Instead of being the typical sports talk show caller in my hometown of Boston, who, at this point literally has to dig for issues to whine about concerning the Red Sox, I think it would be wise to just enjoy this unbelievable run they are on and look at any negatives in full context - the fact that most of the struggling players, however few of them there are right now, are new to Boston, for instance. But focusing on the sub-par play of a few players (Coco Crisp, J.D. Drew) takes away from the fact that the Red Sox have an 11½ game lead over their arch rival, the Yankees. No other first place team has such a big lead over their division opponents. And they are in the top 3 or 5 in many hitting and pitching categories in the American League.
To get this big lead, the Sox have many players playing at or well above expectations. Perhaps none more than Hideki Okajima, on the pitching side. With his ERA still around 1.00 this far into the season, he may just be the most dominant setup man you (and closer Jonathan Papelbon) could ask for.
As for the hitters, the only rookie among the starting nine has exceeded all expectations, and done so rather quickly, considering his slow start. Of course, I'm talking about second baseman Dustin Pedroia.
Remember when the Sox had little talent in their farm system? I sure do. How fast times change. Just in the last two years or so, we have seen the emergence of Jonathan Papelbon, Kevin Youkilis, Jon Lester — the southpaw who got off to an impressive start before coming down with Lymphoma last year and is now cured and almost ready to make his much anticipated comeback to the Sox rotation — and now Pedroia.
Sure, Pedroia got off to a slow start, which made some impatient fans cry for Alex Cora to play more, but that wasn't unexpected. In fact, I didn't know what to expect from him other than good, solid defense. To this point, he's only made two errors on the year. By contrast, his predecessor Mark Loretta made only four last year, but he was a veteran and a solid one at that.
Though he got some at bats late in 2006, Pedroia is still a rookie, and a confident one at that. And why not? Looking at his college and short minor league career, I would be too if I was named Defensive Player of the year in 2003 at Arizona State, co-player of that same year in the PAC-10, and had a whopping .466 OBP in three years at ASU!
Last year at Pawtucket, he was an all-star who ranked 4th in the International League in batting average, and was 3rd in OBP. But what Pedroia may take the most pride in is that he became the first of the 2004 Sox draft picks to reach the majors in late August.
Pedroia, like Kevin Youkilis, had one hell of a May and is now batting well over .300, has more hits than J.D. Drew(!), and has an astounding OBP of .394. With those numbers and sound defensive play, Pedroia could be turning into the next Youkilis. But with only one-third of the season completed, it's too early to tell whether that comparison will hold up. Besides, Pedroia has yet to hit that "rookie wall."
Additionally, one must remember that the circumstances around Pedroia's rise are far different than the considerably longer journey it took Youkilis to get his chance to play full-time, which was three years (2004-2006). The Sox had Bill Mueller at third base and Kevin Millar/Doug Mientkiewicz at first base when Youk, who came up as a third baseman, was a rookie in '04. In 2005, GM Theo Epstein brought in John Olerud to join Millar at first base for the playoff run. Youk, meanwhile, was sent down to Pawtucket four times that season.
In short, there just wasn't room for Youk to play full-time at any time until 2006, when the first base job opened up after Millar wasn't re-signed and Olerud retired; Pedroia, meanwhile, had the second base job waiting for him this year (Alex Cora, a true class act, never complained and knows he has multiple roles with the Sox to fulfill).
Another key difference: While Youk is considered a late bloomer, Pedroia is only 23 years old, so there's no guarantee that he will get 400 at bats this year. If he does struggle, he may warm the bench for a while, but definitely won't be sent down to the minors multiple times either, unless Theo decides that a combined Pedroia/Cora performance is so inadequate that he needs to sign or trade for a veteran at the fast-approaching July trading deadline.
So, in all, while there may be differences between Pedroia and Youkilis in terms of how they got here, in all, they are both at the top of their game right now and tearing up American League pitching. The right side of the Red Sox infield is looking more promising and stable than it has in a long, long time.
As for the aforementioned J.D. Drew, his HR numbers and batting average may be way down, but in what is widely considered one of the toughest right fields to play in MLB at Fenway, Drew has been very good at handling it in his first two months on the job (his 3 errors aside). And Drew has had an OBP above or just below .350 for much of the year, which is what the Theo Epsteins of the world will tell you is just as important, if not more so, than batting average when it comes to helping a team win.
