.
.
.
Paid protesters, huge “grants,” battles over how to disburse collected funds and court actions over intellectual property have plagued the occupy movement in the past few days. The use of paid protesters to create the image of a large grass roots movements was thoroughly documented here in the Juice http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-protestors-hired-through-craigslist/ . Since that time, the Occupy Wall Street movement has acknowledged that they have collected more than $500,000 in donations THAT THEY HAVE DEPOSITED IN A BANK (the aptly named Amalgamated Bank). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/24/occupy-wall-street-money-donated-tension_n_1029377.html In addition, separate lawsuits have been filed to copyright the phrases “Occupy” and “we are the 99%.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052960/Occupy-Wall-Street-Robert-Diane-Maresca-attempt-trademark-protest-name.html
Ironically, the Occupy movement is struggling to figure out how to spend its growing resources. The fights over financing are as varied as the protesters’ reasons for protesting. Should the library buy the cheapest tables available or more sturdy, durable ones? Should the funds be spent on infrastructure in Manhattan or to help Occupy movements across the U.S.? Should all the money be converted to an alternative currency like Bitcoin? Should individual groups be able to keep their own donations, or should they continue to funnel it to the communal war chest?
The “grassroots” Occupy movement now has over 30 standing committees including a newly formed “Finance Working Group” which has been charged with making recommendations about how to spend the money. Meanwhile, in the absence of any plan of any kind, donations are continually solicited and continue to further fill the group’s coffers. Only $66,000 has been spent so far leading to claims of some members of the movement that the money is being improperly hoarded.
Meanwhile, other individuals who participated in the early days of the Occupy protests are trying to individually cash in on the Occupy movement. Robert and Diane Maresca, from Long Island, New York, have filed a copyright lawsuit in the hope that, if successful, they can sell official Occupy Wall Street T-shirts and bags. ” If I didn’t buy it and use it someone else will,’ Mr. Maresca said in an interview with the Smoking Gun. The Marescas aren’t the only ones to have attempted to profit from the ‘Occupy’ movement, which has seen thousands of people across the globe protesting the greed of capitalism and banks. A Brooklyn man recently had filed a trademark application for ‘We Are The 99 per cent.’
I’m at the luxurious Irvine City Council chambers right now. When I get back, I’d like to number the allegations in Geoff’s screed so everyone can assess how many of them are redundant, how many are not actually damning, how many are baseless, etc.
As an example, Geoff says that some people have filed to trademark innocuous phrases associated with the movement. As an attorney, Geoff should know that people try (and fail) to trademark all sorts of silly things — remember Paris Hilton going after “that’s hot!”? — and it doesn’t necessarily say anything significant about their own character, let alone the broader (loosely coordinated) movement.
But I don’t want to focus on any of that, or on Geoff’s horrifically hyperbolic headline. I note
that Geoff characterized the few people that filed for trademark rights “participated in the early days of the movement.” Two questions for Mr. Willis: (1) by “participant in the early days,” what level of participation do you mean to apply? (2) how do you know that they
were “participants in the early days of the movement”? Or does this just, in your mind, “stand to reason”?
And I will sue anyone who will use “moron mongoloid”.
And “Esq. Encino”; and onan; and onanster; and pisscallion; and chameleonowski;……….
What about “the realm of magic” and “the cycle of life”?
F**k you Fiala!
Please be advised that I may file complaint against you in Santa Ana Federal Court for copyright infringement under the name DOES 1 to 50.
Based on that complain I will obtain court order against OJB publisher to produce your name.
I am strongly advising OJB publisher to enforce United States Federal Copyrights Laws.
As provided in the links attached, the couple attempting to copyright Occupy, was “there at the beginning at Zuccoti Park.”
Proving…?
. . . that they were a part of the original group of people that responeded to the call to arms and participated in the formative part of the protest and are now hypocritically trying to profit from the protest? You really needed me to spell that out?
“As an example, Geoff says that some people have filed to trademark innocuous phrases associated with the movement. As an attorney, Geoff should know that people try (and fail) to trademark all sorts of silly things — remember Paris Hilton going after “that’s hot!”? — and it doesn’t necessarily say anything significant about their own character, let alone the broader (loosely coordinated) movement.”
This has to a Sal Alinsky tactic – deny the obvious.
It’s “Saul” Alinsky. Please explain why you think that trademarking is bad.
I’m not even sure what you think is “obvious” that is being denied. Happily, I don’t much care.
I hope there is an exit strategy in there somewhere.
Certain groups and people are trying to cash in on a grassroots movement – SHOCKING!
