Home Contact Sitemap

[donmillerfans.net]

The Don Miller Fan Site



rss feed technorati fav

Don's Flickr

www.flickr.com

Categories

Blogroll

Archives

Meta


Welcome to donmillerfans.net! Bookmark us or subscribe to our feed to stay current on what Don is up to.

the economist and Why We Fight

Published by bryan | Filed under journal entries

July 27th.

After no less than a year of fiddling around, we finally added audio files to the store. There are three files now, but more should be up by the end of the week. We’re charging 2 bucks because the bandwidth will end up costing us, and because the staff has been mumbling comparisons between themselves and slave labor. I prefer the word “volunteer” but they do not. Semantics. Can’t we all just get along.

Also, Jordan Green (www.burnsidewriterscollective.com) and I are on a personal crusade to get as many people to subscribe to “The Economist” as we can. Each night Jordan and I hang out on the front step and gripe about whatever crap news we are being shoveled in the pages of Newsweek, Time and U.S. News. We both think these magazines should come out and admit they are simply publishing arms of coorporate publicity vehicles. If you want the real news, either listen to National Public Radio or subscribe to The Economist, neither of which get their news from their own commercials. You can learn more about The Economist at www.economist.com.

Also, I watched a remarkable documentary entitled “Why We Fight” that should be available at your local movie rental place this week. The documentary details the history of America’s “Military Industrial Complex” from World War II to the present. This is not a liberal propaganda piece, and actually gave me a bit of grace for the Bush administration, though the policies of this administration are debatable. Essentially, the documentary details the build up of the military under the 5-star general turned President Eisenhower (who, in his farewell address to the nation on the day he left office warned the American people that the military must be decreased in size lest the feeding of it take over any clear thinking regarding diplomacy) through the corporate partnerships that began during the Reagan administration when Halliburton convinced then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney to allow private corporations to build weapons and cook meals, to the Boeing companies decision to build plants in all 50 states so no congressman would shrink the military for fear of losing votes over lost jobs, to the now enormous “Military Industrial Complex” General Eisenhower warned us about so many years ago. A few startling statistics the film divulged were:

  1. 50% of every dollar you give to the government goes to our military, and
  2. More is spent on the American military than all other countries spend on their militaries combined. The film proposes that our military is so entwined with our economy that a think tank called “The New Century Group” was established to strategize military action so the war machine could be put to use.

So why did the film give me grace for Bush? Honestly, the only reason I could conceive we invaded Iraq was to protect the Iraqi oil reserves, which has been admitted by James Bakker. But there is more. Dick Cheney, at The New Century Group, was asked to come up with a strategy to place American military outposts throughout the world in order to “police” coorporate globalization. This means that one-hundred years from now, the potential exists that two American Presidents will be considered primary figures in world history…

  1. George Washington (for his involvement in creating the American experiment), and
  2. George Bush (for globalizing the American expirement through both coorporate leniency and militaristic policing…) I’m not saying any of this is good, but I think we have to think again when we consider the guy a bumbling idiot.

Anyway, it was a good film…

Later, Don

July 27th, 2006


17 Responses to “the economist and Why We Fight”

  1. Mike Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 9:50 am

    $130 for a magazine subscription? I’m not made of money you know, Don?

  2. Margo Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 10:41 am

    Great information Don….thanks, as always. Some day I would like to email you directly and share with you the impact your writing has had on my life and why (what my background is). Is there a place to email you directly and not simply here in the blog?

  3. Ariel Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 1:49 pm

    sigh…..

  4. Geof F. Morris Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    The Economist is worth every penny you pay for it.

  5. Mike Says:
    July 27th, 2006 at 4:13 pm

    So is a Jaguar, but I have neither.

