Quantcast

The Nation

Landlord to the Planet

As the editor of Chalmers Johnson's Blowback Trilogy for the American Empire Project, I was struck by an oddity when the second volume, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, was published in 2004 to splendid reviews in this country. Johnson's focus in the book -- its heart and soul, you might say -- was what he called our "empire of bases," the over-700 military bases, giant to micro, that the Pentagon then listed as ours. The book vividly laid out the Pentagon's global basing structure, its "footprint" (to use the term the Defense Department favors), in startling detail.

It was a way of getting at the nature of imperial power for a country that largely avoided colonies, but nonetheless managed to garrison the globe. As a topic, all those bases would have seemed unavoidable in any serious review, no less one praising the book. Yet, somehow, review after review managed not to mention, no less substantively discuss, this crucial aspect of Johnson's thesis. Only recently, all these years later, has a mainstream review appeared in this country that focused on his work on those bases. Jonathan Freedland, reviewing the third volume in Johnson's trilogy, Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic, in the New York Review of Books, took up the subject eloquently -- and (wouldn't you know it?), he isn't an American. He works for the British Guardian.

Isn't it strange that we Americans can garrison the planet and yet, in this country, bases are only a topic of discussion when some local U.S. community suddenly hears that it might lose its special base and an uproar ensues. Typically, we have made it through years of war since 2001, during which untold billions of dollars have gone into constructing massive bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet these bases (as well as the planning behind them) have, until recently, gone almost totally unmentioned in all the argument, debate, and uproar over what to do about Iraq.

In reality -- explain it as you will -- Americans have little grasp of the enormity of the Pentagon, despite real military budgets that, by some calculations, exceed three-quarters of a trillion dollars yearly. (And don't forget that, since 2002, we've been piling on with a second Defense Department, the hapless bureaucratic morass that goes by the name of the Department of Homeland Security.) Nick Turse, whose book, The Complex -- about all the newest twists on the old Military-Industrial you-know-what -- will be out in the spring of 2008, has just sized the Pentagon, the place that unabashedly refers to itself as "one of the world's largest landlords," for rest of us in a piece at Tomdispatch.com, "Planet Pentagon."

Did you know, for instance, that the Pentagon owns more land in this country than America's ten largest individual landowners; has 3,731 sites in its global "real property portfolio"; boasts around 587,900 "buildings and structures"; controls 20% of the Japanese island of Okinawa; has utilized 330,149 creatures for various types of experimentation in a single year; owns over 2,050 railcars; spent $6 million on sheet music, musical instruments, and accessories in 2005; or that it is one of the world's largest slum landlords with, according to the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, "180,000 inadequate family housing units." And that's just the beginning.

And yet the Pentagon has its problems, as in Iraq, where property values have turned out to be steep indeed. In the end, Turse wonders: "Will Iraq be added to the list of permanently occupied territories and take on the look of long-garrisoned South Korea have urged -- or will it be added to a growing list of places that have effectively resisted paying the rent on Planet Pentagon?"

 

Michael Moore v. CNN

The frequently ridiculous Dr. Sanjay Gupta and the always ridiculous Wolf Blitzer tried to take apart filmmaker Michael Moore case against the failed U.S. health care system this week on CNN's "The Situation Room."

They lost.

Badly.

After airing Gupta's four-minute attack on Moore's new documentary, "Sicko," which sounded at times more like an insurance-industry advertisement than journalism, Blitzer introduced a live appearance by Moore.

"That report was so biased, I can't imagine what pharmaceutical company's ads are coming up right after our break here," Moore immediately declared. "Why don't you tell the truth to the American people? I wish that CNN and the other mainstream media would just for once tell the truth about what's going on in this country."

Focusing on CNN's on-bended-knee coverage of the Bush administration's pre-war arguments for attacking Iraq, Moore suggested that viewers might have their doubts about the willingness of the network to speak truth to power -- in the Oval Office or in the boardrooms of insurance and pharmaceutical corporations.

