Calling “hero” everyone killed in war, no matter the circumstances of their death, not only helps sustain the ethos of martial glory that keeps young men and women signing up to kill and die for the state, no matter the justice of the cause, but also saps the word of meaning, dishonouring the men and women of exceptional courage and valour actually worthy of the title. Political correctness: Hero inflation ☀

Video game and porn addictions are different. They are “arousal addictions,” where the attraction is in the novelty, the variety or the surprise factor of the content. Sameness is soon habituated; newness heightens excitement. In traditional drug arousal, conversely, addicts want more of the same cocaine or heroin or favorite food.
The consequences could be dramatic: The excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment.
/em skeptical — while porn addiction is problematic, and certainly, being a catass is a “severely” unhealthy track to motor along, I do not think every young adult male that plays video games ends up a violent sociopath. ;(

Our public discourse is such that anyone can find him or herself viciously denounced by complete strangers based on a single sound-byte from which everyone extrapolates wildly. In Defense of Chris Hayes ☀

Weibo users’ conduct will be enforced with a points system (yep, they just gamified censorship) wherein you lose points for posting rumors or criticisms and earn points for, say, verifying your own identity. If you get down to zero points, your Weibo account gets terminated. You think terms of service are tricky? Check out this Chinese ‘code of conduct’ ☀

The mysterious fall of the largest of the world’s earliest urban civilizations nearly 4,000 years ago in what is now India, Pakistan, Nepal and Bangladesh now appears to have a key culprit — ancient climate change, researchers say.

The social control problem of the 1970s was decidedly different. It was as much if not more Northern and Southern, it was as much if not more urban than agrarian – indeed the urban race riots of the late 1960s and early 70s were a key precipitating event, alongside racial mutinies on the front lines of Vietnam, the rise of the Black Panthers, and the civil rights struggle. But in the background, the key political-economic shift was not from slave to proletariat, but from proletariat to lumpenproletariat. The flight of middle class blacks from desegregating inner cities, deindustrialization, the loss of jobs in the North, and increasingly concentrated urban unemployment among black males produced a surplus labor population. The role of the criminal justice system in this context was to police an underclass, not make workers out of slaves. And it became increasingly so as other, more benign, modes of social control – like welfare, public housing – sputtered. This new carceral regime invovled the state taking on direct responsibility for control of a population now that it lacked a strong tie to economic life. And it did so by criminalizing one of its few economic activities: drugs. The war on drugs was the pivotal instrument for introducing this new form of social control. It not only massively increased the prison population, but subjected them, and urban black communities more widely, to the continual supervision of public coercive authority. The Political Economy of Mass Incarceration ☀

Since 9/11, USSOCOM’s budget has quadrupled. The special operations order of battle has expanded accordingly. At present, there are an estimated 66,000 uniformed and civilian personnel on the rolls, a doubling in size since 2001 with further growth projected. Yet this expansion had already begun under Obama’s predecessor. His essential contribution has been to broaden the special ops mandate. As one observer put it, the Obama White House let Special Operations Command “off the leash.”
As a consequence, USSOCOM assets today go more places and undertake more missions while enjoying greater freedom of action than ever before. After a decade in which Iraq and Afghanistan absorbed the lion’s share of the attention, hitherto neglected swaths of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are receiving greater scrutiny. Already operating in dozens of countries around the world – as many as 120 by the end of this year — special operators engage in activities that range from reconnaissance and counterterrorism to humanitarian assistance and “direct action.” The traditional motto of the Army special forces is “De Oppresso Liber” (“To Free the Oppressed”). A more apt slogan for special operations forces as a whole might be “Coming soon to a Third World country near you!”
The displacement of conventional forces by special operations forces as the preferred U.S. military instrument — the “force of choice” according to the head of USSOCOM, Admiral William McRaven — marks the completion of a decades-long cultural repositioning of the American soldier. The G.I., once represented by the likes of cartoonist Bill Mauldin’s iconic Willie and Joe, is no more, his place taken by today’s elite warrior professional. Mauldin’s creations were heroes, but not superheroes. The nameless, lionized SEALs who killed Osama bin Laden are flesh-and blood Avengers. Willie and Joe were “us.” SEALs are anything but “us.” They occupy a pedestal well above mere mortals. Couch potato America stands in awe of their skill and bravery.
This cultural transformation has important political implications. It represents the ultimate manifestation of the abyss now separating the military and society. Nominally bemoaned by some, including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, this civilian-military gap has only grown over the course of decades and is now widely accepted as the norm. As one consequence, the American people have forfeited owner’s rights over their army, having less control over the employment of U.S. forces than New Yorkers have over the management of the Knicks or Yankees.

