000 tons of carbon dioxide each and each day. That's roughly the equivalent of burning half a million gallons of gasoline - every day.

Create QR Codes & Shortcuts

Random US Citizen an hour ago edited

Art is not subjective. That is a post-modern effort to deconstruct the idea of beauty. While there may be differences of opinion about the relative merit of particular pieces of art, anyone with the sense God gave a gnat knows that Mona Lisa is beautiful art, and a banana duct-taped to a piece of art board is not. Blue Boy is beautiful art, Pollocks' random spatters of paint on a canvas is not. Ansel Adams' Yosemite Park is a beautiful photograph, Rhein II is not.

Pretending otherwise is a surrender to the "fat is beautiful" crowd an their efforts to twist both reality and perception. //

bintexas Random US Citizen 32 minutes ago

What about Rubens? Is his art beautiful because it is ethereal or ugly because his interpretation of the female form wasnt svelte?

We believe Mona Lisa is beautiful because we have been conditioned to believe it. I am visiting the Louvre next month and will stand in a long line to take my turn gawking at it because it is just something the Western society has decided we must do. I dont know who decided this, I dont think she is particularly pretty.

I love the French Impressionists. The light and color makes me happy. But, a lot of ppl think it is cliché and I am simplistic in my taste.

Art like beauty absolutely is subjective. If there were only one standard, a whole lot of people would be eternally lonely or dead fighting for the few “perfect” specimens. //

Sam F. Jackson's favorite wor Random US Citizen 34 minutes ago

"Post-modern" and "deconstruction" are made up terms to sound fancy by the kernoozers.

Art and it's appeal should not require long-winded explanations.