Two op-eds in this week’s Economist that are doubly interesting side by side. In one, the magazine claims that “America is not at war.” The other castigates Pakistan for impoverishing its people through military spending.
I guess one way of pretending that western military spending doesn’t impoverish westerners is to suggest the phenomenon exists only in exotic, faraway places like Pakistan. And another way is to pretend that America isn’t at war. Not in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, not in Syria, not in Yemen, not in Africa or anywhere else.
I don’t think the term “fake news” has a favorable heat-to-light ratio. But if “America is not at war” isn’t fake news, it’s hard to imagine what would be.
If Pravda had written during the Russia’s war in Afghanistan that the country wasn’t at war, it’s a safe bet the Economist would have been quick to denounce the notion as Orwellian propaganda. What should we call it when the claim comes from a western publication?
2 comments:
Your blog shows your distaste for ideology, which I share. Believing an Ideology means that someone else has decided for you, you are just a follower.
That is inconsistent with the idea of Government (and everything else) being of the people, by the people and for the people. Yet today, our society is controlled by the conflict between two ideological parties, each with commitment from 25% or less of us. The middle 50% who prefer progress in solving problems to ideology have no voice. Have you ever been to a "Town Hall" with one of these so-called "Representatives"? They represent only themselves and have no time to listen. We desperately need representation by listeners who have no ideology. Good luck with that!
Very interesting. It is quite a contradiction but it does give pause to our ideologies
Post a Comment