So called 'global warming' is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independant, clean our air and water, improve the fuel effeciency of our vehicles, kick-start the twenty-first-century industries, and make our cities safer and more livable. Don't let them get away with it!Chip Giller, Cofounder of Grist.org
This is a well-executed prank: And here are dozens more. I would love the job of conducting high-quality pranks. I'd never tire of it.
For at least the past ten years American Presidents, including Barack Obama, have been not-declaring their wars, including their secret wars. What's wrong with this situation? Glenn Greenwald quotes none other than Abe Lincoln:
There are few things more dangerous in a democracy than allowing a President to wage secret wars without the knowledge of the country. I’ll permit Abraham Lincoln — not exactly a pacifistic worshipper of legalisms and restraints on Executive power — to explain why this is so, in an 1848 letter to a proponent of unrestrained presidential warmaking powers:Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, I see no probability of the British invading us but he will say to you be silent; I see it, if you dont. The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.
Morgan Freeman doesn't want a Black History Month because "Black History is American History." On Sixty Minutes, Mike Wallace asked Freeman how we could solve America's race problem? Freeman's answer: "Stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man, and I'm going to ask you to stop calling me a black man." I like this approach immensely, since there is no scientific basis for "race." I also offer a slightly different suggestion: All of us should acknowledge that we are all from Africa. Whenever people ask me about my ancestors, I tell I'm "African," because it is true, despite my outward appearance.
Specialists in race, both geneticists and anthropologists, maintain that modern ideas of race are . . . primarily historical constructions that reflect the pattern of contact between previously distinct populations in the colonial period.
Given recent findings, though, I shouldn't merely say that I'm "African." I should add, "With a touch of Neanderthal." And I should add one more thing to be even more accurate: I'm a descendant of many other critters, including sponges, fungi and bacteria. It's amazing how so many of us still put any emphasis on "race." It's time to admit that it was a ridiculous category to create in the first place, and that it has caused only mischief ever since. The characteristics associated with "race" are a infinitesimally small part of what it means to be a physical human being. It's time to bring our culture in line with our physical reality.
"How do our computers see us?"
"Maybe if we could see what our computer sees, we would stare differently."
Here's a fascinating article by Kyle McDonald at Wired: "When Art, Apple and the Secret Service Collide: ‘People Staring at Computers.'" McDonald secretly loaded up his custom-made app onto numerous computers displayed at a Manhattan Apple store in order to create an art project. He was fascinated with the expressionless faces displayed while people use computers. McDonald is a programmer, and using his automated app, he gathered faces of Apple customers (check out the video he created based on people staring at their computers). Eventually, Apple figured out what McDonald had done. Next came the knock on McDonald's door by the U.S. Electronic Crimes Task Force, and a lot of inconvenience. What started out as an art project expanded to include a discussion of privacy and snooping, including corporate and government snooping. What did people think of his project? Here are a few of the hundreds of comments he received:Interesting how he as able to capture a truly expressionless face. It made me think about how too much computer time may make us retract from social interactions. Weird .
Facial expressions are partially reflexive but partially social. It’s not a surprise that expressions get bland when there is no one around to non-verbally communicate with.
We ARE social animals and we can only guess at the long term effect of computers on our species.
I like the idea of “how does a computer sees you” any Asimov reader would daydream after such sentence.
McDonald has written a long article, but it's extremely thoroughly engaging throughout. Also consider McDonald's work on Blind Self-Portraits. And here's a somewhat startling piece called "Face Substitution." Here is McDonald's website.