"Top U.S. Mideast commander quits after Iran article"

Navy Adm. William Fallon

The Story

Reuters reports, "The top U.S. commander for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars said on Tuesday he would quit after a magazine reported he was pushing President George W. Bush to avoid war with Iran."

The senior official explained, "Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region."

However, the likelihood that one of the most respected military figures in the country would resign because of "press reports" - and not because of the "disconnect" those reports addressed - is highly unlikely.

In reality, it seemed that Fallon was actually saying, 'let's agree to disagree and I'll do the honorable thing (since you won't) and retire.'

For all one has to do is remove the modifying clause in his statement, "recent press reports suggesting" - to reveal what is likely a more forthright statement. Namely, "a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the CENTCOM region."

Fallon strategically used the press to allow him to convey his real reason for leaving without directly critiquing executive policy. Though such a tactic is somewhat unusual, it is most fitting for someone often labeled as being "a man of strategic brilliance."

What's really interesting is the straw that broke the camel's back really was an article in Esquire magazine on the commander. The article's title itself was exceedingly blunt and perceivably difficult for the general to face. It was called "The Man Between War And Peace."

How did congressional democrats respond to all of this?

"Democrats in the U.S. Congress charged,” says Reuters, “that Fallon's departure was another sign the Bush administration did not tolerate military commanders who spoke their mind."

Analysis

This resignation appears to have an undoubtedly negative effect on the best interests of the American people.

Esquire reports, "If...we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man."

If this is true, it is hard to imagine the possibility of war in Iran not growing with Fallon's resignation. Such developments certainly do not decrease it.

Fallon’s political importance in ebbing the tide of war rhetoric is also of particular importance when noting how virtually irrelevant the facts have become in this issue.

That is to say, the best US intelligence report in existence, the National Intelligence Estimate, concluded Iran stopped its weapons programs in 2003. And yet, it seems the very same intelligence report which was good enough to lead us into a war in Iraq is not good enough to prevent a war in Iran. (The failings here are primarily due to the politicizing of key intelligence products, not within intelligence community itself which is often scapegoated.)

Labeling the Iranian National Guard a "terrorist organization," continually placing sanctions which are bound to be ineffectual, and making it a requirement to settle the main reasons for having talks, before such talks occur, all support how factless this war-machine continues to be.

In addition, this whole occurrence shows the Bush White House, again, as driving some of the best and brightest military officials out of tolerable government positions and into private lives.

What does this really convey to the American people who truly believe that Washington exists to safeguard their way of life?

Are we really safer with more and more of our most seasoned officials, both civilian and military, retiring as a result of myopic and woefully agenda-based executive pressure, leaving the good and obedient to take their place?

Flobots

I discovered this band from watching the news! No not just any news, from the wonderfully uncorporate and uncensored Democracy Now! If you've never heard of it you really need to go for at least a few minutes now.

Can you imagine this music on any news, even on PBS? CNN, no way, MSNBC hell no, CNN Headline get the fuck out, Fox News, when God comes down and tells the world he'd vote for Nader if he could!

Just discovered these guys fifteen minutes ago, but I'm impressed. The muscianship and politically-indictive lyrics are searing.

Here's the some bio:

When a pair of intelligent, visionary emcees joins forces with a battle-hardened, groove-fusing rhythm section, a classically trained violist, and a jazz trumpet player, the result is a sound that explores and expands the frontiers of live hip-hop. Progressive in both style and message, the band's ability to drop from symphonic rock-infused crescendos into stripped-down string-laden breakbeats has earned Flobots a reputation for both originality and authenticity.

After originally forming as a side project in 2005, Flobots brought together Emcee’s Jonny 5 and Brer Rabbit with violist Mackenzie Roberts, guitarist Andy Guerrero, bassist Jesse Walker, trumpet player Joe Ferrone, and drummer Kenny Ortiz. By the end of the year, it was clear that the band's refreshingly positive message and nontraditional instrumentation gave it both a universal appeal and a marketable buzz factor. Whether sharing the stage with jam bands, indie rock acts, or hip-hop groups, Flobots connected with audiences and quickly reached a tipping point to became one of Denver's most influential bands.

