'Fox' Fallon Resigns CentCom command

Today should be marked down until the January 20th, 2009. Admiral William ‘Fox’ Fallon, the head of CentCom, which heads operations in the Middle East has stepped down as commander.
An article about Adm. Fallon published in the April 2008 issue of Esquire alludes to Fallon being the only thing standing between Bush and an attack on Iran.
Today, he resigned command, stating "Although I don't believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command area of responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America's interests there,"
He also commented that the article in Esquire was "disrespectful of the President" and the published article created an embarrassment that was a distraction. (Thank you to CNN)
Not sure if the article (which I read last week) was bent to create animosity between the Admiral and the Administration but he has stepped down.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates is quoted as saying "We have tried between us to put this misperception behind us over a period of months, and, frankly, just have not been successful in doing so," (again CNN)
Does this resignation stem from the article?
It was just published. When was this ‘misperception’ created then.
If the article had been completed months ago and its contents (and spin?) were known months ago, then that comment is understandable.
If not, Defense Secretary Gates' comment does not make sense.

On Wrigley

A friend/enemy of mine called me the other day and asked what I thought about Sam Zell considering the option to sell the naming rights of Wrigley Field. He is a very un-savvy sports observer so I was happy to try to explain the consequences of this potential name change.
First and foremost, like my friend, Zell sees the Wrigley Field as part of a business; therefore, up for sale at any price. This is very true. When purchasing the Tribune Co., Chicago-native Zell purchased the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field, as well as other Tribune holdings.
As any man (or woman) who can procure such holdings, the person has the right to do with them as they please. With the current newspaper market and the FCC’s potential rulings regarding ownership of multiple news outlets in similar markets, Zell may be wise to breakup the company and sell the individual properties. (I believe that the FCC would rule that the Tribune might retain control of WGN and WBBM because they have been grandfathered, ie: part of the company for quite some time and not part of a recent power grab)
Dealing with the media outlets is an issue that brings in the FCC and other media ownership related concerns.
The Chicago Cubs and Wrigley Field is an entirely different matter.
First, many groups and persons hoping to purchase the Cubs were banking on buying both the stadium and the team. This is what initially gave the potential sale an estimated $1 billion price tag. Breaking up the team and the stadium and selling them separately may produce a different host of buyers (or cause the current ones to gather more funds) and could logically bring Zell more money.
If you pay attention to reports about Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cubans interest in the team, you would be aware that his obstacles are Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig and the other 29 owners of MLB teams. They would have to approve of his purchasing the team.
I don’t believe a sale of the stadium, though, or the naming rights more importantly, are under the control of MLB.
The New York Mets recently sold the naming rights to their new stadium to Citi Corp for $20 million a year for 20 years. That’s $400 million.
Tribune exec Crane Kenney has told Zell they could demand this type of money on the market. He is correct.
The New York Yankess, THE name of MLB, just turned down a $50 million a year proposal to sell the naming rights to the new Yankee Stadium.
The Chicago White Sox sold the naming rights to their new stadium to U.S. Cellular which is called ‘The Cell’ by Cubs fans but just ‘Comiskey by the White Sox faithful.
Sun-Times columnist Mark Konkol, a White Sox fan, weighed in by stating that the White Sox have a new stadium with a new name and won a World Series and they don’t care so Cubs fans should get over it.
I understand his point except we have a trend going here: new stadium. Mets, check. Yankees, check. White Sox, check. Cubs, same old Wrigley.
What Zell is now running into is American Tradition. In explaining the current public outcry being created by this, media influence aside, my friend and Zell are mistaking Wrigley Field as a stadium.
It is not a stadium. It is a historical landmark. When people think Chicago, one of the first things that comes to mind, regardless of whether or not they are sports fans, is Wrigley Field. Everyone, besides Jeff Gordon, knows Wrigley Field. According to a letter to the Sun-Times, even the deceased Pope John Paul II knows about Wrigley.
Sam Zell, business mogul and real estate guru is used to the bottom line and making more and more money. He has just purchased a national monument. Yes, it’s not the White House or Mount Rushmore, but Wrigley Field belongs in the same category of those sacred buildings in America. It is not spoken in the same breath as Minute Maid Park or American Airlines Center. Wrigley Field is an American institution.
Sam Zell may be over playing his hand here. Or, as mentioned before, urge on of the potential buyers to fork up even more dough to buy both the stadium and team as a packaged deal. The Chicago Cubs fan base is extremely faith ful, bordering on religious. I fear what would happen if the naming rights were sold.

