Stay Tuned ... To These Shows

Over the last year of so, the past three months in fact, I have found myself watching MSNBC programs like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and Scarborough Country more often than I used to. Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough leans right, while Keith not so subtlety leans left, though he pointed out recently that he runs his own ship at MSNBC and doesn’t categorize himself in ideological terms.

So why do I like to watch both shows, which air back-to-back every weeknight (except that Joe takes most Fridays off) with Olbermann starting at 8pm and Scarborough at 9pm? Because, politics aside, they are actually a breath of fresh air. Joe’s personality is likeable, and he is a realist, not a right-wing ideologue, while Keith mixes dry humor with facts in his nightly criticism of the Bush administration and its supporters; he does so better than most, even better than Al Franken, to be honest (sorry, Al).

Scarborough Country injects a bit of comedy in its mostly serious program as well, albeit not through anything the host or his guests provide in punch lines, but by talking about and showing highlights of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the Colbert Report, Letterman’s rather new Presidential Moments in History segment (making the most out of Bush’s odd moments, no context needed), and even Jimmy Kimmel’s bleep-filled Unnecessary Censorship segment.

Maybe Keith’s style and success this year has rubbed off on Joe, or he just wanted to find a way to lighten up the contentious atmosphere of politics in America. But sometimes, Joe’s airing of segments from Comedy Central’s most popular latenight shows is done for political purposes; right or wrong, he feels Stewart should just admit that he has a Democratic-leaning bias in his show. He loves Colbert too, but acts like Stewart is hiding something. I don’t agree that he’s hiding anything, but Stewart is always worth discussing because of his ever growing influence in American politics, particularly among the younger generation, who supposedly get their fill of “news” from his show.

Nonetheless, in both shows, you get the most serious discussions and spirited debates about the most pressing issues of the day (Iraq, Republican corruption) as you’ll find anywhere else on cable or network TV. And Scarborough actually makes a good effort, unlike say, Faux News, to be FAIR & BALANCED in his selection of guests to debate those issues. For example, on many nights, you’ll get Joe and conservative talking head Pat Buchanon on one side debating what to do about Iraq with left-leaning journalists like Joan Walsh from Salon.com and Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post. And to his credit, Scarborough does a good job getting everybody’s views on a given issue fair time.

And Keith? In an era where there is more Republican talking heads and talking points getting filtered through the mainstream media than ever, you can't blame Keith for trying to steer away from the usual talking heads on the right (i.e. Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich) and instead invite journalists from the likes of Newsweek and the Washington Post to discuss, criticize or evaluate Democrats and Republicans alike in substantially less partisan ways, even if you can still tell which side of the political spectrum they favor.

Having said that, what really sets Keith apart from the rest of the pack is his harsh commentary of the Bush administration in recent months, via the “Special Comment” segment he airs about every few weeks or so. Whether they involve tearing Rumsfeld a new one over his outrageous statement that Bush critics lack courage and are morally confused about how to fight terrorism and want to appease Islamic “fascists,” or calling Bush a liar on national television, something no other journalist in Washington has the guts to do, Keith is refreshingly bold and informed in his approach, often invoking historical context in his speeches. Some may call them partisan in tone, but call them HONEST, critical commentaries. We need more of them, not less from broadcast journalists of his stature, and they are working for Keith, as his audience has jumped over 20% in ratings since this time last year.

We also need more criticism of other influential figures in politics and in America in general, and Keith also provides that in other segments, especially his nightly “Worst Person in the World” segment, where a Bronze, Silver, and Gold medal are giving to the most outrageous people of the day--they can be average Americans, organizations or politicians--and where fellow 8pm slot rival Bill O’Reilly of Faux News is often featured. Olbermann even has a whole book out now recounting the best of those segments, and they are as funny as they are alarming.