Even though he's 0-10 in six games against the Yankees so far this season (going into the weekend series at Fenway), J.D. Drew has been in the middle of some of the most memorable late-inning rallies of the season, including the so-called "Mother's Day Miracle" vs. the Orioles. Yes, he hasn't done it with his bat but knows the strike zone better than most and is currently 2nd on the Sox in walks.
So the question is, at age 31, are we going to see the power numbers improve as the season goes along — assuming he stays healthy, of course — or are his hitting skills now declining to the point where he will be about as productive as Mark Bellhorn was in 2004? Which is to say good, but not great. Drew walks like Bellhorn, strikes out often like Bellhorn, but also gets on base like Bellhorn.
The problem is, unlike Mark, J.D. is getting paid eight-figure dollars to protect Manny and succeed the ultimate dirt dog Trot Nixon. If he can get to 70 RBIs, that would be quite an accomplishment at this point, having only driven in 17 in April and May combined.
With Mike Lowell and Jason Varitek batting behind him and playing much better than expected, and Manny starting to heat up, Drew needs to rack up the hits and have a strong June and July to make this lineup peak and prove that he can be the number five hitter Theo envisioned and signed him to be.
Note: This post was last updated June 6, 2006 at 1:02pm.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
They're back! Smashing Pumpkins v. 2.0
It wasn't too long ago that some die-hard Smashing Pumpkins fans sent a petition around the Internet to get, or should I say, demand that the Virgin Records Company officially release a DVD of the final Smashing Pumpkins show at the Metro in Chicago on 12/2/00.
So here we are, nearly six-and-a-half years later, and the Smashing Pumpkins have not only reformed, but recorded an album called Zeitgeist due out in early July and sold out an insane amount of shows overseas and at home. Seems silly now to even think about getting that so-called "last" show on DVD now, doesn't it? Although in the interest of full disclosure, I signed the petition (electronically) but didn't really expect it to amount to anything, because even I had a feeling that, in an era where beloved rock bands are constantly reforming (Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, Black Sabbath), that Billy himself wasn't going to ignore the humongous SP catalog for the rest of his life and would bring the band and music back before he got old. He was, after all only 33 years-old when he retired the band.
But between now and when SP broke up, he had an indie-allstar collaborative called Zwan to rock and roll with. Their one and only album Mary Star of The Sea was very good but didn't sell commercially and in 2003, Billy broke up that band after about two years.
Then, on June 21, 2005, Corgan, while promoting his underrated solo debut album The Future Embrace announced that he would indeed reform the Smashing Pumpkins. And it's been a looong wait even since then for new material to surface.
Finally, this past weekend (May 18, specifically), the first single from the new album leaked on radio stations across the country and the Internet. Called "Tarantula," it kicks some serious ass in a way not heard since the MCIS days. Assuming this is one of the tracks produced by the legendary Queen producer Roy Thomas Baker (and not the equally talented Terry Date), the guitar sound even has a bit of a Brian May feel to it, Billy throws in some bluesy licks and just plain wails away on guitar throughout. The cool and kickin' main rhythm of "Tarantula" uses the same notes (E,G,C) as the treasured "1979" b-side "Ugly," but is played totally differently. The song's arrangement as a whole starts out pretty straightforwardly, but goes places (think "Geek U.S.A.") and the song overall gets an A+ from me. Excellent choice for a first taste of what's to come.
So here we are, nearly six-and-a-half years later, and the Smashing Pumpkins have not only reformed, but recorded an album called Zeitgeist due out in early July and sold out an insane amount of shows overseas and at home. Seems silly now to even think about getting that so-called "last" show on DVD now, doesn't it? Although in the interest of full disclosure, I signed the petition (electronically) but didn't really expect it to amount to anything, because even I had a feeling that, in an era where beloved rock bands are constantly reforming (Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, Black Sabbath), that Billy himself wasn't going to ignore the humongous SP catalog for the rest of his life and would bring the band and music back before he got old. He was, after all only 33 years-old when he retired the band.
