Hasta La Gadget!

Meet CreepyFig. This is the nightmare fuel creation of special effects artist Frank Ippolito teaming up with Tested. CreepyFig is a lifelike LEGO minifig mask and hands. I say lifelike. I mean demented and wrong on every level. Yes, this is a minifig with what looks like human skin. I’m sorry I saw this. You will be too.

Ippolito wore the mask and hands to interact with people on the floor of San Diego Comic-Con. Those people did not sleep that night, I guarantee it. Norman Chan says that Tested will be releasing a series of videos that detail the elaborate build.

Great, so that means other people are going to build their own. Those eyes. That mouth. Kill it with fire! Then send the ashes into the sun.

[via Laughing Squid]

Today on In Case You Missed It: Lockheed Martin is unveiling a new hybrid airship in a couple years (a la Hindenburg) but is first addressing any potential tears in the hull by creating magnetic robots they call spiders, which can crawl over the…

When the original OnePlus smartphone hit the market a couple of years ago, it certainly made a splash for itself for the invite system in which it was ‘sold’, as well as the kind of hardware specifications that come with it that caused you to carve out a big smile on your face, since you got plenty of bang for your hard earned buck. Well, fast forward a couple of years later, this latest flagship killer of a smartphone is now in its third iteration, and the OnePlus 3 is all set to light the stage with the Soft Gold Luxury Edition that will keep the vanilla Graphite version company.

This latest color variant would mean that you will now be able to tote around the OnePlus 3 in style while your friends whip out their respective Rose Gold colored handsets from their pockets. It is not the standard gaudy gold smartphone, this, as the color itself has been toned down for a light, elegant look. Apart from that, OnePlus wants to complement this more low-profile take on gold, by going ahead with a subtle texture reminiscent of holding fine, silky-soft sand. Just drooling over the images and press shots will not be enough, as you would do well to experience the OnePlus 3 Soft Gold for yourself.

If you are wondering just how you will be able to get hold of the new OnePlus 3 in a shade of Soft Gold, then those living in the US are already able to enjoy it from July 26 onward via an online order. As for the other regions around the world — meaning Europe, Hong Kong and Canada, you can pick it up from August 1 onward.

As for the hardware specifications underneath the hood, you will find that the Soft Gold version of this flagship device will carry the very same innards, so you need not have to fret over its performance (or lack of it). Best of all is, it is touted to retail for the same price point, too.

Press Release
[ OnePlus 3 now arrives in Soft Gold Luxury Edition copyright by Coolest Gadgets ]

As the 2016 Democratic National Convention draws to a close tonight in Philadelphia, the Democracy Movement–a new fusion of campaign finance reformers, voting rights defenders, and advocates of good government and transparency–finally have real reasons to celebrate.

Since April, when more than 150 Democracy Spring marchers made a 140-mile trek from Philadelphia to Washington DC where they were joined by thousands more in record-setting mass arrests and demonstrations at the US Capitol, there has been a sea change in the chances of passing meaningful democracy reforms.

The shift started when just over 100 members of Congress responded to Democracy Spring’s actions and called for hearings on a modest set of reform bills proposed by the movement. At the time, the Democracy Movement saw this as a huge win in and of itself.

Over just a few short months, these issues jumped from the back bench into prime time. Now Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and other leading Democrats finally put these reforms front and center–even reaching across the aisle to reform-minded Republicans and Independents.

“Because as Bernie has said: This isn’t a progressive issue. It’s not a conservative issue. It’s an American issue,” Clinton remarked as she accepted the endorsement of her rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders.

Moreover, Clinton–with the support of the Democratic House leadership–has now pledged to take up a robust package of reforms in her first days in office. This legislative package would not only create a real small-donor-fueled public financing system and start the process to overturn Citizens United but it would also restore the Voting Rights Act and enact automatic voter registration. She has also pledged to sign an executive order shedding light on dark money–something for which reformers have been pushing Obama for years.

These are unprecedented commitments from a candidate running for the presidency.

If this wasn’t enough, shortly after Clinton’s announcement, the Democratic Party followed suit, including a comprehensive democracy reform plan in its official platform. The section, entitled “Protect Voting Rights, Fix Our Campaign Finance System, and Restore Our Democracy,” features voting rights and money in politics commitments that will make even the most cynical activist smile and represents the cherry on top of what is by far the most progressive Democratic Platform ever proposed.