  6. Jai Says:
    July 28th, 2006 at 2:15 pm

    CONCERNING “THE ECONOMIST”, THE PROBLEM WITH JOURNALIST’S IN GENERAL THESE DAYS IS THEIR ABILITY TO TAKE SIDES. MANY HAVE BECOME BLATANT EDITORIALIST’S WITH AN AGENDA TO PUSH.THIS MAY BE ALRIGHT FOR THE OP-ED PAGE, BUT TERRIBLY WRONG FOR INFORMATIVE NEWS. WE HAVE ACCESS TO SO MUCH INFORMATION AND SO MANY NEWS OUTLETS THAT THE COMPETITION TO GET THE STORY OUT OFTEN COMPROMISES THE INFORMATION THROUGH INACCURCIES OR EMBELLISHMENTS.SECONDLY NEVER TRUST A “WEBSINE” THAT IS SPONSORED BY AN OIL COMPANY, IN THIS CASE CHEVRON. THE FIRST THING I WAS ASKED WHEN I WENT TO THE ECONOMIST.COM SITE WAS WHETHER I WANTED TO SEE THE CHEVRON AD AND WHEN I DECLINED I GOT TO THEIR HOME PAGE AND SAW CHEVRON ADS ANYWAY.I’D BET WE DON’T SEE TOO MUCH ON THEIR SITE DECRYING HIGH GAS PRICES OR OIL PROFITS.DOES THIS MEAN DON MILLER SUPPORTS “BIG OIL”? IF YOU VISIT THE ECONOMIST SITE MAKE SURE YOU GO TO THE “ABOUT US” PAGE. YOU’LL BE SURE TO NOTICE THE THAT THEY HAVE DEFINITE POLITICAL OPINIONS CONCERNING SOME MAJOR ISSUES,SO MUCH FOR OBJECTIVITY.WHO’S TO SAY WHETHER THE ECONOMIST IS REAL NEWS? IT SEEMS RATHER SUBJECTIVE TO ME.

  7. Geof F. Morris Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 8:11 am

    Jai: Take off the CAPS LOCK. Using it all the time makes you look stupid, and we don’t want that.

    It’s easy to criticize something that you haven’t read, isn’t it? When The Economist feels that their reporting is biased, they mention it—but the magazine is actually just about equal parts news and comment, and it’s clearly delineated as such. But … sounds like you have your mind made up already, so you wouldn’t care to read how I regularly read about green power production in its pages.

    Oh, and Mike: I was thinking about your plight the other day [and yeah, it sucks that it's that expensive]: 1) Don did discuss NPR, which is generally a good resource; 2) your local library should carry copies of The Economist.

  8. Paul Says:
    July 29th, 2006 at 9:13 pm

    “World” is a good magazine also.

  9. Jai Says:
    July 30th, 2006 at 10:21 am

    Geof,
    Thanks for the compliments!!(LOL) You sound pretty defensive,I think I would try to figure out what that’s all about if I were you. A good discussion can be had without name calling or is that how you respond because you have nothing else to say? You’re the one who’s mind seems closed and made up. Instead of getting offended abou my post why don’t you try to prove my statements in error–if you can? A well thought out intelligent response would be prefered. You seem like the type of person who can’t stand someone diagreeing with them. There should be room for everyone’s opinion not just yours.Or do you believe freedom of speech applies to you and people who think like you? How do you like my font now?(feel better?) It’s a good thing we have someone like you tellin us what we need to do–we’d all be lost.

  10. Geof F. Morris Says:
    July 31st, 2006 at 6:08 pm

    If I were all the things that you’d state me as being, I would take offense. I won’t. Replying to you as I’d like to do right now would just put us down an infinite loop of veiled shots at the other’s character. We don’t know each other, though, so that’s really not fair.

    Let me then address your concerns as stated:

    CONCERNING “THE ECONOMIST”, THE PROBLEM WITH JOURNALIST’S IN GENERAL THESE DAYS IS THEIR ABILITY TO TAKE SIDES. MANY HAVE BECOME BLATANT EDITORIALIST’S WITH AN AGENDA TO PUSH.