But between now and when SP broke up, he had an indie-allstar collaborative called Zwan to rock and roll with. Their one and only album Mary Star of The Sea was very good but didn't sell commercially and in 2003, Billy broke up that band after about two years.
Then, on June 21, 2005, Corgan, while promoting his underrated solo debut album The Future Embrace announced that he would indeed reform the Smashing Pumpkins. And it's been a looong wait even since then for new material to surface.
Finally, this past weekend (May 18, specifically), the first single from the new album leaked on radio stations across the country and the Internet. Called "Tarantula," it kicks some serious ass in a way not heard since the MCIS days. Assuming this is one of the tracks produced by the legendary Queen producer Roy Thomas Baker (and not the equally talented Terry Date), the guitar sound even has a bit of a Brian May feel to it, Billy throws in some bluesy licks and just plain wails away on guitar throughout. The cool and kickin' main rhythm of "Tarantula" uses the same notes (E,G,C) as the treasured "1979" b-side "Ugly," but is played totally differently. The song's arrangement as a whole starts out pretty straightforwardly, but goes places (think "Geek U.S.A.") and the song overall gets an A+ from me. Excellent choice for a first taste of what's to come.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
"Politico" does it again
Politico is a rather new print and online newspaper in Washington, but their influence in American politics has been felt rather quickly, and that hasn't been a good thing. Lately, Media Matters for America has flagged a few of their writers for misinformation and smears on Democrats.
This morning, around 11am, writer Ben Smith posted on the front page of politico.com as fact that John Edwards was going to suspend his presidential campaign, AND may drop out completely due to the reoccurence of his wife's breast cancer. He later updated his story to say that the Edwards campaign denied those statements, then issued a complete apology on his blog to his readers early this afternoon (AFTER Edwards and Elizabeth spoke to the press in the 12pm hour).
He admitted that his story was based on one anonymous source, one that he claims has been a reliable source of his for years and said was a "friend" of the Edwards campaign (and NOT a part of it). More importantly though, Smith basically broke a long-standing rule of journalism, which is to verify your key information in a report with at least TWO independent sources, especially if they're anonymous.
In the 24-hour news cycle we live in, journalists feel the competitive pressure often times to get their story out there first, but there's no excuse for not meeting some basic requirements of journalism. Who knows how Ben Smith's bosses will treat him after this incident, but it is just one more chapter of misinformation by this newspaper, at the expense of the same political party, he Dems, and hopefully enough major media outlets will see through that soon and point out their biased or untrustworthy writers in the future. Candy Crowley and CNN sort of did today when she said Politico is known for having "crackerjack" reporters. That's a decent start.
This morning, around 11am, writer Ben Smith posted on the front page of politico.com as fact that John Edwards was going to suspend his presidential campaign, AND may drop out completely due to the reoccurence of his wife's breast cancer. He later updated his story to say that the Edwards campaign denied those statements, then issued a complete apology on his blog to his readers early this afternoon (AFTER Edwards and Elizabeth spoke to the press in the 12pm hour).
He admitted that his story was based on one anonymous source, one that he claims has been a reliable source of his for years and said was a "friend" of the Edwards campaign (and NOT a part of it). More importantly though, Smith basically broke a long-standing rule of journalism, which is to verify your key information in a report with at least TWO independent sources, especially if they're anonymous.
In the 24-hour news cycle we live in, journalists feel the competitive pressure often times to get their story out there first, but there's no excuse for not meeting some basic requirements of journalism. Who knows how Ben Smith's bosses will treat him after this incident, but it is just one more chapter of misinformation by this newspaper, at the expense of the same political party, he Dems, and hopefully enough major media outlets will see through that soon and point out their biased or untrustworthy writers in the future. Candy Crowley and CNN sort of did today when she said Politico is known for having "crackerjack" reporters. That's a decent start.
Monday, March 05, 2007
Boston Celtics: Trials and Tribulations
Before I begin, let me just point out that it was a week ago tonight that Celtic great Cedric "Cornbread" Maxwell got burned by first, the local media, then an out-of-control mainstream media (surprise, surprise) for what Glenn Ordway and others called a Tom Heinsohn "impression" of a referee.
