Wal-Mart takes a turn towards humanity

I posted yesterday about the sad case of Debbie Shank. Well, it turns out that this story is going to have a happy ending. Wal-Mart announced in a letter to Jim Shank that they are dropping their lawsuit. This is great news for the Shanks and a win for humanity in general.

Know Nothings for President!

Matt Yglesias linked to a very disturbing item from ThinkProgress. St. McCain, which the media assures us is very experienced in foreign policy and national security politics, claims that Moqtda al-Sadr influence has been decreasing for some time. This is yet another example of John McCain's complete detachment from reality. As McClatchy's Leila Fadel reported last Sunday in a superbly well written and well reported article that Nouri al Maliki, the prime minister, basically asked for the ceasefire and it was largely negotiated by an Iranian general. This isn't McCain mispeaking, this is McCain misknowing, if you will. As Yglesias says in his post, McCain has no idea. Yet another sad commentary on McCain's supposed foreign policy expertise and the media that are so quick to laud his bogus credentials.

Debbie Shank

Well I've decided that it's about time I mention the tragedy of Debbie Shank on this blog. For those of you that are not aware Debbie Shank is a former Wal-Mart employee. Approximately 8 years ago Debbie was involved in an accident where her van was slammed into by a truck. The accident left her severely brain damaged. At the time of the accident she was covered by Wal-Mart's health plan and the company covered her health expenses. End of story, right? Wrong. The Shanks filed suit against the trucking company and the two parties reached a settlement of $1,000,000. After lawyer's fees were assessed the $417,000 remaining were placed in a trust that was to be used for Debbie's care. Wal-Mart claiming it has a right to recoup any money that resulted from a settlement, sued the Shank's for the approximately $470,000 that its health plan dispensed for Shank's medical expenses. A judge ruled that they can only collect what is left in the trust, which is around $200,000. The Shanks of course appealed the decision and the case went all the way to the Supreme Court and stopped there. The Roberts' court, in its esteemed wisdom, refused to hear the case. Now, as I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court is the final legal avenue in the United States. Once they decide on a case, or refuse to, for that matter, it's a done deal. What this means is that the Shank's have to pay the $200,000 to Wal-Mart. This is now the end of the story.

Now there is little point in me getting really upset about this and trying to convince you how awful this is. That would be insulting to you, you're smarter than that. Just let me remind you that Wal-Mart rakes in tens of bilions of dollars in profits every year. Is an additional $200,000 really going to make that big of a difference?

In conclusion, you should check out this Huffington Post item with Keith Olbermann's take on the Debbie Shank tragedy.

Update: I neglected to mention a key detail in the Debbie Shank case. Her 18 year-old son was killed in Iraq. If you've watched the video over at Huffington Post you already now this, but it is of course a very relevant detail. When is this family going to get a break?

Running from the Center

The indispensible Glenn Greenwald is upset that the media frequently label St. McCain a centrist. Greenwald is particularly peeved that he's seen as a foreign policy centrist. As always, Greenwald is right on the money. McCain is no centrist. He's pro-life, pro-business (though he doesn't really understand how or why), pro-war, and most recently pro-torture (yippee!). Labeling McCain a "centrist" is endemic of the mainstream media. The Saint has occasionally shown some proclivity for moderation so he is eternally a centrist. The same label is applied to Joe Lieberman's foreign policy. Now, a half-assed examination of Lieberman's foreign policy views reveal that he is in lock step with George W. Bush, Bill Kristol, and John McCain on this i.e. a neoconservative. However, since Lieberman is an independent Democrat he's seen as between both the Democratic and Republican parties; therefore, he must be a centrist. Anyways, the same logic can of course be applied to McCain. John McCain believes the state of war is good for the country and he supports escalation of the Iraq war and bombing Iran. These are, of course, neoconservative viewpoints that align him perfectly with the right-wing of the Republican party. As much as I'd like to blame this on the media's love affair with John McCain, I think that it's probably more appropriate to chalk this one up to ignorance via laziness. Brian Beutler, has a very persuasive theory along these lines:

...the line connecting the most liberal politicians in Washington to the most conservative politicians in Washington really does, on social issues, run relatively smoothly from the left flank of the Democratic party through the right flank of the Republican party with a break between blue and red somewhere close to a "center". That, probably as much as anything else, explains why traditional media uses the system it uses. In effect, of course, this puts a ton of emphasis on party distinctions, placing, for instance, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman shoulder-to-shoulder on the spectrum even though one's foreign policy views are fairly at odds with the other's.

