Incredible animal eyes
This is your chance to look straight into the incredible eyes of ten types of animals. Thanks to "Jill" for this link.
This is your chance to look straight into the incredible eyes of ten types of animals. Thanks to "Jill" for this link.
At the recent True Spin Conference in Denver, I attended a session titled "How to Create Media-Friendly Imagery," presented by Jason Salzman, who is the co-founder of Effect Communications, and the author of Making The News: a Guide for Activists and Nonprofits (1998). Salzman was also instrumental in putting together the True Spin Conference. Salzman began his session with the idea that television is still the dominant news source for national and international news, according to a 2008 Pew survey. It is an undeniable fact that you need visual imagery to get your story onto the TV news. Visual imagery is also important for getting your story into local newspapers, another news source for many people. Maybe you're thinking that newspapers and television stations should simply be reporting on important stories, whether or not there is an accompanying clever visual image. That's a nice idea that doesn't happen in the real world. You absolutely need to decorate your stories with creative visuals, or else your stories will be invisible to local media. As Salzman says, "This is often ridiculous stuff, but it works." He presented the conference gathering with a long list of types of visual imagery. He added, "When you see some of these things, you might think they are juvenile or stupid, but they really work. As long as your imagery is on message, it's good." Now I know that some of you probably are still thinking that you're not going to sell out-- you would rather be dignified than be accused of being silly or desperate to get coverage for your important issue. Salzman encouraged the audience members to get over their inhibitions, however. "Stunts can be worthwhile. People forget the source, but they remember the message." What kinds of visual imagery seem to catch the attention of the local news media so that you can get your story some real attention? I will walk through Jason's list of seventeen media-imagery techniques, one-by-one. He has graciously allowed me to reprint some of his slides to illustrate these ideas (using these images makes sense, of course, given the topic). 1. Costumes. Salzman stated that costumes are the "oldest and best" use of imagery available. By dressing up as a giant pea pod, he was successful in gaining considerable media attention while making the point that George W. Bush and John McCain were "two peas in a pod." As you can see, he wore his pea pod costume at his session. As another of many examples, Salzman described how mobs of cameras once gathered around real pigs that were part of a protest of pork barrel projects. A member of the audience asked whether it would be better to surprise the media by suddenly pulling out the costume, but Salzman strenuously disagreed. "Don't surprise the media. Tell the media you'll be there [dressed up in your costume]." Members of the media love stories with images. "Tell them you'll be there and tell them how you'll be dressed. This will dramatically increase your odds of showing up on the news." 2. Dramatize a Phrase. Salzman pointed to an example of a huge "budget pie," to illustrate a story that one-half of discretionary spending went to the military. 3. Banners. If the timing is right, banners can work beautifully. Let the cameras pan those big banners! He gave the example of the New York garbage barge (at left). [More . . . ]
These thirty stories about animal sex are stranger than fiction. I had heard of many of these stories before, but hadn't known about all of these stories featured at "Neatorama." I found this site looking for a video of porcupines having sex--I heard porcupine sex described by psychologist John Gottman tonight and I wanted to see it for myself. If anyone locates a video of porcupines having sex, do share! I've seen videos of some of these thirty stories featured on David Attenborough's nature documentaries. And I had previously seen a spectacular video of two flatworms mating on the video "The Shape of Life." In fact, I found a another video of flatworms mating in the video below (as well as the mating of other invertebrates including sponges (sponges are animals!), jellies and horseshoe crabs--you'll see the hermaphroditic flatworms double-penis-fencing at the 4:30 mark--the one who loses this battle has to be pregnant): But back to the site featuring the 30 most unusual animal sex stories . . . I had never before seen the video of the moonwalking manakin, which made me chuckle. The clownfish story was ironic in light of Disney's Nemo. The detachable penis of the nautilus probably wins the day. But there are so many worthy contenders for most bizarre animal sex . . . I'm glad that this website includes links to the sources of most of the stories because some of them are quite difficult to believe. But then again those other species would probably think it bizarre the way we humans display our sexuality and mate. It's probably a matter of perspective. Truly, all of these stories are stranger than fiction. Amazing.
A group of scientists has now suggested that laughing can be detected in mammalian species as simple as rats. This discussion of laughing animals is discussed at Alan Boyle's blog at MSNBC:
How do you graph the evolution of a laugh? Researchers tickled babies and six different kinds of apes, quantified their giggles, and found that the patterns fit a classic evolutionary tree.
Those patterns hint at the ancient origins of human hilarity and suggest that other social species - including apes, dogs and rats - really, truly laugh as well.
Or check out a laughing gorilla here. Why do we laugh? Mostly, we laugh at things that are not funny. See here, for more information on the psychology of laughing.I have written numerous posts advocating that because humans are animals they should be recognized as such (for example, see here , here, here , and here). For zoologists and others who study animals, it is obviously true that we are animals. We do hundreds of things that the other mammals do, plus a few extra. You can see it every day when you eat, breathe, emote, poop, become fatigued and fall asleep. Yet millions of Americans are horrified by the thought that human beings are animals. Consider that we aren’t simply animals. Our species is a carefully defined type of animal. We are apes. Frans de Waal explains:
Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough . . . We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.
If you want even more detail on what type of animal humans are (we are in the ape sub-division of primates), watch this brisk video by Aron-ra. Again, this sort of information is really disturbing to many people, especially religious conservatives. So why don't I simply leave religious conservatives alone? Why do I persist on standing on rooftops and proclaiming this message that humans are animals? Why don't I just whisper this sort of information only to my closest of friends: "Pssst. Human beings are animals." Why don't I just let it be, and keep it all to myself? What could possibly be at stake that I feel compelled to spread the word that human beings are animals? I was in the process of assembling my own list when I just happened to read Chapter 12 of Mark Johnson's new book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Johnson is well known for his work with metaphors and embodied cognition with George Lakoff. Chapter 12 of his new book contains a section that leaped out at me: "The Philosophical Implications of the Embodied Mind." In that short section, Johnson sets forth nine reasons why it really and truly matters for people to acknowledge that they are animals and to fully accept that their minds are embodied, not free-floating entities independent of physical laws. Johnson's biggest target is the "objectivist theory of meaning," the idea that meaning "gets defined without any connection to the experience of the creature (i.e., the human) for whom the words are meaningful. Johnson points out that those who follow the objectivist theory of meaning believe that words and sentences somehow "carry" meaning without even trying to explain how words and sentences ever come to acquire meaning. It should send up immediate red flags that the predominate theory of meaning relies on floating thoughts, a theory of meaning that is not biologically anchored. Reacting to (and rejecting) this objectivist approach, Mark Johnson premises his analysis "with a mind that is not separate from or out-of-ongoing-contact with its body and its world." His worldview includes a specific definition of body and his impressive list of why it matters for human beings to take seriously "the embodiment of mind and meaning." Here are those reasons (I will be borrowing liberally from Johnson's book with these descriptions, beginning at page 279):