Now, just two and a half years from the birth of their first song, the band regularly sells out Denver venues and is developing sizeable followings in California, Nebraska, Utah, and Wyoming.

After selling over 3000 copies of their first recording, Platypus (October 2005), the band released its first full-length record, Fight With Tools (October 2007). Representing a year's worth of writing and recording, the record is a fire-breathing rallying cry for all free-thinking individuals fed-up with the violence and apathy that have thus far defined the new millenium. The record debuted at #1 on Twist and Shout's best seller list and has been in the top 10 for eight consecutive weeks.

The strength of these records and a relentless performing schedule has enabled the band to open for acts like Public Enemy, The Coup, Lyrics Born, and Immortal Technique. Even Multi-platinum recording artist The Fray took notice, inviting the band to open the last night of their North American Tour at Red Rocks Amphitheatre.

Armed with musicianship, intelligence, and an ingrained sense of rebellion, Flobots are looking to engage a new musical culture, one mind at a time.

Go to their site: www.flobots.com

JPG Magazine

"b/w for Sagi"

"Green"

"long trip to.."

JPG Magazine is a beautiful photography magazine of The People for The People by The People - it's fantastic.

There are usually 3 main categories or themes in each issue - always interesting ones.

These are some images contending to make issue 16 of JPGMag I liked best.

This site really is probably my favorite for online photography (and than Flickr of course).

New Sins, A Green Pope, Bioethics, & Human Welfare

Archbishop Gianfranco Girotti, the Vatican's number two man "in the sometimes murky area of sins and penance, spoke of modern evils," reports Reuters, telling "the faithful" that they "should be aware of 'new' sins such as causing environmental blight."

So is he just another hypocrite, preaching green rhetoric with hands blackened from oil?

Actually no, he is not. Setting a supreme example for the planet, Reuters explains, the Vatican "has installed photovoltaic cells on [its] buildings to produce electricity and hosted a scientific conference to discuss the ramifications of global warming and climate change."

In addition, the Pope has "made several strong appeals for the protection of the environment, saying issues such as climate change had become gravely important for the entire human race," writes Philip Pullella of Reuters.

This is a welcomed example and decree from a religious powercenter that commands the "world's largest single religious body" and has a following of about 1.13 billion people (wikipedia.org).

One could imagine that if all of the Roman Catholics really heeded the plea of the Vatican and followed its lead, they would be able to make as big an impact as if India with close to the same population became sustainable eco-friendly humans.

This is a most powerful proposition.

Unfortunately, this was undermined by the Archbishop's remarks to the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano, wherein Reuters reports, he claims that "that the greatest danger zone for the modern soul was the largely uncharted world of bioethics.

I understand the philosophical morass and moral quandry Biotechnology presents to the Vatican's ideological structure - to many ideological structures - is serious.

But, shouldn't they be more concerned with events that are currently taking place, Climate Change, rather than developments like human cloning which has not happened?

Furthermore, which is more likely to have a greater impact on the live of the 1.13 billion Catholics, or the 6.8 billion humans:

That a man is cloned, a primordial embryo is lost,

Or

That grand glaciers melt, sea levels rise, flooding redoubles, extreme weather like tsunamis is provoked, drought and crop failures escalate (especially in the most impoverished nations on the planet), world hunger intensifies, and breathing becomes a health hazard (as is the already the case in Mexico City where breathing the air is equivalent to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day) - to name a few?


Read the Reuters article.

American Pastoral

I have started engaging in discussions on what is basically an online bookclub, arguably the largest bookclub ever, called goodreads (check it out).

The first piece of fiction I has been discussing is American Pastoral by Philip Roth. He won the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle prize for this. Also, the NYTimes said it was one of the best American novels written in the past 25 years.

Roth himself is the first three-time winner of the coveted Pen/Faulkner award, given only to books of exceptional caliber - sometimes it is decades or more before a book wins this award (though he did not win it for this book, see Human Stain).