    Your concern is a fair one to take with modern-day journalism, but I don’t see where this really applies as a thesis statement to an attack on The Economist when you admittedly have not read it.

    THIS MAY BE ALRIGHT FOR THE OP-ED PAGE, BUT TERRIBLY WRONG FOR INFORMATIVE NEWS. WE HAVE ACCESS TO SO MUCH INFORMATION AND SO MANY NEWS OUTLETS THAT THE COMPETITION TO GET THE STORY OUT OFTEN COMPROMISES THE INFORMATION THROUGH INACCURCIES OR EMBELLISHMENTS.

    This would be well-levied at most any of the 24-hour news channels, which all, of course, seek to sucker you into sticking with them through the commercial break so you’ll watch the commercials that pay their bills, but it’s ill-aimed at a newsweekly.

    SECONDLY NEVER TRUST A “WEBSINE” THAT IS SPONSORED BY AN OIL COMPANY, IN THIS CASE CHEVRON. THE FIRST THING I WAS ASKED WHEN I WENT TO THE ECONOMIST.COM SITE WAS WHETHER I WANTED TO SEE THE CHEVRON AD AND WHEN I DECLINED I GOT TO THEIR HOME PAGE AND SAW CHEVRON ADS ANYWAY.

    I can understand your concerns, but this seems to be the crux of your position—that your understandable concern about the biases of news organizations seeking to keep advertisers happy will skew coverage accordingly. If you’ll notice, though, Big Oil advertises with most every news outlet out there today in an effort to gain positive mindshare in the face of so much obvious negative mindshare in all their activities. If this is truly your point, I fear that you’re going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I’D BET WE DON’T SEE TOO MUCH ON THEIR SITE DECRYING HIGH GAS PRICES OR OIL PROFITS.

    Why don’t you read it and see? Instead, you took the knee-jerk route and didn’t find out on your own, which is disappointing.

    DOES THIS MEAN DON MILLER SUPPORTS “BIG OIL”?

    Come on, Jai. Do you really believe that?

    IF YOU VISIT THE ECONOMIST SITE MAKE SURE YOU GO TO THE “ABOUT US” PAGE. YOU’LL BE SURE TO NOTICE THE THAT THEY HAVE DEFINITE POLITICAL OPINIONS CONCERNING SOME MAJOR ISSUES,SO MUCH FOR OBJECTIVITY.WHO’S TO SAY WHETHER THE ECONOMIST IS REAL NEWS? IT SEEMS RATHER SUBJECTIVE TO ME.

    Again, your unfamiliarity with The Economist weakens your opinion. The Economist openly states its editorial positions on its site and in its pages, but it does so in a forum appropriate to the matter: on its editorial pages. It offers news as close to neutral as possible, from my many readings of it.

    It concerns me that you drew all your ire from this from two things: 1) the fact that the site had an ad from Big Oil and 2) that they stated political positions on their About Us site. It doesn’t sound like you read anything but their political statement, which tells me that you’ve done nothing at all to actually investigate them to evaluate whether or not they are a news source worthy of your investment of time and money.

    I’m sorry to have offended you with my previous comment, but let me make it up to you: send me an email to gfmorris AT gfmorris DOT net with a mailing address where I may reach you, and I will mail you a copy of the most recent edition of The Economist that I can find locally. I’ll even rip out all the Big Oil ads if you want.

  11. Jai Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 9:14 am

    Geof,
    You didn’t offend me at all, it seemed my point of view offended you.Your second post is the type of response that would have been desired to begin with. I was responding to the original journal post which stated “If you want the real news, either listen to National Public Radio or subscribe to The Economist, neither of which get their news from their own commercials.” Again that statement is pretty subjective. I appreciate the fact that you took time to respond with your arguments and some very valid points without being demeaning.It never bothers me when someone disagrees with me. Thanks for the generous offer on the “Economist” but not necessary I pretty much distrust all news outlets in general.It seems all have an agenda–some more hidden than others. Thanks again and nice writing.

