SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
President Donald Trump on Monday signed a bill authorizing $716 billion in defense spending, which includes a pay raise for US troops. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Not Saying the Words "John McCain" Is Least Vile Thing About Trump's Signing of $717 Billion Military Spending Bill
"Can't think of anything that better sums up the moral bankruptcy and cliquishness of D.C. media than the uniform meltdown over a $717B defense bill not being properly credited to McCain as if that's the goddamn problem."
Aug 14, 2018
The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) President Donald Trump signed into law during a jingoistic ceremony at Fort Drum on Monday authorizes $22 billion in spending for nuclear weapons that could wipe out the human species, 77 new F-35 fighter jets, and $717 billion in military funding overall, but the corporate media apparently decided that the worst part about Trump signing this "obscenity" of a bill was his failure to acknowledge that it is named after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"The myth of U.S. as noble but flawed defender of Human Rights and Freedom is our civic religion--the one thing all Serious pundits, pols, think-tankers, and high status media creators must accept. McCain is this myths greatest avatar, this is why they rush to his defense."
--Adam Johnson
"Trump snubs John McCain during bill signing intended to honor him," NBC News complained in a headline that was repeated almost verbatim in Business Insider, the Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The New Republic, Bloomberg, and many other major news outlets after Trump signed the (emphasis added) John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
"Can't think of anything that better sums up the moral bankruptcy and cliquishness of D.C. media than the uniform meltdown over a $717B defense bill--one that codifies funding for Saudis massacre of Yemeni children--not being properly credited to McCain as if that's the goddamn problem," media critic and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) contributor Adam Johnson wrote on Twitter, highlighting just one of the countless grotesque components of the NDAA.
As Common Dreams reported, the $717 billion military spending bill was supported by 40 Democrats in the Senate and 139 Democrats in the House.
"The myth of U.S. as noble but flawed defender of Human Rights and Freedom is our civic religion--the one thing all Serious pundits, pols, think-tankers, and high status media creators must accept," Johnson added. "McCain is this myths greatest avatar, this is why they rush to his defense so vehemently."
Others similarly ridiculed the corporate media's obsession with the bill's official title over the devastating effects it will have on actual lives overseas--a topic that elicited little concern from those penning offended tweets and headlines on behalf of McCain, a fervent supporter of endless war.
Predictably, Congress's bipartisan support for and Trump's subsequent signature of one of the largest military spending bills in American history was not met with the usual consternation and hand-wringing from pundits about how the U.S. can afford such funding.
"Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending 'unrealistic.' Not even when Donald Trump wants them."
--Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
But, as The Intercept's Alex Emmons has noted, the $82 billion military spending increase authorized by the 2019 NDAA could easily pay for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) free public college plan, which is estimated to cost $47 billion a year.
In a column last month, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi posed the simple question corporate media outlets never deign to ask when it comes to spending on the Pentagon, new nuclear weapons, and shiny fighter jets: "Can You Think of Any Other Ways to Spend $716 Billion?"
"The ease with which this massive spending increase passed exposes all the howling we always get from think-tanks and the press whenever any ambitious social program is proposed. It's all bunk--all of it," Taibbi concluded. " Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you'll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how 'unrealistic' the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay. Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending 'unrealistic.' Not even when Donald Trump wants them."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) President Donald Trump signed into law during a jingoistic ceremony at Fort Drum on Monday authorizes $22 billion in spending for nuclear weapons that could wipe out the human species, 77 new F-35 fighter jets, and $717 billion in military funding overall, but the corporate media apparently decided that the worst part about Trump signing this "obscenity" of a bill was his failure to acknowledge that it is named after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"The myth of U.S. as noble but flawed defender of Human Rights and Freedom is our civic religion--the one thing all Serious pundits, pols, think-tankers, and high status media creators must accept. McCain is this myths greatest avatar, this is why they rush to his defense."
--Adam Johnson
"Trump snubs John McCain during bill signing intended to honor him," NBC News complained in a headline that was repeated almost verbatim in Business Insider, the Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The New Republic, Bloomberg, and many other major news outlets after Trump signed the (emphasis added) John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
"Can't think of anything that better sums up the moral bankruptcy and cliquishness of D.C. media than the uniform meltdown over a $717B defense bill--one that codifies funding for Saudis massacre of Yemeni children--not being properly credited to McCain as if that's the goddamn problem," media critic and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) contributor Adam Johnson wrote on Twitter, highlighting just one of the countless grotesque components of the NDAA.
As Common Dreams reported, the $717 billion military spending bill was supported by 40 Democrats in the Senate and 139 Democrats in the House.