Nevermind that last Monday night, the Celtics started their current 4-game win streak by beating an undermanned Houston Rockets team. What the media in this town did and elsewhere after Maxwell's remark was plain pathetic, simply said. First, they claimed his insult of a fellow black, female referee was a joke, then those who thought he was serious compared him to the anti-gay and former NBA star Tim Hardaway, or like AOL sports, described him as a towel-waving reserve/bench player from the '80s - a description that is not only wrong, but often describes former Celtics player and coach M.L. Carr.
But what is most insulting is what some of my favorite WEEI broadcasters are saying: that Maxwell was doing an "act" that he always does, this time it was making fun of how Tom Heinsohn criticizes referees. Other than the groans and "agghs" at the end of his rant, at NO POINT is Maxwell's remark that the female official Violet Palmer should "Go back to the kitchen...and make some eggs" an ACCURATE impression of the great Tom Heinsohn.
If Glenn Ordway is right, that Cedric was just "mimicking" Heinsohn, one is to imply that Heinsohn made sexist comments about female referees in the past 20+ years he's been broadcasting NBA games. I've never heard of one instance of such a case, and if you did, please fill me in, 'cuz his reputation would have been scarred for life in this town no doubt.
Not even Danny Ainge found what Maxwell said to be funny or appropriate and rightly believed Max needed to apologize for what he said. But Max did a lawyerly apology last Wednesday and basically said "if" what I said offended anyone, "then I apologize." He then went on to praise Ms. Palmer and say how she's come a long way to be in the NBA, blah blah blah.
The point is, I've been listening to Maxwell since his days with Howard David and I know his quirky (quacky) act, but Max (and Sean Grande, who basically started the rant by grunting Palmer's name) screwed up. And I believe they both knew it right away because if you listened to the audio clip of the rant (from WEEI or the Internet), you would rightly assume that the praising that Max and Grande did of Palmer RIGHT AFTER Max made his sexist rant was nothing but a CYA compliment meant to avoid the criticism he ultimately had to deal with.
Oh, and that winning streak the C's are on? That's not a good thing, according to some fans and pundits (Mike Felger, and the WEEI morning show crew among them). They would say the Celtics are so injured and so bad now that they should just give up, fake injuires and lose enough games to guarantee them a chance to get the #1 or #2 draft pick (either Oden or Durant). I disagree, at least for now. But if circumstances change drastically (such as any MORE key injuries or reinjuries, think Pierce or Big Al), then I may reconsider, but let's look at how the Celtics got to their present situation and how it informs my apparent minority view of what the team should do.
It's worth mentioning that before the season began, the C's tried to land a high-profile free agent and make a big-time trade, but Ainge failed to come up with one and instead made a puzzling trade that sent injury-plagued Raef LaFrentz to Portland for a popular but sometimes troubled young stud, Sebastian Telfair, who's played about one good month of ball this year so far. And speaking of injury-plagued, I just learned that Wally has been injuried 4 of the last 5 years. I know Ainge had to get rid of Blount and Davis (based on personality disorders, not lack of talent) but didn't he know he might be the Ken Griffey Jr. of the Celtics? Couldn't he have done better than Olowakandi and Wally? I barely liked the trade when it happened, I admit, but I didn't know the injury history that Ainge must have known - he gets paid to know, I don't, and I would've shopped Blount and Davis elsewhere or kept them if there were no takers (and benched either or both if they were such a distraction).
But Ainge really needs to stop shopping for damaged goods - hardly any Theo Ratliff this year and very little of Michael Olowakandi since he's been here. I understand that Ainge isn't the only reason that more than 70% (maybe higher) of the team has had mild-to-major injury problems this year; even Brian Scalabrini had to miss a few games. That's just bad luck. But the Celtics are sort of used to that by now, aren't they? And believe me, it hurts as a loyal fan to see all this talent and not even 20 wins to show for it.
Doc Rivers has coached his ass off this year and watched Big Al become a reliable scorer and rebounder, the likes Celtics fans haven't seen since Robert Parish left town. He's really taken second-year star-in-the-making Gerald Green under his wing and watched him fly to the net with one exciting dunk after another, win the NBA's annual slam-dunk contest, and get more confident in his shooting skills, scoring so much that Tom Heinsohn often yells "Get Gerald the ball!" And the Celtics have listened, as his PTS/Gm has soared to near 10 over the last couple of months. He's seen Delonte West fight through shooting struggles and injuries to become a leader by example (and hit some clutch, game-winning shots to boot). And Ryan Gomes, NOT Paul Pierce, has the team's only triple-double so far this year. Just in his second year as well, his talent proves that you can find solid NBA players in the second round of the draft.