"You're the ones who are fudging the facts," Moore told Blitzer. "You've fudged the facts to the American people now for I don't know how long about this issue, about the war, and I'm just curious, when are you going to just stand there and apologize to the American people for not bringing the truth to them that isn't sponsored by some major corporation?"

Moore did not back down and, to their credit, CNN's producers invited him to stick around an tape a longer segment in which the filmmaker ripped apart the network's attempts to discredit his reporting on health care systems in foreign countries that are dramatically superior to the U.S. system.

"Our own government admits that because of the 47 million who aren't insured, we now have about 18,000 people a year that die in this country, simply because they don't have health insurance. That's six 9/11s every single year," said Moore, who argued that the U.S. needs "universal health care that's free for everyone who lives in this country, it'll cost us less than what we're spending now lining the pockets of these private health insurance companies, or these pharmaceutical companies."

It's all at www.michaelmoore.com

Check it out. This is almost as good as "Sicko."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

A "Family Values" Headache for Senate GOP

Republicans are already facing a lot of trouble going into the 2008 competition for control of the Senate. And, now, they've got a prostitution problem -- invloving Louisiana Senator David "Family Values" Vitter -- that could cost the party another seat.

After losing control of the Senate in 2006, Republicans have to turn around and defend all the seats the party's candidates won in the party's 2002 sweep. With President Bush's approval numbers in the tank, and with the most of the senators tied by their votes to an unpopular war, that won't be easy.

The GOP's got to defend a number of incumbents who are vulnerable because of their closeness to the Bush administration -- Maine's Susan Collins, Minnesota's Norm Coleman, New Hampshire's John Sununu. Several of their "secure" incumbents are suddenly looking less secure because of ethical scandals, including senior senators Ted Stevens of Alaska and New Mexico's Pete Domenici. And their newest senator, Wyoming's John Barrasso, was appointed rather than elected and must face voters in a western state where the Democrats are showing previous unimagined signs of life.

But the toughest challenge the party faces could involve the senator who was not even supposed to be on the ballot next year.

Louisiana Vitter, a former congressman who was elected with ease in 2004, is having an increasingly hard time explaining his penchant for paying prostitutes -- in Washington and New Orleans -- to have help him commit "a very serious sin."

Vitter is not the first Louisiana politician to let the good times roll. But as a social conservative who has not hesitated to attack the morality of others, he is facing charges of the sort of hypocrisy that could force him from office.

How serious is the discussion about resignation? One prominent conservative, senior State Department official Randall Tobias, quit his position in April after it was revealed that he had frequently the D.C. escort service to which Vitter's name has now been linked.

And at least one prominent Louisiana Republican says Vitter should follow Tobias' lead.

On Tuesday, Louisiana Republican State Central Committeeman Vincent Bruno called on Vitter to resign "for his own good, the good of the party and the good of his family."

Bruno says that if Vitter fails to leave office after the revelations about how he is apparently hooked on hookers, Bruno suggested that the Senator might want to "join the Democratic Party where they think that kind of behavior is OK."

Yes, that's a cheap shot that's short on accuracy. But Bruno's concern about what Vitter's continued service in the Senate might do to the image of the Republican Party is sincere -- and appropriate.

"If (Republican leaders are) not going to enforce family values, they ought to take it out of the vocabulary," says Bruno, a longtime critic of Vitter who has in the past suggested that the senator had a problem when it comes to defending the sanctity of his own marriage.

Should Vitter remain in office, says the Republican state committeeman, then: "We're the party of hypocrites: 'Vote for us and we'll lie to you, we'll engage prostitutes and we'll cheat on our wives.'"

That's strong talk. But it is directed at a man who, in addition to hypocrisy, has by every indication violated the laws of his home state and the nation's capital city.

If Vitter were to resign, the Democrats are all but certain to gain a Senate seat.