"The myth of U.S. as noble but flawed defender of Human Rights and Freedom is our civic religion--the one thing all Serious pundits, pols, think-tankers, and high status media creators must accept," Johnson added. "McCain is this myths greatest avatar, this is why they rush to his defense so vehemently."
Others similarly ridiculed the corporate media's obsession with the bill's official title over the devastating effects it will have on actual lives overseas--a topic that elicited little concern from those penning offended tweets and headlines on behalf of McCain, a fervent supporter of endless war.
Predictably, Congress's bipartisan support for and Trump's subsequent signature of one of the largest military spending bills in American history was not met with the usual consternation and hand-wringing from pundits about how the U.S. can afford such funding.
"Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending 'unrealistic.' Not even when Donald Trump wants them."
--Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
But, as The Intercept's Alex Emmons has noted, the $82 billion military spending increase authorized by the 2019 NDAA could easily pay for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) free public college plan, which is estimated to cost $47 billion a year.
In a column last month, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi posed the simple question corporate media outlets never deign to ask when it comes to spending on the Pentagon, new nuclear weapons, and shiny fighter jets: "Can You Think of Any Other Ways to Spend $716 Billion?"
"The ease with which this massive spending increase passed exposes all the howling we always get from think-tanks and the press whenever any ambitious social program is proposed. It's all bunk--all of it," Taibbi concluded. " Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you'll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how 'unrealistic' the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay. Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending 'unrealistic.' Not even when Donald Trump wants them."
The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) President Donald Trump signed into law during a jingoistic ceremony at Fort Drum on Monday authorizes $22 billion in spending for nuclear weapons that could wipe out the human species, 77 new F-35 fighter jets, and $717 billion in military funding overall, but the corporate media apparently decided that the worst part about Trump signing this "obscenity" of a bill was his failure to acknowledge that it is named after Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"The myth of U.S. as noble but flawed defender of Human Rights and Freedom is our civic religion--the one thing all Serious pundits, pols, think-tankers, and high status media creators must accept. McCain is this myths greatest avatar, this is why they rush to his defense."
--Adam Johnson
"Trump snubs John McCain during bill signing intended to honor him," NBC News complained in a headline that was repeated almost verbatim in Business Insider, the Washington Post, The Daily Beast, The New Republic, Bloomberg, and many other major news outlets after Trump signed the (emphasis added) John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
"Can't think of anything that better sums up the moral bankruptcy and cliquishness of D.C. media than the uniform meltdown over a $717B defense bill--one that codifies funding for Saudis massacre of Yemeni children--not being properly credited to McCain as if that's the goddamn problem," media critic and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) contributor Adam Johnson wrote on Twitter, highlighting just one of the countless grotesque components of the NDAA.
As Common Dreams reported, the $717 billion military spending bill was supported by 40 Democrats in the Senate and 139 Democrats in the House.
"The myth of U.S. as noble but flawed defender of Human Rights and Freedom is our civic religion--the one thing all Serious pundits, pols, think-tankers, and high status media creators must accept," Johnson added. "McCain is this myths greatest avatar, this is why they rush to his defense so vehemently."
Others similarly ridiculed the corporate media's obsession with the bill's official title over the devastating effects it will have on actual lives overseas--a topic that elicited little concern from those penning offended tweets and headlines on behalf of McCain, a fervent supporter of endless war.
Predictably, Congress's bipartisan support for and Trump's subsequent signature of one of the largest military spending bills in American history was not met with the usual consternation and hand-wringing from pundits about how the U.S. can afford such funding.
"Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending 'unrealistic.' Not even when Donald Trump wants them."
--Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
But, as The Intercept's Alex Emmons has noted, the $82 billion military spending increase authorized by the 2019 NDAA could easily pay for Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) free public college plan, which is estimated to cost $47 billion a year.
In a column last month, Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi posed the simple question corporate media outlets never deign to ask when it comes to spending on the Pentagon, new nuclear weapons, and shiny fighter jets: "Can You Think of Any Other Ways to Spend $716 Billion?"
"The ease with which this massive spending increase passed exposes all the howling we always get from think-tanks and the press whenever any ambitious social program is proposed. It's all bunk--all of it," Taibbi concluded. " Ask experts how much it would cost to make higher education at public colleges and universities free, and you'll get some big numbers. You will also hear strident opposition in op-ed pages to how 'unrealistic' the idea is, even though most free-ed proposals would fit easily into an $80 billion-per-year outlay. Nobody ever calls massive increases in military spending 'unrealistic.' Not even when Donald Trump wants them."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.