Groups that state that they are anti-profit, anti-capitalist only to have some of it’s founding members pursue greed and the entire group fighting over money is pure hypocrisy.
It is all of that and hysterically funny as well. Do you think it’s funny Vern?
Personally I find it HILARIOUS! Discrediting social movements is something I should do the next time I am entertaining guests at one of my swanky soirees funded by Occupy Wall Street.
That reminds me, Amber: did I leave the skull of a wealthy capitalist, from which I was drinking cognac, at that party you hosted last night? It cost me a pretty penny and I’d hate to have to go and trademark something today so that I could go out and buy another one.
Well that $500,000 the group has in the bank should get you quite the shindig. If they’re buying big screen tvs for pajama movie night, imagine the appetizers you can serve.
Do I think it’s funny? Even if some of it is true? Kind of I guess!
I’m actually thinking of going into satire mode, and posting a big piece about all the money I’m making, and Greg, Amber, Francisco and Duane are making, putting so much time and energy into Occupy OC. I’m seeing humorous (sarcastic) possibilities.
Mostly I find it fascinating to watch guys like Geoff jump thru so many hoops, pathetically, in their attempts to discredit us. Curiously, it doesn’t even bug me much, and it’s hard to work up the energy to argue. It really shows that we’re having an effect.
Oh wait, I just read the article.
That’s all there is?
Really, that’s it? That discredits us?
And it looks like Amber and Greg beat me to the sarcasm/satire thing. But I could make it into something bigger.
“But I could make it something bigger.”
(Wiggling my fingers in the air)
This discredits your cause Vern:
Sources said NYCC has hired about 100 former ACORN-affiliated staff members from other cities – paying some of them $100 a day – to attend and support Occupy Wall Street. Dozens of New York homeless people recruited from shelters are also being paid to support the protests, at the rate of $10 an hour, the sources said.
At least some of those hired are being used as door-to-door canvassers to collect money that’s used to support the protests.
In one such case, sources said, NYCC staff members collected cash donations for what they were told was a United Federation of Teachers fundraising drive, but the money was diverted to the protests
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/26/exclusive-acorn-playing-behind-scenes-role-in-occupy-movement/#ixzz1bueRzGQ2
Fox News, Skallywag?
I want to congratulate you. It took you several days before you outed yourself as a complete wingnut.
This is probably just as accurate as Fox’s other ACORN-related reporting: i.e., something that requires actual journalists to crawl into the bathtub after reporting it and get extremely drunk so they can forget about it.
“Sources say….” “Sources tell Fox News…” LOL, too much!
And the old dread ACORN is back! Well of course the movement is full of people who used to work for ACORN. What did you think, they flew off to another planet when the organization was dissolved?
Mr. Diamond, you mean Fox’s (and Breitbart’s) other ACORN reporting that was entirely true and got the Congress to defund the entire fraudulent organization? And did you even bother to read the article (don’t worry, that’s rhetorical)? They cite sources from within the organization itself. Again, the liberal meme – don’t respond to the actual facts, just say it’s from Foxnews so it must be false. And you treat conservative commenters on here like they need a remedial course in civics/history/economics/etc. I love the irony.
Damn. You all have those ACORN slanders filed away as fact now? All the debunking – including mine, here, sigh – is like so much dew evaporated in the mid-morning?
I suppose a corollary to “a lie gets halfway around the globe while the truth is still putting its boots on” could be “a lie is still sitting there like Jabba the Hut holding court years after the truth has, thinking its job done, wiped its hands and moved on to the next battle.” O’Keefe/Breitbart’s “reportage” was no better than slander, but tragically effective.
It was a grave injustice (and great victory for your side) that the craven Congress defunded ACORN. Sloppy and disorganized they were, but a great organization, not guilty of voter fraud, supporting prostitution, or any of that other BS that got thrown at them. Here’s a piece of mine from last year (with a sadly over-optimistic title “Acorn Bounces Right Back”)
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2009/12/and-acorn-bounces-right-back/
and some follow-ups
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/02/the-doctored-acorn-tapes-the-dirty-details/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/01/scumbag-fail/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2010/03/colbert-on-the-doctored-acorn-tapes/
http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/03/dueling-outrages-the-beast-walker-prank-vs-the-okeefe-acorn-prank/
I guess you people will believe whatever you want to believe, and I guess it fits your world view perfectly to think that tens of thousands of black and brown people have been risking jail time to vote illegally, and that the people encouraging them to do so were also busily encouraging underage prostitution, tax fraud, and whatever else the fevered rightwing imagination can conjure up.