But, wait there’s more: in a stunning show of commitment to further intra-party improvements, the Clinton and Bernie Sanders camps agreed just days ago to form a Unity Reform Commission made up of a co-chair from each campaign–nine reps from the Clinton camp, seven reps from the Sanders camp and three people appointed by the DNC. This commission will be tasked with the abolition of up to two-thirds of superdelegates in the Democratic primary process and an overhaul of the caucus system, both democratic reforms insisted upon by Sanders’ supporters.

Many younger activists may not remember that anger over superdelegates is nothing new; it played a major role in the 2008 primaries, but went nowhere. So this year’s action on reforming the superdelegate system should truly be cause for celebration.

Although these are only steps in a longer journey to free our elections from big money’s grip, they nonetheless advance the movement for a better and more representational democracy, putting our country ever closer to finally achieving political equality. And they prove that if we make our voices heard, politicians will listen (and this is without even taking into account the recent resignation of DNC Chair Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz).

Because this is an election season, however, voters need to do more than just protest. Even if the choices may not be perfect, in November we must cast votes. And in this election–especially after taking into account the developments of the last three months–the choice is strikingly clear.

Given the public commitment of the Democratic Party and its candidate for president to a true reform agenda, the entire Democracy Movement–from the most hardcore Berner to the most centrist technocrat, from the Democracy Spring purists to the many reform-minded Republicans and conservative Independents–must now throw its weight behind Clinton in the 2016 election.

For voters committed to addressing the roots of a rigged system, supporting Trump, directly or indirectly, should be out of the question. Indeed, he decries special interests in politics, but Trump has never once presented a plan to fight big money. The GOP candidate appears much more concerned with race-baiting and fear mongering than citizen equality.

Furthermore, Trump’s reasoning that self financing proves he “can’t be bought” has huge logical holes. For one, the GOP candidate has already reneged on his commitment to avoid big money, actively soliciting funds from billionaire donors. And, funny enough, his relationship with billionaire Sheldon Adelson–the man for whose relationship he called Marco Rubio “a perfect little puppet“–seems to have mended, at least now that Adelson’s pocketbook has opened up.

Plus, self-financing does nothing to erase apparent conflicts of interest. How can Trump act for the American people when his financial self interest lies in the well being of his own financial empire? Half the problem with the current way we fund campaigns is the so-called “Money Primary,” which makes the barriers to running so high that it keeps most average Americans from being able to even contemplate running for office. Trump has never been in a position where he could understand this.

Some might point to Clinton’s large war chest of campaign money as worrisome. But given the current rules of the game, our standard cannot be for her to stop accepting large money, thereby risking defeat, but rather to publicly pledge to change the system immediately upon taking office–which she has done.

We understand why many Sanders supporters on the streets of Philadelphia are making their grievances heard. However, at this stage, our biggest hope is to unite, get Clinton elected and hold her feet to the fire, pushing her on her campaign commitment to act immediately on wide-ranging democracy reforms.

We celebrate all those who have worked so hard to get us this far. Now we must defeat Donald Trump in November, elect those to Congress who commit to reform, and then get to work to make it happen. For the sake of our democracy itself, there is no other choice.

Peter James Callahan is a journalist and media consultant. He is the former Communications Director for Democracy Spring and has also worked as a producer for The Huffington Post. You can find him on Twitter @PJC_dc.

Adam Eichen is a member of the Democracy Matters Board of Directors and a Maguire Fellow at the French research institute Sciences Po, doing research on comparative campaign finance policy. He is also a Democracy Fellow at the Small Planet Institute, where he is working on a book on democracy with founder Frances Moore Lappé. He served as the Deputy Communications Director for Democracy Spring. Follow him on Twitter: @eichendoit.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

There is a specter haunting the Western world. It isn’t an ideology. It isn’t a well-defined social or political agenda. It is emotion.

The fear and anger of those who feel most aggrieved by rapid, uncontrollable change are redefining the political landscape. These emotions are being exploited by politicians peddling mournful nostalgia and narratives of a lost identity. As globalization marches forward, along with seismic demographic shifts in the developed world, the seductive pull to look backward and inward will intensify, with unfortunate consequences for our politics and social order. Indeed, we are already seeing this play out in the United States and Britain.