What it comes down to is this: now that Pierce is about 90% of himself again and the team is starting to gel as a unit and win, they need to keep it up, become a spoiler and show the league and their fans what they could have been - a legitimate playoff team. (If they were healthy, the Celtics, who WERE in first place earlier this season, may have had a great chance of battling Toronto for the division title and thus home court in the first round of the playoffs.) They should be able to finish with around 23-25 wins, and in doing so, keep improving their young players in order to pull off a big trade for a reliable, top-notch veteran PG or big man like Pau Gasol.
Look, I know adding Greg Oden to the Celtics would be great for the franchise, no question. But he's only a freshman in college this year and there's no guarantee that he will become a great NBA player anytime soon. Established players like Pau Gasol, on the other hand give you instant offense and rebounding, and along with Jefferson, the one-two punch in the middle that Pierce and company need to win every night and be a perennial playoff contender (in the weaker of the two conferences). If the C's have to give up Perkins or Gomes, Wally and a draft pick as part of such a deal, so-be-it. He and players of his ilk are worth it and I'm sure Danny Ainge has his eyes set on a trade for someone like him. It's just a matter of who he's willing to give up to get the Gasol's of the league.
That type of deal should be the goal, as well as signing a big-time free agent now that the C's are out of salary cap hell. You must realize that being a cellar team is no way to attract big-time free agents. So please, knowing our luck with Tim Duncan, let's do the big trade and not HOPE the ping-pong balls bounce our way for Oden (who is right now, two years younger than Jefferson!).
The time is now for Ainge and Rivers to turn this franchise around, before it's too late, and before Pierce wants out of Boston or becomes a shell of himself as he enters his 30s.
Nevermind that last Monday night, the Celtics started their current 4-game win streak by beating an undermanned Houston Rockets team. What the media in this town did and elsewhere after Maxwell's remark was plain pathetic, simply said. First, they claimed his insult of a fellow black, female referee was a joke, then those who thought he was serious compared him to the anti-gay and former NBA star Tim Hardaway, or like AOL sports, described him as a towel-waving reserve/bench player from the '80s - a description that is not only wrong, but often describes former Celtics player and coach M.L. Carr.
But what is most insulting is what some of my favorite WEEI broadcasters are saying: that Maxwell was doing an "act" that he always does, this time it was making fun of how Tom Heinsohn criticizes referees. Other than the groans and "agghs" at the end of his rant, at NO POINT is Maxwell's remark that the female official Violet Palmer should "Go back to the kitchen...and make some eggs" an ACCURATE impression of the great Tom Heinsohn.
If Glenn Ordway is right, that Cedric was just "mimicking" Heinsohn, one is to imply that Heinsohn made sexist comments about female referees in the past 20+ years he's been broadcasting NBA games. I've never heard of one instance of such a case, and if you did, please fill me in, 'cuz his reputation would have been scarred for life in this town no doubt.
Not even Danny Ainge found what Maxwell said to be funny or appropriate and rightly believed Max needed to apologize for what he said. But Max did a lawyerly apology last Wednesday and basically said "if" what I said offended anyone, "then I apologize." He then went on to praise Ms. Palmer and say how she's come a long way to be in the NBA, blah blah blah.
The point is, I've been listening to Maxwell since his days with Howard David and I know his quirky (quacky) act, but Max (and Sean Grande, who basically started the rant by grunting Palmer's name) screwed up. And I believe they both knew it right away because if you listened to the audio clip of the rant (from WEEI or the Internet), you would rightly assume that the praising that Max and Grande did of Palmer RIGHT AFTER Max made his sexist rant was nothing but a CYA compliment meant to avoid the criticism he ultimately had to deal with.