    P.S. the Don Miller and “big oil” thing was my tongue-in-cheek way of making a point.

  12. Geof F. Morris Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    If you distrust all news outlets, how do you find out about anything? That’s the only thing that concerns me. I think that you’ve got a healthy skepticism, and I think that you would definitely be able to apply it to all the media you ingest so that you can separate the wheat from the chaff…

  13. Jai Says:
    August 1st, 2006 at 5:12 pm

    I said that I distrusted the news media I didn’t say that I didn’t read what they had to say or attempt to become informed,there’s a difference. I read everything with a critical eye and weed through it the best I can but,who knows what to believe any more? As an industry dominated by money and politics it’s easy too lose track of the truth.

  14. The Boars Head Tavern » Blog Archive » Says:
    August 7th, 2006 at 10:37 pm

    [...] I love Don Miller, but the boy has the maximum amount of tin foil allowed to still be coherent. Don Don Don Don Don….you have to stop believing everything said by the people who say they care more than anyone else. Read Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed. Hurry. Do it before Sunday. [...]

  15. Dan Says:
    August 7th, 2006 at 10:57 pm

    I’ve been taking The Economist for about 15 years, it is a good read if you want a weekly mag that is more serious than the ones that you mention, but it has issues:

    (1) It’s view of the US economy is almost always pessimistic; they have predicted 9 of our last two recessions. Their economic reporting of the rest of the world isn’t as distinct as it used to be– very likely to just reflect conventional wisdom. When they do a special section on a region or country, they rise above the conventional and give you a lot of good “inside” information, but they used to do that from time to time in their regular weekly news.

    (2) It’s view on globalization related issues is predictable, rarely giving more than lip service to the issues facing real people and real governments in the global south more than lip service before defaulting to the “globalization is the best mechanism there is to lift people from poverty.” In my own personal view, that is probably right, but there are some real reasons why so much of the global south hates gloalization and “neo-liberalism.” You will be clueless as to why if you rely solely on The Economist. (But if you rely on Time, Newsweek, etc., you won’t even know there is an issue. Sigh.)

    (3) There is more opinion– explicitly lableed– and less news than there used to be.

    Every year, when I renew, I say to myself “This might be the last year.” Oddly, the one thing that keeps me coming back more than anything is the book reviews– not that htey are particularly great, but I find 6 or 8 books a year from their reviews that I don’t see reviewed anywhere else.

  16. Alexis Says:
    August 8th, 2006 at 12:59 am

    If you’re going to go around hassling everyone about subscribing to The Economist, I might as well give you a couple other items to hit them with.

    Democracy Now! is a super-informative, unbiased radio program hosted by Amy Goodman (and sometimes Juan Gonzalez). If there were ever a role model for women of any age, Amy runs a close second to Jessica Simpson. For those of us that can’t tune into the stereo at a certain time, you can download the pod cast or video at democracynow.org. Not to mention, they have the transcript on their website free o’ charge. Cool, I know.

    On the topic of globalization and imperialism, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins is an excellent read (well, I’m only two-thirds the way through, but very interesting and alarming so far). Perkins discusses his work in the 70s as an indirect pawn for spreading good ol’ American imperialism throughout the world. An economic forecaster, he performed his “hit man” work by traveling to a specific country, creating an economic forecast for the country’s infrastructure (electric grids, highways, airports, bridges, etc.), and then convincing the appropriate government that these things were undeniably important. Guess who would do the work? American corporations. Who would pay for it? Gigantic loans from the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund. Who gets their allegiance? The U.S.A.

    Check it out, hipsters.

  17. Jai Says:
    August 8th, 2006 at 9:55 pm

    I hope that statement about Jessica Simpson being a role model was a joke. If it wasn’t I spewed my soda half way across the room room for nothin’–LOL good one!!!

Leave a Comment