My links above are what I have to say. ACORN did heroic work, and if some people who worked for ACORN are now part of our Occupy movement, speaking for myself, I’m honored to fight alongside them.
Based on the hits and the comments, I wouldn’t describe this as a “pathetic” attempt to discredit the movement. I really haven’t worked up that much energy on the issue – I am pretty sure that I am outnumbered something like 12 stories to 2 on the Juice regarding the Occupy movement.
Holy moly, Newbie. I will gladly take you on about ACORN, Breitbart and Fox. But, you have to make it worth my while. Name your stakes.
There is only one principle upheld by the liberal left which was also well known in the old communist block: “What is yours is mine and what is mine is non of your business”
See Schindler’s List at http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-24-supporters-have-34720500000-net-worth/
“They were there on Opening Day” makes them “founders of the movement”? Your level of understanding is astounding — and not in the admirable sense.
Once again for the remedial class — we’re not against business, we’re against business as usual. We’re against the anti-capitalist concept of privatization of profits couples with socialization of losses. We’re against capital being used to bend the laws and break the social contract. And even if a few people tried to cash in, it doesn’t tar the entire movement. It’s hilarious that you don’t get that.
Mr. Diamond, I find it interesting that you and Vern claim to speak for the entire Occupy movement. If you look at the overall movement, it is clearly based in large part on anti-capitalist and socialist/communist underpinnings. You and Vern may not want to admit that, but the evidence is to the contrary.
Mr. Newbie, did I claim to speak for the entire Occupy movement? I can’t and don’t — I’ve just given my opinion. And I’m there in Irvine; you aren’t. Meanwhile, I have a nice juicy critique of what is and isn’t capitalism up there, if you’d like to rise to the challenge.
Geoff HAS to render the movement in his comically-overstated way in order to come to his “hypocrisy” conclusion. But when one realizes, as you say, that the movement isn’t “anti-profit” and “anti-capitalist”, it’s Geoff, the “pure free market guy”, that becomes the hypocrite for criticizing someone for making money. It’s the same dynamic that makes his criticism of people like Michael Moore and other celebrities so laughable.
Oh I see Mr. Diamond – when you say “WE’RE not against business, WE’RE against business as usual. WE’RE against the anti-capitalist concept of privatization of profits couples with socialization of losses. WE’RE against capital being used to bend the laws and break the social contract. (emphasis mine)” you are using the royal “we” (as in me, myself, and I). My mistake.
It’s based on my observations of members of the community, in turn based on my individual interactions. That’s difference from “speaking for” a group.
I have opinions on “what Americans think” as well, but I don’t pretend to be able to speak for the country. It’s sort of like that. Get it?
I suggest that you never teach a remedial class since your second paragraph is so much gibberish intelligent response is impossible.
Let’s go through it line by line, Geoff. You tell me where you start to fail to understand it:
“We’re not against business, we’re against business as usual.”
Do you have a problem comprehending that one?
I “get it” Mr. Diamond. When confronted with something you can’t/won’t admit, simply ignore my comment and deflect. You are speaking for the Occupy movement when you use pronouns like “we” several times in your post, and you implicitly agree with the ideals and goals of the Occupy movement when you are part of the group called “Occupy Irvine.” Otherwise, simply form your own group and issue your own list of demands.
Awww, boo hoo. The Occupy Movement isn’t all neat and tidy for Mr. Newbie.
Good to hear that someone is making some money on this.
*Donate your cell phone to the protesters….they will use it well. This movement is not going away. Remember the Vietnam Peace Movement?….this too could end up as a political party that will challenge the now defunct Tea Totallers…
The weathervane of our times weighs in – the orginal Republican Obama supporters of Corona Del Mar – on our side!
fox news the NUMBER ONE CABLE NEWS STATION .. OH I FORGOT you get your stories form mshatebc and ed shultz , rachel mandow , 2 host who have really big ratings , – NOT .
What the hell do ratings have to do with anything? That doesn’t logically mean that they’re always accurate. Get a clue, Grating Juan.
OH YEAH IT MEANS PEOPLE ARE TUNING IN . the libs hate fox news because it kicks the ratings of all their other stations , especially their mouthpiece . mshatebc . it gives people a choice to listen to things that the OTHER STATIONS WILL NEVER TELL YOU or cover . like acorn buried in the back of the news . fox brought it out . and woooa BUSTED . but its ok they all lie on that station . zzzzzz . keep tuning in to blowhart schultz calling people sluts . stay classy shultzy . get a big clue anon
I didn’t say they “all” lie. Please, spare me the ridiculous overstatements. But there is a long trail of inaccurate reporting that they have had to apologies for.
annon, the funny thing is that you and Annonster cite to very questionable sources that have no positive track record and treat them as gospel and yet any source that you view as conservative you immediately discard regardless of the soundness of the reporting. Your comment makes more sense since this is a post about hypocricy.