Oh, and that winning streak the C's are on? That's not a good thing, according to some fans and pundits (Mike Felger, and the WEEI morning show crew among them). They would say the Celtics are so injured and so bad now that they should just give up, fake injuires and lose enough games to guarantee them a chance to get the #1 or #2 draft pick (either Oden or Durant). I disagree, at least for now. But if circumstances change drastically (such as any MORE key injuries or reinjuries, think Pierce or Big Al), then I may reconsider, but let's look at how the Celtics got to their present situation and how it informs my apparent minority view of what the team should do.
It's worth mentioning that before the season began, the C's tried to land a high-profile free agent and make a big-time trade, but Ainge failed to come up with one and instead made a puzzling trade that sent injury-plagued Raef LaFrentz to Portland for a popular but sometimes troubled young stud, Sebastian Telfair, who's played about one good month of ball this year so far. And speaking of injury-plagued, I just learned that Wally has been injuried 4 of the last 5 years. I know Ainge had to get rid of Blount and Davis (based on personality disorders, not lack of talent) but didn't he know he might be the Ken Griffey Jr. of the Celtics? Couldn't he have done better than Olowakandi and Wally? I barely liked the trade when it happened, I admit, but I didn't know the injury history that Ainge must have known - he gets paid to know, I don't, and I would've shopped Blount and Davis elsewhere or kept them if there were no takers (and benched either or both if they were such a distraction).
But Ainge really needs to stop shopping for damaged goods - hardly any Theo Ratliff this year and very little of Michael Olowakandi since he's been here. I understand that Ainge isn't the only reason that more than 70% (maybe higher) of the team has had mild-to-major injury problems this year; even Brian Scalabrini had to miss a few games. That's just bad luck. But the Celtics are sort of used to that by now, aren't they? And believe me, it hurts as a loyal fan to see all this talent and not even 20 wins to show for it.
Doc Rivers has coached his ass off this year and watched Big Al become a reliable scorer and rebounder, the likes Celtics fans haven't seen since Robert Parish left town. He's really taken second-year star-in-the-making Gerald Green under his wing and watched him fly to the net with one exciting dunk after another, win the NBA's annual slam-dunk contest, and get more confident in his shooting skills, scoring so much that Tom Heinsohn often yells "Get Gerald the ball!" And the Celtics have listened, as his PTS/Gm has soared to near 10 over the last couple of months. He's seen Delonte West fight through shooting struggles and injuries to become a leader by example (and hit some clutch, game-winning shots to boot). And Ryan Gomes, NOT Paul Pierce, has the team's only triple-double so far this year. Just in his second year as well, his talent proves that you can find solid NBA players in the second round of the draft.
What it comes down to is this: now that Pierce is about 90% of himself again and the team is starting to gel as a unit and win, they need to keep it up, become a spoiler and show the league and their fans what they could have been - a legitimate playoff team. (If they were healthy, the Celtics, who WERE in first place earlier this season, may have had a great chance of battling Toronto for the division title and thus home court in the first round of the playoffs.) They should be able to finish with around 23-25 wins, and in doing so, keep improving their young players in order to pull off a big trade for a reliable, top-notch veteran PG or big man like Pau Gasol.
Look, I know adding Greg Oden to the Celtics would be great for the franchise, no question. But he's only a freshman in college this year and there's no guarantee that he will become a great NBA player anytime soon. Established players like Pau Gasol, on the other hand give you instant offense and rebounding, and along with Jefferson, the one-two punch in the middle that Pierce and company need to win every night and be a perennial playoff contender (in the weaker of the two conferences). If the C's have to give up Perkins or Gomes, Wally and a draft pick as part of such a deal, so-be-it. He and players of his ilk are worth it and I'm sure Danny Ainge has his eyes set on a trade for someone like him. It's just a matter of who he's willing to give up to get the Gasol's of the league.
That type of deal should be the goal, as well as signing a big-time free agent now that the C's are out of salary cap hell. You must realize that being a cellar team is no way to attract big-time free agents. So please, knowing our luck with Tim Duncan, let's do the big trade and not HOPE the ping-pong balls bounce our way for Oden (who is right now, two years younger than Jefferson!).
The time is now for Ainge and Rivers to turn this franchise around, before it's too late, and before Pierce wants out of Boston or becomes a shell of himself as he enters his 30s.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
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?
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?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, October 06, 2006
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”
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”
Thursday, September 21, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)