The Atlantic tells us about two cases the Supreme Court will hear that could deal serious blows to organized labor. In one, the Justices will decide whether the Senate was really in "recess" when Mr. Obama made certain recess appointments to the NLRB; in the other, the Justices will decide whether unions can make "organizing agreements" with corporations about how union elections would be conducted (among other matters). I could see the Supremes going either way on the first one and probably against labor on the second -- but whatever happens, we'll just pick up, dust off, and go again.
Don't look now, but a new meme may have penetrated the "liberal" media: that "privacy vs. security" is a false choice when discussing the NSA leaks! On NBC News, no less! With the ever-estimable Bruce Schneier as the column's first expert, no less! Am I wrong to experience the joy of hoping for better days? Or should I note that it's been weeks already, and that David Gregory still gets a lot more eyeballs than Bob Sullivan and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future?
30,000 California inmates begin refusing meals in an apparent hunger strike. Prisoners have called for a five-year cap on isolation, monthly phone calls, and increased access to educational programs, which some folks apparently think are "luxuries." I should note that California imposes harsher terms on prisoners if they're suspected of having prison gang ties, which should offend anyone with a get-warrants-prove-stuff ethic.
EPI's Ross Eisenbrey suggests that government spending, and not lightly-taxed corporate titans, drive innovation. He cites the iPhone, whose nine "core technologies" all received massive military/government help. Is that what Republicans mean when they say defense spending creates jobs? Seriously, Mariana Mazzucato's book The Entrepreneurial State looks like quite the read.
Finally, Nation of Change's Paul Buchheit offers four extremely well-sourced examples of corporate tax avoidance. And dig Whole Foods CEO John Mackey defending Apple just one paragraph in, saying "(t)hey're just following the rules that were created by governments," as if no corporate lobbyist ever paid off any Congressfolk ever to rewrite those rules ever. And then he says "(i)f the government doesn't like the rules, they can change them," as if "they" ain't us. I wonder why he'd want us to think that.