Explaining Hillary

Bill Maher asked why everyone seemed to hate Hillary on Real Time this past week.
It's a great question. What is it about this woman that makes some people so angry? Did she kick their dog? Call them names? Who knows?
What it seems to be is a collection of interest points and straight politics.
First, die-hard Republicans hate the Clintons. Both of them. Just as die-hard Democrats hate the Bushes. It is nothing but politics. These are the types of people who if I shouted "Country before Party" would either be disgusted at me or claim they preferred rock n roll. To them, the opposite party is so revolting, so un-American that having anyone representing that ass or elephant is morally deficient. You could say these people just walk into the voting booth and pull the lever with the D or the R on it but soem people are just lazy.
People ask me: "Are you a democrat or Republican?". When I hesitate, they interject: "Or an independent?" This is not said nicely for the most part. More that they feel I am a puppy that has lost his way.
Anyways, the Clintons have come to represent the Democratic party for many people over the past decade+. Republican pundits hate Bill and Hillary. They might even hate Chelsea.
Secondly, her appearance. To some people, an 'arrogant or confidant' looking woman is a scary thing. Men of course, but women as well. The role of gender will always play a part in culture so this can't be over looked. Some Hillary supporters may believe that since men have been running the show, nothing has gone right; therefore, a woman will turn things around. This goes the oppostie way. How could a woman handle the presidency? We don't allow women in the armed forces to engage in combat.
Third, she is just riding the coattails of her husband. Without her last name, she wouldn't be in politics. Well, that goes for a lot of people in the beltway.
Finally, she is a bureaucrat. This is derived from all the newfound voters and 'I care about politics' people. Clinton has been a part of the D.C. system for a long time and was a govenor's wife before that. These people are clamoring for someone who will 'change' the system in Washington D.C. and make America 'work again'.
I wrote in an earlier post that she has nothing to lose or gain. By this I mean that she is such a polarizing figure that people are not likely to all of a sudden start hating her or liking her. Everyone has already made up their minds on her.
It will take the mastery of the Clinton political machine to be able to sway voters towards a positive opinion of Hillary if they don't have one already. Perhaps New Hampshire proved this is possible but then Bill's presence leading up to South Carolina worked against her.
In the end, it would most benefit Hillary to distance herself from her husband as much as possible.
The question facing the DNC is whether the people who do like Hillary outnumber the people who don't.

Just some '08 Election thoughts

Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States.

Everyone has already made up their mind with Hillary Clinton, she has nothing to gain, or lose.

John McCain would make a phenomenal Secretary of Defense, President Obama.

Speading Democracy

After all the pandering and complaining produced by Democrats and Republicans alike, it seems that something has been forgotten. We have not 'failed' or 'succeeded' in Iraq.
What has been created is an illusion of what 'American might' is capable of. Speading Democracy is not really possible in terms of war and force.
This did not occur in the worlds first Democracy, the United States of America.
Nearly a decade of war was spent by rebellious subjects across the Atlantic Ocean, exhausting the British.
It was true that the colonists were added by the French and their alliance created with the help of Benjamin Franklin was paramount in the creation of the United States.
But this is the difference between Iraq and America.
Iraq was invaded, while colonial Britain was imploded.
The young rebels of America fought and earned their freedom from within their borders, on their own terms.
Iraq's government, while tyranical and oppresive, was suddenly dismantled in a matter of weeks leaving the country in dissaray.
The lesson of this invasion should be that Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons and George Washingtons are creatures of their own trials in life, producing their ultimate victory through their own decision to sacrifice their lives.
The Iraqis decision was made for them.

