3 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2017
    1. Military Industrial Complex:

      1. Eisenhower has seen the consequences of this intersection of military power and his own "new look" policy

      Presidential speeches can be measured by how long we talk about them. Still one of the most referenced presidential speeches ever given.

      IRAN — Mohammed Mossafegh (1951–1954)

      • First military Coup during CIA golden age
      • US tells Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (1941–1979) that they will take over the country unless he overthrows Mossafegh.
      • For 20+ years we supported a dictator who murdered his own people
      • Any nation state has the option to buy out foreign companies

      Guatemala — Jacobo Arbenz Guzman (1951–1954)

      • Democratically elected leader, called for Progressive Reform (second President to do so)
      • Nationalizing land (US decided it looked like Communism)
      • Guzman runs into problems with the United Fruit Company, who had been cheating on their taxes, undervaluing their land prices. Government seeks to purchase land to nationalize it, and wants to buy it for the price that the UFC valued their land for.
      • UFC and US Government set up a military Coup. Using radio broadcast propaganda, pretending that an army is ravaging the countryside. Guzman believes the propaganda and flees. We set up a dictator.
  2. Jul 2016
    1. The military’s contributions to education technology are often overlooked

      Though that may not really be the core argument of the piece, it’s more than a passing point. Watters’s raising awareness of this other type of “military-industrial complex” could have a deep impact on many a discussion, including the whole hype about VR (and AR). It’s not just Carnegie-Mellon and Paris’s Polytechnique («l’X») which have strong ties to the military. Or (D)ARPANET. Reminds me of IU’s Dorson getting money for the Folklore Institute during the Cold War by arguing that the Soviets were funding folklore. Even the head of the NEH in 2000 talked about Sputnik and used the language of “beating Europe at culture” when discussing plans for the agency. Not that it means the funding or “innovation” would come directly from the military but it’s all part of the Cold War-era “ideology”. In education, it’s about competing with India or Finland. In other words, the military is part of a much larger plan for “world domination”.

  3. Nov 2013