That the Hamilton revival admits conservatives and liberals alike gives it obvious appeal. But if opinion-shapers really want to strengthen democracy by enhancing competition, opportunity, and mobility, Hamilton is not their man. Nor did he want to be. Neo-Hamiltonians of every kind are blotting out a defining feature of his thought, one that Hamilton himself insisted on throughout his turbulent career: the essential relationship between the concentration of national wealth and the obstruction of democracy through military force.

On solving poverty ☀
People want to “think out of the box” and cast poverty or inequality as “eminently solvable”. I’m going to go with no, no it isn’t. I don’t subscribe to that particular weekly. Which isn’t to say that inequality is right - it isn’t - or that I like it. I don’t.
But at the end of the day, I’m insulated from poverty. It doesn’t affect me, so I can “care” without investing any hope into the process. Hope is unnecessary and useless in my worldview. I pay my taxes and give what I can, but beyond that? I’m buying high walls and ammunition before I’m buying the lie that humanity can or will be saved.
This makes me the particular breed of disgusting cracker that pays for rehab but would never take a crackhead into his home. I vote for “systemic solutions” while simultaneously maintaining the conviction that they will fail or never be implemented. That’s because I know that if I throw people enough bones, they’ll get busy chewing on them. Which means they never get back to me.
It’s called limousine liberalism, and being the lesser of many evils, and you best believe the tires on this thing are bulletproof.
But poverty is indeed “solvable”, and this (these United States of America) nation’s economic history is replete with illustration (as well as some other “first world” nations, now further along on the arc of economic justice).
Most Americans today take the existence of a middle class for granted. But it wasn’t always so. And not just in the vast timeline of civilization where economic fortunes have for most of 6+ millenium been pyramid shaped, that is, a few elites on top, a small band of middle class denizens, and then all the rest squabbling for crumbs. But in America too was mired too in this model (even despite advancing economic progress, which did not “trickle down”, and treated most workers as fodder), until the 20th century, when such “welfare state” (as decried by the cult of the right) measures transformed that pyramid shape into a more egalitarian, greater equality “diamond” — with the “middle class” now the wide band in the middle, but yet a small number still in poverty, most of which was due to the legacy of Jim Crow.
Even Lyndon Johnson “War on Poverty”, much scorned by conservatives and neoconservatives, drastically cut poverty.

And what happened here and in other economically enlightened nations can happen anywhere in the world; despite the authoritarian and institutionally corrupt patterns in place that have thwarted it thus far. Or even reverse the Social Darwinist course the U.S. has been charting since the Age of Reagan.
For a bright young man, sometimes you sound like a scowling uncle after knocking down a half-dozen whiskey sours.
(Source: squashed)

There’s a great quote from Joss Whedon wherein an interviewer asks him, “Why do you feel the need to write such strong female characters?” and Whedon responds, “Because you’re still asking me that question.” It is extremely important for young women to have positive portrayals of themselves because entertainment shapes our thinking, no matter how much we deny it. This was confirmed for me last year when I had a conversation about Disney princesses with a friend who is a woman of color – growing up, all the Disney princesses were white, so she never felt like she could be like those ladies, because none of them looked like her. That’s why it’s a big deal that we have a black man as President. That’s why it’s important for casts in movies to feature more realistic women (and people of color, as well as LGBT folks!). When people see themselves represented in media in a realistic manner, it affirms their own identities. And that’s ultimately a good thing. Dianna Anderson ☀

The federal minimum wage is now $7.25 cents an hour, about $15,080 for a full time, year round worker. At that level, it means poverty wages for a family of three, and weakened demand for the economy. As Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan and New York’s bishops concluded, this leaves workers “on the brink of homelessness, with not enough in their paychecks to pay for the most basic of necessities, like food, medicine or clothing for their children.”
Poverty wages offend both justice and common sense. It is time to raise the floor.
If today’s minimum wage were at its previous height in 1968, adjusted for inflation, it would be over $10.00 an hour.

This much I ask of them: when my sons grow up, avenge yourselves by causing them the same kind of grief that I caused you, if you think they care for money or anything else more than they care for virtue, or if they think they are somebody when they are nobody. Reproach them as I reproach you, that they do not care for the right things and think they are worthy when they are not worthy of anything. If you do this, I shall have been justly treated by you, and my sons also. Socrates ☀
A GNT creation ©2007–2012