Twenty years ago, foreign policy writer Robert D. Kaplan warned of the social and political challenges that large numbers of bored, unemployed young men posed to social order in the Middle East. Today, in the West, one might point to the challenges that nostalgic middle-aged workers and aging retirees are posing to social cohesion in our societies.

Many are longing for a past when the country was less diverse.

At first glance, it’s hard to think of nostalgia as a negative — or even a political — force. What’s wrong with a little wistful desire to return to the comforts of yesteryear? But the politics of nostalgia generally amount to more than just missing the old neighborhood or one’s late grandmother. Many are longing for a past when the country was less diverse, communities were more homogenous and self-contained and your immediate surroundings largely defined your experience of the world. This nostalgia invariably suggests a longing for a level of social cohesion that is often tied to cultural or ethnic identity. Over the same period, the fortunes of many of these communities have also declined, particularly in the Rust Belts of the world. This economic decline, coupled with ongoing demographic diversification, has made it easy for politicians to connect these unrelated dots — particularly among less educated voters.

The politics of nostalgia and identity played an outsize role in the Brexit vote last month in Britain. The Leave campaign’s rhetorical appeals to recapture the glories of the imperial past were so strong that, as British historian Philippa Levine put it, you could practically hear the strains of “Rule, Britannia!” in the background. It’s not news that in certain sectors, national pride in Britain has long rested on misty-eyed memories of the imperial past, but the Leave campaign also relied on notions of an insular, narrow British identity and overt rejection of migrants.

Nostalgia isn’t the province of any one group or race, but it seems to most afflict those with a heightened sense that circumstances are changing beyond their control and often against their entrenched interests. In Britain, 61 percent of voters over the age of 65 voted to leave the European Union while 75 percent of voters under the age of 24 voted to remain. Two-thirds of voters with only a high school education voted to leave, while 71 percent of voters with advanced degrees voted to remain.

Nostalgia-driven movements are assertions of whom its followers stand against.

The fact that 81 percent of surveyed Leave voters said they saw multiculturalism as a “force for ill” highlights the strong link between nostalgia and identity. The other link, of course, is blame.

In the United States, real estate mogul Donald Trump’s campaign to “make America great again” makes an even more explicit appeal to nostalgia and draws distinct, overt lines around preferred religion and race. Trump isn’t selling the image of a better future as much as he is offering an illusion of what may or may not have once been. He hearkens back to a past in which white Americans largely enjoyed unchallenged economic and cultural dominance. While it isn’t exactly clear what era he’s nostalgic for, Trump’s campaign overtly relies on rhetoric and imagery designed to appeal to white, Christian America. From blanket accusations against Mexicans, to banning Muslims and singling out Christian Americans as deserving of respect and protection, he is constantly delineating who belongs and who doesn’t in his great America.

The late Russian-born novelist and playwright Svetlana Boym made a distinction between two types of nostalgia — reflective and restorative. While the former tends to be wistful and dreamy (think of Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America”), the latter, which lies at the core of many modern national and religious revival movements, is deadly serious.

Trump’s rhetoric of restoration is clearly more focused on dealing with enemies than it is on building the intrinsic capacity of the people whose greatness he says he hopes to reclaim.

Restorative nostalgia has two essential plot lines, the first being the return to a hallowed past and the second being the conspiracies that explain why that past was lost. As such, these nostalgic movements come to be more about the pursuit of scapegoats than they are about recapturing any sort of lost era. Rather than affirming what adherents stand for, nostalgia-driven movements are generally assertions of whom its followers stand against.

Of course, Trump’s politics of nostalgia certainly has a cast of villains, including Mexicans, Muslims, China and Japan. His rhetoric of restoration is clearly more focused on dealing with enemies — both within and outside America’s borders — than it is on inspiring or building the intrinsic capacity of the people whose greatness he says he hopes to reclaim.

If the politics of nostalgia exploits fears of racial displacement in a globalizing world, the solution to it, perhaps ironically, would seem to be the creation of more robust, inclusive national identities. The mass global migration of the past two generations, combined with the globalization of the economy, has left large segments of the once unchallenged majority populations in Britain and the U.S. feeling vulnerable. And if there’s one thing the rise of the politics of nostalgia should teach us, it’s that while not all groups are equally powerful, we are all minorities now.

Earlier on WorldPost:

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.