In all, if nothing else, these two shows should be the model for political news shows (as opposed to straight news shows), and with Olbermann’s contract expiring soon, MSNBC should do everything they can to keep him. Hardball with Chris Matthews was the most identifiable show on this third rate network, but Matthews took a noticeable nosedive in credibility when Media Matters for America named him the “Misinformer of the Year” for 2005. His loud mouth has gotten him flagged by MMFA often this year as well, but I am still a fan of his show. On any given day, his show and interviews with the day’s newsmakers can really be informative (see recent interviews with Murtha and General John Batiste). But I’ll leave a full analysis of Matthews for another day, as this is Keith’s time now.

Keith Olbermann's popularity and influence on the dialogue in American politics should only get bigger from here on out, and with Scarborough Country airing right afterwards, that’s two hours worth of shows that two years ago, I’d never watch back-to-back. Now, they’ve got my support. Do they get yours?

As Iraq Stands Up, U.S. Stands Down? Yeah, right!

Remember when President Bush said that when Iraqi troops "stand up," the U.S. troops would "stand down"? Looks like yet another promise reneged, and during an election season no less.

The Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker spoke on Wednesday and gave all of us looking for significant change and direction in Iraq the second worst news possible (behind Cory Lidle's tragic death): the U.S. Army will keep 140,000 troops in this war-torn country for another four years, which means that any talk and hope of drawing down the amount to 100,000 by year's end or anytime in the forseeable future is history. At least that's what our generals and the White House is saying now. General Abizaid warned recently that current levels of troops may have to be maintained in Iraq through next Spring, so this should not come as a suprise after all, certainly not the dreaded October Surprise. But still, this news is unsettling, and for many reasons.

The situation on the ground dictates military strategy we're constantly reminded, but it has gotten so much worse than anyone could have imagined at the start of this year. Having said that, I'm not losing hope for Iraq, even though it is engaged in a low-level civil war in and around Baghdad. My hope is that maybe by this time next year, just maybe the violence will have bottomed out and lessened to the point where these types of projections will change and render this current one meangingless. Maybe trained Iraq troops will have finally reached the 400,000 mark by mid-2007, which would get them back to square one (the CPA, led by Paul Bremer de-Baathed the Iraq Army and put 400,000 soldiers out of work with nothing to do shortly after the fall of Baghdad in 2003). But maybe I'm just too optimistic for my own good.

Ever since the Askariya shrine - one of the holiest in Shiite Islam - was destroyed in the northern town of Samarra, the sectarian violence in Iraq has gotten so bad and so frequent that the number of tortured bodies found around Bagdad now exceeds the amount that Saddam's government was responsible for. Oh, but we're supposed to believe that life without Saddam is better? Tell that to the families and surviving friends of the 48,000-650,000 victims (depending on which reports you believe is credible) of this 3-and-a-half year-old guerilla war.

Just last month, an average of 89 people died in Iraq per day. When Bob Woodward reported in his new book ("State of Denial") that there was an average of 100 attacks and other acts of violence per day in Iraq, which breaks down to one potentially deadly incident every 15 minutes, he was giving Americans and everyone else in the world for that matter the most realistic picture of daily Iraqi life possible. And when you realize that this level of violence isn't occuring in the Kurdish north or the deep South of Iraq, it's scary to think about how much worse it can get still, and what the country could look like a year or two from now if it doesn't cut down significantly. Then again, the Iraqi government could actually gain some control over their country and stop or lessen this madness. Or is that asking too much.

Our generals, including General Casey know that the coaliton of the willing is dwindling to near irrelevence, and thus have little choice but to recommend that we increase OUR troop levels and strain the National Guard and Army reserves to maintain them.

It's a tragedy that the Bush administration has failed to keep and increase significant international troop levels throughout Iraq, and our men and women are paying dearly for it, having to stay longer than expected and in some cases, having to go back to Iraq three to four times.

