A company plans to track people on streets all around the world by facial recognition.

The article mentions secondary ways this could be used to oppress and mistreat people, by stalkers and foreign governments. It tiptoes around the biggest threats: that companies and your own government could do this.

My recommendations would make this system's operation illegal.

Many museums are changing to expose children to new kinds of joy via learning and exploring,

However, I am not taken with the child's idea that "objects have rights"; it seems to be an instance of the childish mistake of personifying everything.

Objects cannot have rights because they are unable to exercise any rights. To do that requires feelings, wishes, preferences, and a way to express them. If we can ever make objects which have those faculties, such as are familiar in science fiction, they might deserve to be considered persons — but they don't exist now.

This is an instance of a gratuitous conceptual rigidity, according to which the only way to conclude that a non-person ought to be protected somehow is to say it has rights. Thus, we can't simply protect a river from pollution, we would have to say the river "has rights."

Experience shows that laws against polluting rivers will do the job, given political will to uphold them. Absent that will, defining that protection as "rights of rivers" won't help much; governments that don't value justice often allow the rights of human beings to be trampled.

Scientists at the Environmental Poisoning Agency say that the Republican officials at the top have excluded them from the process of developing new rules to facilitate poisoning the US.

I wish that statement were satire, but it is true.

The Tory victory is rapidly increasing the price of housing. Rich people now feel secure that they will be able to exploit the poor with high rents.

*Big oil is the new big tobacco. Congress must use its power to investigate.*