Well said, Mr. Beutler. The media just doesn't have the will, by way of laziness or outright apathy, to differetiate between the line on social issues and foreign policy. In terms of social issues, Lieberman really is a moderate Democrat or a "centrist", if you will. On the contrary, he has a neoconservative foreign policy in lock step with his good buddy St. John McCain.

Anyways, I know this is a long post but you must bear with me a little longer. The catalyst for comrade Greenwald's ire was this article by Michael Hirsh in Newsweek, and this segment in particular:

Lieberman, [McCain's] fellow centrist, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's monitor. Just two weeks ago, when McCain mistakenly said Iran was training Al Qaeda in Iraq fighters, it was the Connecticut senator who again pulled him aside, gently reminding him that the Iranian regime has been accused of training fellow Shiite extremists, not Sunni Al Qaeda.

I return again to Brian Beutler. In Mr Beutler's opinion that segment should have been presented as such:

"Lieberman, his fellow interventionist hawk, recently seems to have assigned himself the role of McCain's remedial tutor on terrorism issues, reminding him that Shiite-led Iran is emphatically not training Sunni Al Qaeda troops in Iraq or anywhere else."

Once again, well said Mr. Beutler. Ok, now I'm done, you can go have fun now!

Review: Stop-Loss

This past Saturday I saw Stop-Loss. The film is Kimberly Pierce's, the director of Boys Don't Cry, effort to explore the effects of the military's stop-loss policy ordered by the President. In case you don't know, a soldier is stop-lossed when they are reenlisted in the military against there will. This policy is ordered by the President when recruitment goals are not being met and no draft is in place. It amounts essentially to a "backdoor draft" a term that is used throughout the movie and appears frequently throughout the media. The stop-loss policy can only go into effect in a time of war. Now that we've got that covered, let's move on the movie. The central character in Pierce's film is that of Staff Sergeant Brandon King, expertly portrayed by Ryan Phillipe. He is an all-American, good-ol' Texas boy. He is a squad leader in Iraq. His squad is made up of some of his friends from his hometown, including Steve Shriver (Channing Tatum) and Tommy Burgess (Joseph Gordon-Levitt). Stop-Loss opens with a particularly greuling episode in Iraq that results in a number of deaths in King's squad. King feels personally responsible for the loss of his men and is greatly troubled upon his return, with his squad, to Texas. Shortly after his return stateside, King is informed that he has been stop-lossed. This of course does not sit well with King who had planned on leaving the army and beginning a civilian life. King leaves with his best friend's (Shriver) fiance Michelle (played by Abbie Cornish). He hopes to meet with a senator and convince him to pull some strings so he can avoid another tour in Iraq.

This movie has been getting mixed reviews. I personally thought it was extremely well done. The movie combines a traditional cinema format with home video shot by King and his squad in Iraq. These videos were very effectively edited into the film and are repeatedly flash-backed to (did I say that right?) throughout. Phillippe is at the top of his game in Stop-Loss. He certianly has come a long way since I Know What You Did Last Summer. Phillippe's portrayal of King is layered in emotional depth and haunting guilt. Tatum is developing into a great actor and his role as the unstable Steve Shriver is belivable. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is another one of those underused actors. Aside from Phillippe his performance is the best in the film. Abbie Cornish was powerful as Michelle and I liked how there was no romance forced between her and Phillippe. These movies are so much better when they aren't afraid to leave the love story out. While the film definately comes off as anti-war, its loving and respectful portrayal of American soldiers will certainly playcate any kneejerk critics. Stop-Loss is definately a film worth seeing for both those in support and against the war.

Rating: ***

*Uwe Boll/Michael Bay bad **Keeanu Reevesish ***Great ***Fantastic

P.S. I guess I should note that if I give something a **1/2 rating, that counts as "good."

We Want War! More More War!

I realize that I've been linking to Ezra Klein a lot, but here's another good post from him on John McCain. As readers of this blog are aware, St. McCain hates war. Ezra points out:

Between 1995 and 2008, McCain has advocated full-scale war in Kosovo, North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. He has repeatedly sought to ratchet up tensions with Russia and China, and has advisers who've called for air strikes on Syria. And those are only the instance I can remember offhand. His horror of war has led him to advocate no fewer than four full-scale wars in the past decade or so. And his recognition of its dangers has spurred him towards an aggressive, threatening stance against two of the largest, most powerful countries on earth.