That's a backdoor draft, my friends, and the more our soldiers are subjected to it, the angrier and less supportive the families of these brave soldiers will be of this war and its leaders. Just ask the assembly of Alaskans who, according to CNN a week ago wanted Rumsfeld to resign for recently deciding to keep a native Army brigade in Iraq at the last minute. A few of those Alaskan soldiers from that brigade died in Iraq, and WOULD'VE been home, according to a CNN report around October 6. The fact that the Defense Department even has to consider overextending large amounts of US soldiers in this fashion shows how disastrous Bush's Iraq policies have been (not to mention administration hirees Paul Bremer, Ahmed Chalabi and Halliburton!).

I call on Bush to get his act together and get more countries, particularly Arab nations, on board and commit their soldiers to Iraq in the years to come. You wanna get Dubai to work with the US? The hell with securing our ports, how about being part of Iraqi security (if they actually have an army big and strong enough to help out).

Seriously though, is the Arab League and it's 22 member states still around? Let's get them more involved, diplomaticly AND militarily. NATO has stepped up in Afghanistan, and the UN is busy trying to hold the fort down in Lebanon and struggling to deal with the Darfur tragedy. So it is the Arab world that needs to realize they have a vested interest in a stable Iraq. Their help would not only add familiar-looking faces to the war effort (and thereby communicate with Iraqis a little better), but save countless Iraqi and Western lives. It's about time they woke up. It's not too late.

Team Sleep

As current alt-metal fans and recovering late ‘90s nu metal heads await the Deftones’ 5th studio album to drop in stores at the end of this month, I thought it would be appropriate to revisit lead singer Chino Moreno’s overlooked side project from last year, Team Sleep.

You wouldn’t know it by listening to his main band’s music, but Moreno always loved relatively quieter and anti-chaotic “headphones” music, such as Massive Attack records. The Deftones, of course, never ceased to raise all hell, on stage or on record. Headphones offered no refuge from the Deftones experience, as they often made music as loud, raucous, and heavy as they could make it. They managed to find time for more melodic-driven rockers too, especially as the 1990s turned to the 2000s.

But in 2005, Moreno took a break (after 15 years with Deftones) to promote Team Sleep, a project that was in the works for a long time, according to all press accounts. That work culminated in the release of Team Sleep’s self-titled debut on Maverick Records in May of last year.

Moreno’s two main working partners on the album are old high school friend and guitarist Todd Wilkinson and DJ Crook (drum programming, turntables). Its digital and soothing soundscapes complement Chino’s impassioned singing style, and gears much of the record towards a softer, “headphones” style of rock that’s closer to shoegaze than metal, though Moreno and company don’t totally abandon loud rock on this record.

While Crook uses sequencers to cook up an array of sounds and other experiments, Zach Hill livens up the often moody atmosphere of the record with his boisterous drumming style, going all out on the few purely heavy, Deftones-like tracks like “Your Skull Is Red” and “Blvd. Nights.” Helium’s singer Mary Timony does guest vocals on a couple of cuts, but singer/guitarist Rob Crow of lo-fi San Diego indie pop rockers Pinback sings on no less than four tracks on Team Sleep’s debut. His soft tenor works surprisingly well with Moreno, who has toned it down himself for this record (no hardcore shrieks to be found). In fact, at least a couple of the Rob Crow-led songs wouldn’t sound out of place on a Pinback record, especially album closer “11/11,” as Todd Wilkinson’s jangle/dreampop guitars give the song a pure sound (no electronic gadgets needed) and ends the album on a high note.

In its entirety, Team Sleep is a consistently good record that gets better with each listen. It does, without question have a dark, moody theme to it, much like A Perfect Circle’s records. However, the delicately layered soft guitars, the sporadic loud ones, the live band feel, all mixed in with electronic buzzes, beats and other experiments, along with a good rotation of special guests works very well, with few exceptions. All of these elements makes Team Sleep one of the more exceptional albums of 2005, even though it was absent from many critics’ “best of” lists. It is impressive for a side project as well, spearheaded by one of the most distinctive voices in modern metal.

