Why is this all goofy looking? Probably because your browser doesn't support stylesheets or you have an old stylesheet. Try hitting reload or upgrade your browser today.
fatmixx iconFatMixx Logo
?!
Advertising
Latest Featured Video

Looks like a performance at NYU (where she was a student for a few years). She really can sing (though she has a few misses playing the piano). There’s talent there, covered these days in a blond wig/hairdo and heavy makeup. Do your best to ignore the goofy MC, if you can. :)

8:52 AM | 3 comments
Donate
ad for kiva.org which facilitates microloans to small businesses around the world
Support CC - 2007
join EFF!
Advertisement

archives - about - home
This site runs WordPress

Included below is a segment of President Eisenhower’s farewell speech. In this speech, he warned of the pitfalls of letting the industries that supplied the growing permanent military grow too strong and too powerful. The warning was made in the abstract, but the concern he imagined was real. It’s not that there’s a vast conspiracy but the human failings of close business relationships and friendships and influence that combine to undermine the best interests of the nation.

We have a story like that playing out right now that provides a window into this problem and how much it’s corrupted our mainstream journalism. I passed on a link to the original reporting back in April that disclosed the ties various on-air military analysts had to defense contractors and the special briefings they were getting from the Pentagon on what message they needed to get out to the people. If not exactly propaganda, this is very much like it.

Well, the same reporter, David Barstow, has followed up his original reporting with a new, detailed look at one particular analyst, General Barry McCaffrey, who is a military analyst for NBC. The articles describes, in some detail, the kinds of relationships McCaffrey was able to take advantage of and the rules of the game.

Ultimately, my conclusion on this is that I don’t want to get analysis from someone like General McCaffrey. He makes money by encouraging more spending on the military. He immediately toed the administration line when he dared to criticize Rumsfeld and found his access cut off. That access is obviously critical to his business interests and, thus, he predictably backed down in his public statements.

Glenn Greenwald today has a rundown of NBC’s damage control. NBC has, apparently, no intention of taking McCaffrey off their list of analysts, and continues to defend their continued failure to disclose his financial ties to their viewers.

The issues here are pretty clear to me, and I encourage you to read the above pieces in their entirety (I know they’re quite long). The reliance and deference to “experts” would be fine if those experts didn’t have an agenda of their own. The only safe thing to do, as consumers of news, is to ignore what these guys have to say unless the network or newspaper or magazine discloses their potential conflicts of interests or pledges to hold analysts to their disclosure policy as required for their regular employees and reporters.

I also find it interesting that the parent company of NBC is GE, which has a rather large defense business itself. This is one of the real problems with the ongoing consolidation of the media landscape. These people have enormous influence and warped incentives when it comes to the truth.

With that, here’s President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

Curious how he would assess our current Pentagon and procurement process today. I also wonder what he and Generals would think about the campaign being waged by defense contractors to tie defense spending to GDP?

Now that’s a bit f’d up. Cool, but weird.

11:12 AM | share your thoughts

That’s not good news. Not sure what conventional threat will arrive that requires a massive ground force, but I guess the idea is that we should have something ready to go in case we get attacked somewhere.

12:04 PM | share your thoughts

Via Intel Dump, we find out that the DOD is playing some games with the June recruiting statistics:

The Department of Defense “officially” released June recruiting statistics today for each of the services and reserve components.

The good news is that all four services, including the Army, and four of the six reserve components met or exceeded monthly goals.

But what the monthly numbers don’t say is that the Army’s June goal was actually the lowest so far this year, despite the fact that this month of high school graduations traditionally marks the start of prime recruiting season. As the graphic from the New York Times’ June 30th reporting shows, the number of Army June accessions, 6,157 would not have met the goal of any month to date this calendar year. And the problem looks even worse when viewed by fiscal year, the military’s actual counting period. To date, the Army has managed to attract 47,121 new soldiers out of a stated requirement for 80,000. With just three months remaining, that means the service must bring in approximately 11,000 men and women each of the next three months, almost twice the June goal.

Read the rest.

Look, it should be no surprise that recruiting is down with the military engaged in a war without a motivating purpose. I think “spreading democracy and freedom” doesn’t get the blood pumping and the recruits down to the recruiting station as well as, say, if the military campaign actually, you know, was vital to our safety.

9:03 PM | 1 comment