Good point. These are interesting stands for an individual to take, especially when that same individual seeks to reassure voters of their hatred of war. Ezra also links to a great column by Spencer Ackerman that's currently up on the Washington Independent site. Spencer articulates how McCain's foreign policy is basically the same as W's, except for one little caveat, IT'S WORSE!!!

Huh?

Everyday I always wander over to the New Republic website to see what's up. I often find a number of good articles, but I also usually find a lot of crap from Marty Peretz, Jamie Kirchick, and a bunch of other wankers. Today, I read a truly puzzling piece by Sacha Zimmerman. Zimmerman's little ditty is one part lament and one part diatribe. Bascially Sacha is all worked up that MSNBC canceled Tucker. I know, boo hoo, right? This is, of course, the lament portion of her article. Her argument for Tucker goes like this:

Whatever bad memories you may have of Tucker Carlson's "Crossfire" days, the most recent iteration of his show on MSNBC allowed him to return to expressing the kind of nuanced insight that first got him noticed as a young conservative writer. Carlson has certainly inflamed his share of liberals (among other things, he called the NAACP "a sad joke that should be shut down" and called Bill Clinton a "sanctimonious jerk"), but then he's not exactly reliably conservative, either. In the olio of dependably left- or right-wing voices on cable television, Carlson went his own way-and it's too bad the audience didn't go there with him. He retracted his initial support for the Iraq war, believes gay marriage is good because the institution of marriage is good, is pro-life, anti-death penalty, and won't abide any discussion of the sexual peccadilloes of politicians no matter what their side of the aisle. In the Obama parlance of our times, Carlson was "post-partisan." It made him an excellent choice to exchange blows with opinion leaders on the topics of the day. Of course, this is also exactly why the iconoclastic Carlson doesn't fit into MSNBC's left-wing makeover.

Touching. But wait, MSNBC is going left-wing? That's news to me! Zimmerman accuses MSNBC of having no conservative pundits. Pat Buchanan isn't a conservative? What about Joe Scarborough? Buchanan is as right-wing as they come. I'll admit that Scarborough is fairly independent and criticizes Republicans from time to time, but he's definately a conservative. Also, MSNBC is certainly not a liberal news outlet. Stroll on over to Media Matters and you'll find plenty of evidence that challenges Zimmerman's claim. Anyways, now that we've thoroughly debunked MSNBC's "liberal bona fides", let's move on to the subject of the supposedly liberal David Gregory.

Here's Zimmerman's analysis of Gregory:

After cutting his teeth on the O.J. Simpson circuit, Gregory began his White House press corps duties with the kind of gusto and drama rarely seen in the stuffy halls of power. Zachary Roth depicted a classic Gregory "hissy fit" in an otherwise flattering profile in this magazine last year in which Gregory famously called White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan a "jerk." But Gregory has also initiated shouting matches in almost every exchange he had with White House Press Secretary Tony Snow and generally allowed histrionics to set the tone for his coverage. Despite his often piercing and on-point questions, this behavior has cemented David Gregory as a liberal-media-conspiracy incarnate in the eyes of conservatives and a kind of tough-questioning hero to many on the anti-Bush left. The conservative Accuracy In Media even started a letter-writing campaign aimed at shunning Gregory. But no matter your view--and no matter Gregory's personal political beliefs--the decision to use the journalistic lightning rod further distances MSNBC from the cause of good political analysis.

First, to be fair, let's also give credit where credit is due. I agree with Zimmerman when she states that his true talents lie in the art of the interview. Gregory asks pointed questions and he doesn't back down. I'll also agree that his weakness is in reporting. He often rushes through crucial elements of a story and repeats claims from politicians without context. However, he's no liberal. Gregory has repeatedly allowed Republican talking points to filter through his reports and interviews. Whether this is a function of an agenda or ignorance on Gregory's part is subject to debate. I suspect a combination of both, but admittedly, that's the safe, PC choice.

I guess what puzzles me the most about Zimmerman's piece is I don't understand what she's going for with it. It's not all rant, and it's not all lament. It's just a crazy hodge podge of both. What do you want Sacha? I guess maybe she wants more connies on MSNBC because she feels that will lead to smarter political analysis. As I stated above, MSNBC has plenty. Keith Olbermann is basically the only liberal on the channel, because I don't know what Dan Abrams is other than all over the place. There's nothing wrong with pointing out a lack of diversity in viewpoint, just make sure that your aware which side isn't being represented.