Key tracks: “Ever (Foreign Flag),” “Princeton Review,” “11/11” and “Elizabeth”

Bush: Weak on National Security

Since President Bush vigorously announced his intentions earlier this month to finally bring to justice detainees that have been in US custody for nearly five years, including the "mastermind" of the September 11th attacks (minus Usama, of course, who remains at large somewhere between Afghanistan and Pakistan), he has gone out of his way to hold up the very military tribunals set up to convict them of their alleged war crimes. In fact, he is attempting to weaken them.

When the Supreme Court earlier this summer ruled that the military tribunal system as it was set up then could not go forward because it did not comply with the Geneva Conventions, it was a straightforward decision. In other words, the system was illegal. The Court said to go back to Congress and make sure that the tribunal regulations get legislated through both Houses, signed into law by Bush and comports to established international standards of jurisprudence (Geneva) in dealing with wartime criminals (at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and those in formerly secret prisons around the world who are now at Gitmo).

Instead of doing just that, he had to make the whole issue more complicated and controversial than it already was. The trouble started when the Bush adminstration viewed the Supreme Court decision as an invitation to rewrite Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which they claim is "too vague" in saying what is lawful or unlawful treatment of prisoners, and the debate between Bush and 3 "rebel Republicans" (and those who support the latter) over this radical idea hasn't stopped since.

I won't go into details, but anyone who can google or Wikipedia their way to Common Article 3 of Geneva can figure out for themselves that it is NOT vague and says plainly: no torture or anything like it to war prisoners. Bush & co. are "cherrypicking" out words and sentences from the Supreme Court and this international treaty as an excuse to write a law that would retroactively cover the asses of US interrogators who allegedly DID torture the enemy combatants like Khalid Sheik Mohammed. He is evil, we know, and maybe he deserved the treatment he got for masterminding the September 11 attacks with Usama's blessing, but you don't make the exception the rule. More importantly, torture hardly ever gives interrogators reliable evidence, and in the case of one detainee, it can bring out FALSE confessions and intelligence, some of which ultimately found its way into Colin Powell's embarassing/notorious February 2002 UN speech on Iraq's dangers (false as all those dangers turned out to be).

If we rewrite any part of the Geneva laws, who's to say other countries, especially ones who we view as adversies/enemies wouldn't rewrite it as they saw fit to justify how THEY treat prisoners (potentially US soldiers)? It's a bad idea, and many people are trying to stop it from happening.

For almost 10 days now, experts have been weighing in on the issue - the controversial bill is currently called the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - and pleading with Congress to prevent any attempt to change Common Article 3 and revoke a prisoner's (al Qaeda or otherwise) habeas corpus rights to challenge their detention in federal courts (by withholding certain evidence from them). Colin Powell wrote to former Vietnam POW John McCain around September 13 to support his protest of Bush's attempt to screw with the Geneva Conventions, and many others, including 9 retired US justices (many of them Appeal Court judges) wrote to Congress, applauding those who are fighting to prevent secret evidence and evidence by coercion from being allowed in these military tribunals.

It's bad enough that we have more enemies and people who hate us in the world now (think Arab countries) than we did after Clinton left office (much of it because of Bush's troubled and tragic Iraq war). We don't need the world to think any less of us than they already do, and ratifying established international laws that haven't been changed in nearly 60 years like the Geneva Convention would give other nations license to do so, no doubt about it.

And that's the main point. Do unto others that you would want done to you, now and in the future. We know that the terrorists we face in the Middle East and elsewhere today aren't part of established governments, try as the might to topple and influence them with their radical Islamic rhetoric. Has the major media paid attention to what's going on in Somalia? Al-Qaeda has infiltrated the country and now you have US-backed warlords fighting warlords backed by al-Qaeda. Somalia could become the next Afghanistan, an oppressive state where the rules of war would no doubt be non-existent.

But this current debate is about not just the seemingly endless "War on Terror," but future wars and the courts that try their criminals. It's about realizing that the Geneva Conventions have lasted through the Korean War, Vietnam, and even both Iraq wars without being changed. Why start now?

As former Chief Justice Marshall once said, we are a nation of laws, not men. Here's to hoping that common sense and law ultimately trumps the short-sighted ideology of the men who run the White House.