Dave Gilson

Senior Editor

San Francisco native, word wrangler, data cruncher, chart drawer, pun maker. Recent areas of interest: campaign finance, income inequality, prison riots.

Full Bio | Get my RSS | Follow @daudig

Dave Gilson has worked at Mother Jones since 2003. Previously, he worked for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, the Center for Investigative Reporting, and the Northern California bureau of the New York Times.

Joe Berlinger: Welcome to the Jungle

Filmmaker Joe Berlinger on his 16 years following the West Memphis Three and Metallica's existential crisis.

—By Dave Gilson

| September/October 2009 Issue

Darkness is never far from the surface of Joe Berlinger's films. In his latest documentary, Crude, it takes the form of oil—billions of gallons of the stuff that have saturated a once pristine swath of the Amazon rainforest and fueled a 16-year legal battle between indigenous Ecuadorians and the oil giants Texaco and Chevron. The environmental theme is a departure for the 47-year-old director, who's best known for in-depth looks at misfits, murder, and heavy metal. He made his name in 1992 with Brother's Keeper (codirected with longtime collaborator Bruce Sinofsky), the tale of an elderly eccentric who may or may not have killed his brother. That was followed in 1996 by Paradise Lost, a harrowing film that turned the case of the West Memphis Three—a trio of Arkansas teens convicted of murdering three eight-year-old boys based on flimsy evidence of satanism—into a cause célèbre. That film and its sequel eventually led Berlinger to make Metallica: Some Kind of Monster, the 2004 rockumentary about a different kind of headbanging—group therapy for rock stars. Berlinger spoke with Mother Jones from his office in New York. For an extended version of this interview, go to motherjones.com/joe-berlinger.

[Read the full article]

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Pumping in Dirty Oil From Canada's Tar Sands

—By Dave Gilson

| Thu Aug. 20, 2009 4:18 PM PDT

Today, the State Department announced that it has okayed a new oil pipeline between Canada and the United States. A press release hails the decision to break ground on the Alberta Clipper Pipeline for sending "a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports" and for providing "shovel-ready" jobs. What it doesn't mention is that the pipeline between Alberta and Wisconsin will be pumping oil from Canada's tar sands—some of the world's dirtiest petroleum. As Mother Jones' Josh Harkinson reported in a gripping first-hand dispatch from the "Tar Wars," Canada's oil boom is exacting a heavy toll on the rural areas surrounding the massive pits that comprise the largest industrial zone in the world. For every barrel of oil produced from the tar sands, another two of toxic waste are left behind. Indigenous Albertans worry that their water and wild game have been dangerously contaminated. And that's not all: Squeezing oil from tar sands emits 151 percent more greenhouse gases than the production of conventional oil (including 80 percent more CO₂). The official justification for the new pipeline echoes the Bush administration's policy, which put "energy independence" ahead of environmental considerations. Yet the State Department insists that the US is still committed to taking "ambitious action to address climate change" and getting Canada to follow suit. Sounds like a pipe dream.

Tort Reformer Wants His Day in Court

—By Dave Gilson

| Fri Aug. 14, 2009 11:51 AM PDT

Classic: One of California's top tort-reform advocates has gone and filed one of the very lawsuits he's long campaigned against. Legal Pad has the full story on excessive litigation opponent-turned-excessively litigious plaintiff Fred Hiestand:

The man whose name is synonymous with tort reform — he’s the Civil Justice Association of California’s general counsel — has filed a class action against the city of Sacramento, the city’s police chief, city police officers and a tow truck company for towing his car after he left it in a no-parking zone.

What’s more, Hiestand is seeking damages from the tow truck company under Business and Professions Code Section 17200. That, in case you don’t recognize it, is California’s Unfair Competition Law, the very law that CJAC and business groups successfully curbed in 2004 via the voter-approved Proposition 64.

[...]

“It’s hysterical,” said Timothy Blood, a Coughlin Stoia partner who specializes in UCL suits. “The whole PR campaign during Prop 64 was that 17200 was driving businesses out of California. So what does [Hiestand] do? He sues a small business.”

“We’ve never said that all class actions are meritless,” Hiestand said. When you’ve exhausted all your other administrative options, they’re a viable choice, he said.

And just to show he’s not some money-hungry litigant, Hiestand pledged to give any award money left over from paying his costs to “fighting frivolous class action lawsuits.”