Under's Louisiana's Election Code, the governor picks the replacement for a U.S. senator who leaves office before his or her term is done.

Louisiana's governor is a Democrat, Kathleen Blanco.

Blanco's not running for reelection this year, so there is little likelihood that she would bother to try and win favor with Republicans by appointing one of their number to replace Vitter.

To be sure, any appointment would be temporary.

According to Louisiana's election code, a special election would have to be held -- perhaps this year, perhaps next, depending on when Vitter might leave office.

By the time the special election rolls around, however, the Democrat would have the advantage of incumbency in a state that -- even after losing a lot of Democratic voters from New Orleans in the post-Hurricane Katrina exodus -- could probably still elect the right Democrat to a Senate seat. Amusingly, that right Democrat might be Lieutenant Governor Mitch Landrieu, whose sister Mary holds the state's other Senate seat. Two-term State Treasurer John Kennedy is another prospect, as is south Louisiana Congressman Charlie Melancon.

Look for the White House and the National Republican Senatorial Campaign committee to be in a most forgiving mood with regard to Vitter's transgressions. They can't afford to lose him because they can't afford to have another Senate seat in play during a cycle that already looks like a rough one for the party.

But even the best efforts of Bush and his congressional cronies may not be enough to save a senator whose story is starting to sound like the script for a very bad TV movie -- or, perhaps, a film that would not be rated for family viewing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

John Nichols' new book is THE GENIUS OF IMPEACHMENT: The Founders' Cure forRoyalism. Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson hails it as a "nervy, acerbic, passionately argued history-cum-polemic [that] combines a rich examination of the parliamentary roots and past use ofthe 'heroic medicine' that is impeachment with a call for Democraticleaders to 'reclaim and reuse the most vital tool handed to us by thefounders for the defense of our most basic liberties.'"

A Blast from Vitter's Past

In the fall of 1998, David Vitter felt compelled to weigh in on the national debate over the possible impeachment of President Bill Clinton for lying about sex. Vitter was not yet a member of Congress; he was a Republican state representative. And in an October 29, 1998, opinion piece for the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Vitter took issue with a previous article, written by two law professors who had argued that impeachment "is a process of removing a president from office who can no longer effectively govern; it is not about punishment." Given that Clinton was still a capable chief executive, they had maintained, impeachment was not in order.

Vitter, a graduate of Harvard University and Tulane law school and a Rhodes scholar, was aghast at this amoral position. He blasted the law professors for criticizing those congressional Republicans pushing for Clinton's impeachment. Their argument that impeachment is "not primarily about right and wrong or moral fitness to govern," he wrote, was utterly wrongheaded. He continued:

Some current polls may suggest that people are turned off by the whole Clinton mess and don't care -- because the stock market is good, the Clinton spin machine is even better or other reasons. But that doesn't answer the question of whether President Clinton should be impeached and removed from office because he is morally unfit to govern.

The writings of the Founding Fathers are very instructive on this issue. They are not cast in terms of political effectiveness at all but in terms of right and wrong -- moral fitness. Hamilton writes in the Federalists Papers(No. 65) that impeachable offenses are those that "proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."

In considering impeachment, Vitter asserted, Congress had to judge Clinton on moral terms. Decrying the law professors' failure to see this, Vitter observed, "Is that the level of moral relatively [sic] and vacuousness we have come to?" If no "meaningful action" were to be taken against Clinton, Vitter wrote, "his leadership will only further drain any sense of values left to our political culture."

Strong words. Now that Vitter, who entered the House of Representatives in 1999 after winning a special election to fill the seat of Representative Bob Livingston (who resigned after being caught in an adultery scandal) and who was elected senator in 2004, has admitted he placed a phone call to the so-called DC Madam, his constituents can only wonder if he will hold himself to the same standards he sought to apply to Bill Clinton.