Noting novels often defy life as they make order, system, and sense of out its chaotic madness - one of the exceptional things about this book is that Roth is able to intelligently execute an eloquent plot which spins on the very axis of this madness.

Here is a quote:

"What was astonishing was how people seemed to run out of their own being, run out of whatever the stuff was that made them who they were and, drained of themselves, turn into the sort of people they would once have felt sorry for. It was as though while their lives were rich and full they were secretly sick of themselves and couldn't wait to dispose of their sanity and their health and all sense of proportion so as to get down to that other self, the true self, who was a wholly deluded fuckup."

Some thoughts on the quote:

Having seen people seemingly run out of whatever it is that makes them them, I guess as many do, the quote struck home for me. It's a fascinating phenomenon worthy of study in and of itself.

I would purpose, however, a question.

Does one really run out of their "essence" or do they simply forget to water the flower, purposely shove it in a dark corner, or actively pick its petals in some sort of self-destructive pleasure?

Does this "stuff" really just disappear, or is it hiding, lurking underneath other layers of ego and self, while we have convinced others as well as ourselves it is gone?

Can we really discard ourselves without, even unconsciously, keeping enough to know who we still are, that it's still us in there?

To read my review of the book go here and go to the posting by James.

America: Economics, War, and Hegemony: Part I

I've been thinking a lot about American Economics, War, and Hegemony and their relationship with one another. This piece is intended really as an introduction to a series of postings.

To begin, it is essential to ask the first question:

What drives the world's Economy?

It's materialism stupid.

Unquestionably, it is mankind's insatiable greed for things that directs world economic markets, their patterns fluctuating on what is bought, how much of it, and how likely or unlikely such a trend is to continue.

By and large, Americans are the most acquisitive creatures in existence and are thus at the heart of the global economy. With an omnipresent network of commercialism and materialism woven into every stripe and every star of American life, it's no wonder America has been dubbed the "economic engine" of the world.

(One could surmise if a poll was taken, shopping would be listed close to the top of favorite American pastimes, competing with baseball and American Idol.)

If the world economy is impelled by excessively object-focused peoples, then what is war impelled by?

War is often driven, if we're faithful to history, not to fight tyranny or proliferate liberty, not to halt atrocities or dispense global justice, though these are the guises, but by threats to economic interests and by efforts to reach Hegemony.

Paradoxically, to go to war to protect economic assets or cement geopolitical primacy, an entity has to already have substantial economic assets and geopolitical potency to fund and fight such a war.

That said, according to the November/December issue of Foreign Affairs, "the total 2008 [US] military budget request is a whopping $647 billion." This includes the supplemental requests for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In addition, in December of 2006, with already 687,000 active-duty troops, US President George W. Bush stated, "we do need to increase our troops — the Army, the Marines," costing he failed to mention about 1.2 billion dollars per 10,000 new recruits.

At that price, to bring the US troop census up to about 1970s levels (800,000), it would cost the US about $14.76 billion, and to bring them up to Korean War levels (1.6 million) from their current status it would cost about $110.76 billion.

Adding the cost of raising the US Military to 1970s levels to Bush's military budget request, one finds the price of US extravagant wealth and political prowess to total approximately $662 billion. There are not any plans to build up troops to the 1970s levels right now, but if current trends continue with military budget increases and incremental soldier boosts, we very well may exceed this figure in the next decade or so.

When a state requests almost two-thirds of a Trillion dollars to maintain its economic interests and hegemony, it requires an army of rapacious citizens dedicating their days and desires to the acquisition of goods, goods, and more goods. Without economic capital, military and political capital is nonexistent. The American government's faith in its people's addiction to consumerism is quite tremendous. It has to be. The hole system is based on it.

And so for me, it now clicks.

America's materialistic fanaticism is married to American's insatiate hegemony in what is most certainly a match made in Hell for everyone.

American Economics, War, and Hegemony

Do we really want this to be the last chapter in the book of Mankind?