Concerning Patriotism
This Fourth of July, as we celebrate our independence from a brutally repressive regime, we would all be remiss if we didn’t spend at least a few moments thinking about what exactly it is that we are celebrating. Patriotism, ever the buzzword among proud Americans, will no doubt be conspicuously present at this year’s festivities due in large part to our troops being harm’s way in Iraq and Afghanistan. But what is patriotism? How do individuals define it for themselves and what societal role does it play? Is patriotism a rational response to a celebration of the United States’ independence?
To many in the left, patriotism is nearly synonymous with blind acceptance of governmental authority; a boastful flag-waving, god-invoking ideology of American superiority. This view is contrasted in the right, where patriotism is viewed as the highest of praises to be bestowed upon what is at the least, a beautiful experiment in self-government, and because of the superiority of our founding ideas, the greatest country in the world. American patriotism has its roots in the American Revolution and was no comfortable retreat from worldly problems, but was a direct and confrontational stance in opposition to tyranny. But since then patriotism has had its pure motives hijacked, again and again, by those trying to find supporters for the most offensive of actions. Anti-communist tactics made extensive use of questioning the patriotism of law-abiding Americans. More recently, patriotism was repeatedly invoked to shame those who stood against the run-up to war in Iraq.
The most galling use in recent memory must clearly be the shamefully Legislative collapse of the Patriot Act. Not only did most congressional members not even read the bill, most could not fathom the thought of voting against the "Patriot" Act in a time of national crisis; it passed de facto due to a clever name which preyed upon the base need of elected officials to appear to love their country. The true patriot acts not out of irrational love of country; he or she is as well aware of the aspects of his or her government that deserve celebration as those which demand change. To use patriotism to signify a profound respect of the ideals for which our founders fought and died is acceptable, to use it towards any other goal is not. To quell dissent, in any form, is unpatriotic; to believe that America in its present form is beyond reproach is unpatriotic; to blindly believe what the government does and says are in your best interests is unpatriotic.
These conflicting views as to what patriotism really is often make people uncomfortable. Those with serious quarrels with the power structures of Washington often don’t readily self-identify as patriots, yet their demands for progress from a stagnant system are evidence of an abiding love of their country. Those lacking a love of this country can find many ways of making themselves known, but speaking with an ardor and candor about your hopes for this country should never be mistaken for an unkind gesture. Those who have long been shouted down in the halls of power for their courage to speak plainly about the flaws of our system have let the helm of patriotism be stolen from them and attached to the grossest and most outrageous of self-promotional, and indeed fascist, policies. This travesty is not without its victims, the wise and discourteous youth run in fear of such un-ironic flag-waving, seeing it largely for what it is: the insecure expressing their vain hope that someone else, anyone else, will save them from their fears for the future.
This Independence Day let freedom ring in the chorus of dissent we issue forth toward the leaders of this country. Should we sit idly by and celebrate this day of victory over tyranny with burgers and Budweiser, may we call ourselves patriots no more. Let no one stand to speak today without realization of the challenges we face, from environmental collapse to ideological strife, through internal schism and political dissolution. The dangers to this dear country are great, and there is no sane man who denies this, but so as multifarious as the threats may be, so too are the solutions. Only there in the chorus of disparate voices will you find the true voice of the patriot. The voice of loving dissent, the voice of the one who loves this country despite itself, the voice of the citizen who refuses to be drowned out by the sound of the bombs bursting in air: these are the patriots to whom America owes its freedom, as much today as in 1776.

Can You Hear Me Know?

ABC News’ “The Blotter” posted a story on May 22^nd with the headline: U.S. Government gave Airtime to Terrorists, Official Admits . The body of the story explains the Al Hurra television network that the U.S. government has pumped millions of dollars to annually to counteract the perceived biases being broadcasted by the Middle East’s largest news network, Al Jazeera. According to testimony given by Joaquin Blaya, a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, none of the top news managers at the network spoke Arabic. The result was Al Hurra broadcasting terrorist’s messages for nearly an hour, according to The Blotter. In addition, the network had no assignment desk, which left stories in the hands of reporters and producers whom, according to Blaya, were impulsively hired Arabic speaking journalists.

The outlying problem here is that American tax dollars were going to a news network whose intention was to deliver a pro-Western message to the Middle East. Instead, the network was hastily put together with top brass not even speaking the language with which the message was being sent. Blaya and other top officials claim that the network has fired unqualified staff and have improved the content to reflect the networks intended pro-Western message.

Al Jazerra, whose coverage of the Iraq War was highlighted in the film “Control Room”, being accused of Middle Eastern bias was supposed to be met by the broadcasting of Al Hurra. Instead, Al Hurra has broadcasted hateful, anti- Western and anti-Israeli speeches and stories. Personally, I am troubled by this entire episode. It was very coincidental that I viewed “Control Room” on Monday, May 21^st and read the article about Al Hurra on May 22^nd. Throughout “Control Room”, Bush Administration officials are seen denouncing Al Jazerra as being overtly pro-Iraq and insurgency. The Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made claims of how Al Jazerra would stage women and children weeping at bombed out homes they didn’t live in to make it appear the situation in Iraq was worse than it really was. I would admit to being swayed by Al Jazerra and the film and that I perceive Al Jazerra of being a good journalistic source with all sides being considered. Whether or not this is true is not entirely relevant to my point, which is that the U.S. Government created a news network to rival the behemoth of Al Jazerra and so absent mindedly staffed the network that the heads of production didn’t speak the language they were broadcasting. This problem is ludicrous. I am drawn to a scene in “The Hunt for Red October” in which Alec Baldwin, a CIA officer, says to Sean Connery, a Russian submarine captain, in Russian, “It is wise to study the ways of one’s enemies.” Indeed.