Vitter, who is married with four children, has been a vigorous advocate of family values, championing abstinence-only programs and calling for a ban on gay marriage. In a statement his office rushed out on Monday night--before he could be outed by Hustler magazine--Vitter said he had committed a "serious sin" and claimed that "several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling." I seem to recall that Bill Clinton took a similar stance after he acknowledged his affair with Monica Lewinsky. That, though, did not prevent Vitter from calling for Clinton's forcible removal from office.

Perhaps Vitter ought to revisit the issue of whether the absence of moral fitness is a firing offense for a public official.

******

JUST OUT IN PAPERBACK: HUBRIS: THE INSIDE STORY OF SPIN, SCANDAL, AND THE SELLING OF THE IRAQ WAR by Michael Isikoff and David Corn. The paperback edition of this New York Times bestseller contains a new afterword on George W. Bush's so-called surge in Iraq and the Scooter Libby trial. The Washington Post said of Hubris: "Indispensable....This [book] pulls together with unusually shocking clarity the multiple failures of process and statecraft." The New York Times called it, "The most comprehensive account of the White House's political machinations...fascinating reading." Tom Brokaw praised it as "a bold and provocative book." Hendrik Hertzberg, senior editor of The New Yorker notes, "The selling of Bush's Iraq debacle is one of the most important--and appalling--stories of the last half-century, and Michael Isikoff and David Corn have reported the hell out of it." For highlights from Hubris, click here.

Vitter-Sweet on DC Madam

So much for the DC madam's client list not being newsworthy. Tell that to Senator David Vitter, the conservative Louisiana Republican and first major politico linked to Madam Deborah Jane Palfrey.

After the AP reported that his phone number appeared in Palfrey's phone records, Vitter apologized for "a very serious sin in my past for which I am, of course, completely responsible." He continued: "Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling." It was unclear if that was before or after a prominent Louisiana Republican accused Vitter of repeatedly shaking up with a prostitute in New Orleans' French Quarter.

Vitter, in yet another delicious slice of religious right hypocrisy, is one of the most outspoken social conservatives in the Senate. He co-sponsored legislation to federally finance abstinence-only education and called a ban on gay marriage the most important issue in the country today. He also told the New Orleans Times-Picayune that "infidelity, divorce, and deadbeat dads contribute to the breakdown of traditional families."

Marc Ambinder reminds us that Vitter was the first GOP Senator to endorse Rudy Giuliani and serves as one of the campaign's key ambassadors to social conservatives.

It gets better. Vitter first ran for Congress to fill the seat of Speaker of the House Bob Livingston, who resigned after his extramarital affairs became public. Asked in 2000 what she would do if her husband committed similar transgressions, Vitter's wife Wendy responded: "I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me."

Texas' Commuter-in-Chief

Back in the days when Governor George Bush was only able to screw up Texas instead of an entire nation, fifty-seven lawyers representing men—and a woman—on death row requested commutations so that their clients might receive life instead of death.

When approached by lawyers representing mentally retarded inmates, Bush refused.

When approached by lawyers representing inmates whose court-appointed lawyers had slept during their trials, Bush refused.

When approached by lawyers representing men who had committed the crime in question as juveniles, Bush refused.

In each case, then-Governor Bush felt that the defendants had had full and equal access to the law.

But now along comes Scooter. President Bush deemed his thirty-month sentence “excessive” and—just like that—commuted his sentence prior to any judicial review. Libby had the finest legal representation. He never expressed any remorse for lying to a grand jury or for his role in the administration’s snow job on the American people that led our nation into a war. Yet Scooter is the lucky soul granted clemency by Bush.

In an article for the once-hyped but now defunct magazine, Talk, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson interviewed then-Gov. Bush about Karla Faye Tucker, a woman who had recently been executed after he denied her clemency. Bush’s response struck Carlson as “odd and cruel” and he described this exchange:

“I watched [Larry King’s] interview with [Karla Faye Tucker]…,” Bush said. “He asked her real difficult questions, like ‘What would you say to Governor Bush?’ ‘What was her answer?’ I wonder.

