Your video, Woman paints fence neon colors after neighbor complains..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Really? I thought the outrage was about denying the black man Golf ownership and sending him to a "little colony" (the name of the store he's flicked into)....
....but no, it's about the tag line fading in and for one instant as the tag line fades in the letters "erneg" are on screen, which people have rearranged to spell "neger"...a bit of a stretch. Also the hand pre-flick is said to be the white power sign, but not every thumb touching an index finger is a sign of racial hatred.

If you look for and expect racism in everything, you'll find it in everything....often including where it isn't. That's a self reinforcing circle that eventually paints the entire world as racist.

Edit : Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity (or incompetence). - Hanlon's razor

Your video, The guy they ought to get to paint roman statues., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Well, being bald I can't dye my own. ;-)

I think I probably learned it when looking at house paint colors. Not my cup of tea, but I suppose it's a better color than puce.

Marble is translucent, the same as human skin. When they cover marble they lose all the the inner refractions, and it ends up looking like cheap plastic.

I'm not saying the statues weren't painted, but art historians ought to at least try truculent paints.

Your video, This Painting Captures a Disturbing Truth about the History, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I believe your typical American, no matter their political persuasion, cares about his fellow American. I'm sure you agree that trying to paint either side as demons who don't care is nonsense.

People shouldn't care about what type of guns or the number of guns - there seems to be no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates in the USA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state#/media/File:Gun_Ownership_Related_to_Gun_Violence_by_State_(United_States).sv
g

(the line of best fit would have a positive slope if there was a correlation)

There is a correlation between weapon type and firearm murder - pistols (of all sorts) account for approximately 89% of all firearm murders (where a firearm type is specified in the police report). Rifles (of all sorts) are about 5%. Shotguns (of all sorts) are about 3%.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

This wiki has better data than you presented - you can isolate gun violence from other violence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

"Odd, you seem to be saying you're afraid of the violent, gun toting democrats who are 99% more ready and better armed for violent political civil war than Republicans....but you also claim Republicans have all the guns and are better shots and ready to go.....which is it?"

The data says that Republican voters (or those that lean that way) have a firearm ownership rate of double that of Democrats.

If the majority of terrorist attacks in the USA are by right wing terrorists as you suggest, then it seems odd you'd say in the same breath that the left are ready for violent political civil war. If they have less arms and less willingness to engage in violence (which I actually believe is a good thing) then they are hardly "99% more ready and better armed".

The military voted Republican at about twice the rate of voting Democrat at the last election. So the left doesn't have that going for them either.

You asked at least 3 questions and all fo them very much leading questions.

To the first 2, my response is that it's only the extremely fortunate few that have the kind of financial security and freedom to make those adjustments, so lucky for them.

Your last question is:
do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

Your question demands as part of it's base assumption that fossil fuels are inherently immoral or something and customers are clearly the victims. I reject that.

The entirety of the modern western world stands atop the usage of fossil fuels. If we cut ALL fossil fuel usage out tomorrow, mass global starvation would follow within a year, very nasty wars would rapidly follow that.

The massive gains in agricultural production we've seen over the last 100 years is extremely dependent on fossil fuels. Most importantly for efficiency in equipment run on fossil fuels, but also importantly on fertilizers produced by fossil fuels. Alternatives to that over the last 100 years did not exist. If you think Stalin and Mao's mass starvations were ugly, just know that the disruptions they made to agriculture were less severe than the gain/loss represented by fossil fuels.

All that is to state that simply saying don't use them because the future consequences are bad is extremely naive. The amount of future harm you must prove is coming is enormous, and the scientific community as represented by the IPCC hasn't even painted a worst case scenario so catastrophic.

What say you to those who grow their own food, produce their own power with microhydro, solar, and or wind, (or only buy renewable energy, possible in California) and drive electric vehicles or bicycles when they drive?

What about those who still pollute, but offset their carbon usage by buying credits/planting trees?

Can they blame the problem on the companies who supply destructive products and the junk science that tricks gullible ignoramuses into believing they aren't destructive...or do those companies get to continue to abdicate their responsibility, pawning it off on their customers?

I mean, your position seems to be if you assholes wouldn't buy the lead painted products, we wouldn't be selling it to toy companies and producing studies claiming it's safe....so it's your fault your child is brain damaged....or the same argument over opioids, your fault you listened to your doctor and got addicted, then turned to heroin, not your doctor who told you the pills weren't addictive, certainly not the drug company who told your doctor they were safe, right?
Fortunately, courts don't think that way, just ask Johnson and Johnson.

Yes, customers bear some responsibility for what they buy, but not nearly as much as the sellers, especially true when the sellers advertise by lying about the dangers. When companies lie about their products dangers, they make themselves 100% responsible for their damages.

I think the Smithsonian will eventually sell prints and books, but I doubt they will ever sell off any of the paintings - Museums collect - they don't sell their exhibits.

As far as videos go, Sorry man, this is duller than watching paint dry....

wow, if they could reliably reproduce these air pockets then paint tennis courts with round dots to mark them, it would make a really interesting "extreme tennis" match.

Religion needs love.
Love doesn't need religion.

God needs love.
Love doesn't need God.

----------------------

Create.

cre·ate
/krēˈāt/

verb

bring (something) into existence.
"he created a thirty-acre lake"

synonyms: generate, produce, design, make, fabricate, fashion, manufacture, build, construct, erect, do, turn out;

----------------------
Job Description of an Artist. Fine artists use different techniques to create art, such as weaving, painting, glass blowing, or sculpting. They strive to develop new methods or ideas for making art. ... Only the most successful fine artist is able to support themselves from their art work.

"The bleeding hearts and artists
Make their stand" -Pink Floyd