Hiestand's not the first foe of "lawsuit abuse" to seek legal redress when the going got tough. Robert Bork filed a personal injury suit against a club where he fell and injured himself. Former Mississippi Senator Trent Lott railed against "jackpot justice" until Katrina destroyed his home and he joined a class action suit against his insurance company. That's not to say that they were being frivolous; both settled out of court. But Hiestand's filing has the mix of disingenuous literalness and inflated self-regard that are the hallmarks of truly pointless lawsuits. He contends that he knowingly left his car in a no-parking zone only to be towed illegally because there were no signs saying that might happen. Sounds a bit like the judge who unsuccessfully sued his dry cleaners for $54 million because they didn't live up to their "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign. Funny how no one thinks they're gumming up the wheels of justice when it's their case on the docket.

Shepard Fairey: Say It, Don't Spray It

—By Dave Gilson

| Fri Aug. 14, 2009 9:43 AM PDT

Yesterday, I wrote about pop-propagandist Shepard Fairey's decision to put a graffiti-resistant coating on his LA studio's brick walls. This morning I received a friendly email from him saying he thought I'd been unfair in questioning the move. That was a accompanied by a far less friendly message that he says he sent to Eastsider LA, the site that originally reported on this:

Jesus,

Your post about the sealer on our building was very obnoxious. Do you just not give a shit about objectivity? My practice as a street artist has NEVER included putting my work on pristine or operational buildings unless asked to do so. I'm not mad at the graff artists who have hit our building, I just like the brick unadorned. I've always been a champion of street art and graffiti in the same way I'm a champion of free speech. I think it is important for people to be able to speak freely, but if I'm watching a channel whose content is not my cup of tea I may choose to change the channel. It does not make me an opponent of free speech. Preferring my brick unadorned does not make me anti-graffiti. Every time I put a piece of art on the street I know it may be cleaned. That is the nature of the art form. Our building houses a fucking gallery and we show street artist's work there and on banners on the side of the building. For you to portray me as anti-street art is very revealing about YOU and YOUR agenda. Are you pro-street art or graffiti? If the answer is yes, then I'd assume based on your portrayal of me, that you'd welcome graffiti on your house or business lest you be revealed to be an anti-art hypocrite. If you have any integrity you will post my response along with your home and office address as an invitation for people to display their art there. Your attempt to portray me as hypocrite was thinly veiled incitement for people to tag our building. I have been arrested 15 times and know the risks of street art. Do you know the risks of being an irresponsible journalist? I responded to your inquiry very politely and you disrespected my candor by taking a cheap shot... writing something irresponsible and sensational to get people to your site. You could have written something more sophisticated and balanced that could have created a worthwhile discussion about public art. Instead you were lazy and obnoxious. Maybe the economy has made you desperate, or maybe you are always slime. Either way, you should be ashamed.
-Shepard

Jesus, indeed! Worthwhile discussion of public art aside, this is way off the mark. If you read the original Eastsider post, you'll see that the only openly critical part is its headline: "This is one wall Shepard Fairey wants to keep free of self-expression." The rest is pretty straightforward reporting. It was the commenters who accused Fairey of hypocrisy and suggested that his studio might now be an even bigger target for spraypainters. C'mon, Shepard—you know how to tell the difference between mild-mannered bloggers and their less restrained commenters. Just as you no doubt appreciate the difference between, say, a street artist who says he never messes with other people's property without permission and the anonymous fans who plastered gazillions of his Andre the Giant Has a Posse stickers around the world.

Shepard Fairey: You Darn Kids Stop Tagging My Wall!

—By Dave Gilson

| Thu Aug. 13, 2009 10:03 AM PDT

Here's another entry in the bulging Shepard Fairey as Walking Pop-Culture Contradiction file: The designer of the IOHP*, who got his start tagging and stickering public places, has declared war on graffiti on his home turf. The Eastsider reports:

A few days ago workers sandblasted the brick exterior of his Echo Park studio, gallery and ad agency - called Studio Number One - and applied a shiny layer of anti-graffiti coating to the walls. Frequent tagging and graffiti had apparently taken a toll on the Sunset Boulevard building and Fairey, who rose to fame by employing the same hit-and-run tactics of graffiti artists and taggers.

"When graff seeped into the raw brick it was very difficult to clean," said Fairey, creator of the Obama "Hope" poster, in an email forwarded by one of his employees. "The building is historic and I love and want to protect the brick. The city was never any help with removal. Graffiti is par for the course."

Fair enough—there's a difference between bombing an abandoned building and a cool old building. But perhaps Fairey could have worked out an arrangement that made his studio a site for street art while also protecting it? Teflon-coating the wall probably won't stop the "graff." As one Eastsider commenter notes, "This place just got a huge bullseye on it."

* = Iconic Obama Hope Poster

Update: In which I get an email from Nice Shepard Fairey and other critics get an email from Crazy Angry Shepard Fairey.