‘Please,’ Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, ‘don’t kill me.’

Odd and cruel, indeed. Carlson provoked a bit of a media storm for revealing Bush’s callousness at a time when—unlike now—he was still viewed as Mr. Compassionate Conservative. (The Bush presidential campaign tried to deny that Bush had made this statement but to no avail.) Bush seemed all the more cruel given that appeals for clemency had been made by figures from around the world, including Newt Gingrich, Pat Robertson, the Huntsville prison warden and correction officers who testified that Tucker was a model prisoner and reformed, a prosecutor of her accomplice, the brother of one of her murder victims, Pope John Paul II and the European Parliament.

Sister Helen Prejean, one of the preeminent fighters against the death penalty and the inspiration for the film Dead Man Walking, wrote, “Callous indifference to human suffering may also set Bush apart. He may be the only government official to mock a condemned person’s plea for mercy, then lie about it afterward, claiming humane feelings he never felt.” (Prejean was alluding to George Bush’s election-year memoir—A Charge to Keep—in which he wrote that Tucker’s impending execution “felt like a huge piece of concrete…crushing me.”) Preajan described her response when she was told on Larry King of Bush’s final press release before Tucker’s execution in which he stated, “May God bless Karla Faye Tucker….” Prejean wrote, “Inside my soul I raged at Bush’s hypocrisy, but the broadcast was live and global…. [So] I took a quick breath, said a fierce prayer, looked into the camera, and said, ‘It’s interesting to see that Governor Bush is now invoking God, asking God to bless Karla Faye Tucker, when he certainly didn’t use the power in his own hands to bless her. He just had her killed.’”

The cruelty described by Carlson and Prejean clearly isn’t an anomaly. As veteran political journalist Robert Sherrill reported in a special issue of The Nation on the death penalty: “During his presidential campaign reporters asked [Bush] if he was bothered that some indigents on Texas’s death row had been represented by lawyers who slept though part of their trials; he responded with a chuckle.” The facts around representation for indigent defendants belie Bush’s amusement. Sherrill wrote that as of 2001, only three of Texas’s 254 counties had public defender programs. In the other counties judges picked the attorneys “who are [often] personal friends, political supporters and contributors, and, most of all, attorneys with a reputation for ‘moving’ cases fast…. Texas’s county judges have appointed lawyers known to be drunks or drug addicts or both. Some of these court-appointed hacks know absolutely nothing about capital jurisprudence. Several have become famous for sleeping through parts of trials.”

And Amy Bach revealed in The Nation, “Studies proved inmates had been put to death in Texas despite representation by disbarred, suspended or incompetent attorney.” She wrote of a Texas State Bar survey that found “… 30 percent of judges said they knew colleagues who assigned counsel because they contributed to their judicial election campaigns. Others confessed to picking lawyers they knew would move dockets along and not give vigorous representation.” Bach pointed out that this kind of representation “renders the equal protection clause and the Sixth Amendment right to counsel virtually meaningless.”

Despite this weak public system, and mounting DNA evidence exonerating convicted death row inmates—including thirteen people in Illinois—Bush said in June 2000 that no innocent person had been sent to death row or executed in Texas (he had presided over the execution of more than 135 people at the time; Illinois had executed twelve people since 1977).

But Paddy Lann Burwell, who then-Gov. Bush had appointed to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, repudiates Bush’s claim when it comes to the case of Gary Graham. Prior to the execution of Graham, the court-appointed lawyer “performed poorly” to say the least. Graham was convicted by a single witness who testified to seeing him through a car windshield some thirty to forty feet away. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. Two witnesses who said that they had seen the killer and it wasn’t Graham weren’t called to testify. Graham was also 17 at the time of the murder.

“He didn’t commit the crime we executed him for,” Burwell told the Times.

Since those days when Bush was chuckling at those executed under his watch, the Supreme Court has ruled (for now it was a 5-4 decision) that capital punishment of juvenile offenders and mentally retarded people is a violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. But that decision came too late for Terry Washington, who Prejean described as “a mentally retarded man of thirty-three with the communication skills of a seven-year-old.”

After then-Gov. Bush’s typical thirty-minute meeting with legal counsel—you guessed it—Alberto Gonzales, Bush denied clemency. Washington’s mental handicap had never been brought to the attention of the jury that convicted him. Gonzales’s memo (obtained by journalist Alan Berlow through the Public Information Act) made no mention of this omission in the trial or the failure by Washington’s lawyer to seek the testimony of a mental health expert. The post-conviction lawyers found a history of child abuse, including regular beatings by “whips, water hoses, extension cords, wire hangers, and fan belts.” But none of this would lead to Bush deeming Washington’s penalty “excessive,” and commuting a death sentence to a life sentence.

When all was said and done, Governor Bush had snickered and mocked his way to denying commutations to fifty-seven of the more than 150 people executed under his watch. He then took his moral-certitude-by-any-means-necessary to the White House where one Scooter Libby would help him mislead a nation into a human catastrophe in Iraq and then lie about it.

More than 150 men and women are dead and gone with no second chances. But Scooter, well, one cold night in jail was just too much for his friend the President to bear.

More Analysis of OpenLeft

Yesterday marked the launch of a major new progressive blog, OpenLeft, which I wrote about in this Nation article. During my research I interviewed William Beutler, a Republican consultant who has a knowledgeable and critical eye for blog analysis. As former editor of the Hotline Blogometer, Beutler regularly read more blogs across the political spectrum than just about anyone; now he writes Blop P.I. and has an inside view of the presidential race working at New Media Strategies, which is advising Fred Thompson. Like any interview, most of his points are not in the article, so the email interview is below for hardcore blog fans.

And for other OpenLeft talk, check out Ian Welsh, a goodbye post from its founding father site, MyDD, and this excellent, long essay at OpenLeft by Chris Bowers, "New Establishment Rising? The End Of the Flat Blogosphere."

--------

AM: What do you think of the people running this site [OpenLeft] and its potential?

WB: I think it depends on what they actually do with it and what they call success. If we're defining success as eyeballs and influence in the blogosphere, they're set. Bowers and Stoller obviously come with a built-in audience of fellow progressive bloggers.

But getting MyDD's Beltway audience to follow them, and especially getting establishment Democrats to participate, that's a harder sell. The big-shots are already blogging at Huffington Post, and lower-level consultants won't be as forthcoming or eager to participate.

This is especially the case if Chris isn't writing as much about party infrastructure and the horse race, and Matt's reputation as a hothead will be an issue. He has a talent for alienating establishment types that will be tough to overcome. Chris will be of less interest to the Stu Rothenberg types, while Matt will keep pushing buttons. I don't see that as being a website the establishment will leap to get involved with.

So I see Open Left as building primarily a netroots audience that is at a disadvantage compared to HuffPo and Daily Kos in getting participation from elected and professional Democrats.

Considering Lux's background with PFAW and Bowers' work for SEIU, I think they'll find more of an audience with activist groups that are themselves set apart from campaign professionals. But they've already had that -- see Andy Stern contributing to MyDD, for example. And the really important discussions and deals won't happen on a website that's open to the general public. So Lux has his work cut out for him.

AM: This site is supposed to bridge progressive discussions between insiders and outsiders, like grassroots bloggers and the leaders of the liberal orgs. Do you think that is a realistic project that the netroots will be interested in? Or is it a tough line to walk, sort of like HotSoup failed?

WB: Whatever happens to Open Left, it won't be like HotSoup. [AP Reporter Ron] Fournier and company had no idea what to do with an online community or even how to build a website and no clear idea who their audience was. These guys don't have that problem. I think the better analogy is HuffPo -- that website is very successful, but it's not quite what Arianna originally envisioned. The netroots will come to the table, and probably so will the offline activist orgs. Campaign professionals, not so much.

AM: Do you think of grassroots bloggers like Bowers and Stoller as outsiders or insiders? And what about you, as a "bottom up" blog guy who now advises major candidates? Or is that even the right way to think about bloggers who have "broken through"?

WB: Insider-outsiderness is a matter of degrees, and I'd say they're both much more of insiders than they might think. But there's a huge difference between blogging about campaigns and actually running them. Professional operatives -- who are even further inside -- will hear them out, but they still have campaigns to win. There's a lot of resentment from Democrats who have worked cycle in, cycle out, who don't think somebody like Chris Bowers has any real concept of what it's like to run a campaign.

Especially among the left-netroots there's this recurring complaint about the "cocktail party circuit," and while it's not untrue, the parties I go to tend to be attended by other operatives, bloggers and journalists, most of them in their 20s and 30s, and it's not like they aren't rubbing shoulders with the powerful themselves.

Also: a growing issue is the Democratic netroots increasingly agitating for not just a bigger piece of the institutional pie, but also making more overt "asks" for financial support. I think they are already getting that. What will they do that Media Matters or the Center for American Progress isn't already doing? I think that's an open question. If Open Left becomes a place where they're often making that complaint, I think that only exacerbates the division.a

Starbucks On Trial

Today Starbucks went on trial in Manhattan, and I had the privilege of attending several hours of the proceedings today. On the way downtown, I noticed that a young woman on the subway seemed to be using a brown paper Starbucks bag as a purse. And it did make a pretty nice handbag! Starbucks's professions of concern for "corporate responsibility" are much like that: attractive packaging. In the trial that began today, the nation's leading purveyor of coffee-flavored milk drinks stands accused by the National Labor Relations Board of thirty violations of employee rights, especially firing workers for union organizing. Starbucks had seven lawyers present. The two fired workers in question-- Daniel Gross and Joe Agins, Jr., both IWW members -- were present. Gross wore a suit and looked sharp, as any activist appearing before a judge probably should. (Agins went for a less formal look -- a sleeveless muscle t-shirt.) Today both sides waded through the details of discovery; that is to say, the NLRB lawyers asked for documents from Starbucks, and the company's legal team whined about how "burdensome" it would be to get so many documents, because, since the turnover rate is so high, many of the relevant personnel files are now in storage. It is very difficult to get the files out once they go in, Stacy Eisenstein, one of Starbucks lead outside counsel, argued with a straight face. More incredibly, before the hearing had officially begun, she disputed the NLRB's contention that there was a union campaign going on when Gross and Agin were fired. If that is a major cornerstone of Starbucks's defense, the company could be in trouble, because the judge -- who seemed very fair-minded and interested in reaching reasonable compromises -- did not buy it, and allowed discovery based on the assumption that the date of the union campaign was relevant. (Also, there is ample public record of the campaign, including media coverage.) It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't be there for much of the rest of the trial, unfortunately, so I really hope other journalists and bloggers will go check it out. They are taking tomorrow off, and back in session Wednesday.

The Power of Buffy

Since it's July, we can't be all serious and informed at every moment, can we? So here's a link to a speech by Joss Whedon, creator of cult feminist icon Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

You may or may not remember how slyly witty that show was, or how funny and revolutionary it was that Joss gave us a blond cheerleader whose daily job it was to save the world from evil. Buffy was a rare female version of the confused-boy-coming-of-age-is-secretly-a-superhero genre (see also: Harry Potter, Spiderman). The series took certain adolescent emotions and made them literal: for instance, high school really was hell, the principal actually was working for the devil, and each adolescent drama really was about preventing the end of the world. Maybe you had to be there, but I was, I confess, a complete addict.

In this speech, Whedon impersonates himself on a press tour, repeatedly being asked the question, "Why do you write such strong women characters?" The answers get better and better. The speech may have been given awhile ago, but if I'd never seen it before, maybe it's new to you too. Enjoy.