Geoff,
I beg you. Show me on ANY comment ANYWHERE on this blog where I said that organizations like Fox News ALWAYS produce inaccurate reporting. And show me where I have stated that ANY and ALL links that I have added are GOSPEL.
For the love of god, can you PLEASE ratchet back the overstatements and broad brushstrokes.
Geoff,
Please list the “questionable sources” that I have cited.
The truth is, is that Geoff is projecting again, he and Newbie never cite their sources and ALWAYS discount and ”discard” my sources, IF they EVEN bother to read them at all.
Geoff, are you truly unaware of Fox’s track record?
If the problem is that you’re not aware of the facts, that can be remedied.
If the problem is that you’ll only believe what you want to believe, regardless of the facts, that cannot be remedied.
that street has 2 ways anon , i see numerous times on here people taking shots at fox news as it to say anything that comes out of their mouth is inaccurate . willis great post . i see annoster and vern sometimes have huffington post and the daily kooks for sources . might as well watch looney tunes cartoons i can get the samething .
Yes, it works both ways. Problem is, you only practice it ONE way.
News organizations of every strip make mistakes and produce inaccuracies. If you don’t agree with that, then you’ve got as problem. When it comes to OPINION (as opposed to hard news), THAT can be argued and it does absolutely no good to rebut an argument, as you often do, by casually dismissing the source. That’s just lame.
no anon one way is when other people who come on here and have a different point of view . and get attacked like they where some kind of parasite , being called , stupid , and that is the kind one i will use . when fox news is reporting i find their news to be creditable , unlike mshatebc , i watched them to get news that the main street liberal media wont run , fox puts on example of their bias . i find that great . i tried to watch mshatebc one time and it was a one hour hate fest on anything with a R next ot their name . UNWATCHABLE . that is why their ratings are in the toliet .
“no anon one way is when other people who come on here and have a different point of view . and get attacked like they where some kind of parasite , being called , stupid”
You mean like when Quinn calls people stupid?
Two way, my friend. Two ways. But OK, go ahead and bury your head in the sand and deny objective reality.
no open your eyes my friend . usually she is reacting to someone calling her a name .
Ahhh, So you’re saying that two wrongs make a right?
“i tried to watch mshatebc one time and it was a one hour hate fest on anything with a R next ot their name . UNWATCHABLE . that is why their ratings are in the toliet.”
At least Fox makes an effort to be somewhat balanced.
Fox has a point of view – so what? So do the other cable news outlets AND main scream media. So fuckin’ what?
I post references to Fox stories here and that immediately makes my comment and the Fox news item false – BULLSHIT !
If Fox published false or even misleading articles – the other fuck-faces would be all over their shit.
Other people are all over Fox’s false and misleading stories — but you don’t know it because you’re only watching Fox, and they’re not going to tell you about it.
What makes Fox news stories false and misleading is not that they come from Fox, but that they are false and misleading — as Fox frequently prefers.
Also: those people on “Fox & Friends” aren’t actually your friends. I hate to break it to you.
Esq. Encino,
Have you realized that you have actually made perfect circular argument?
Let me put a tail on the circle, then; it can lead directly to Media Matters. Read on, if you dare.
“Also: those people on “Fox & Friends” aren’t actually your friends. I hate to break it to you.”…….. Hmmmm
Prove it!
Self interest is good.
“Self interest is good”…. Hmmmmm
That too, however, the greed is more effective.
Found an interesting piece, not that I was surprised…
A page from one of the weekly public affairs briefings distributed from defendamerica.mil in May 2003:
The Pentagon military analyst program was an information operation of the U.S. Department of Defense that was launched in early 2002 by then-Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Victoria Clarke.[1] The goal of the operation is “to spread the administrations’s talking points on Iraq by briefing retired commanders for network and cable television appearances,” where they have been presented as independent analysts; Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the Pentagon’s intent is to keep the American people informed about the so-called War on Terrorism by providing prominent military analysts with factual information and frequent, direct access to key military officials. The Times article suggests that the analysts had undisclosed financial conflicts of interest and were given special access as a reward for promoting the administration’s point of view. On 28 April 2008, the Pentagon ended the operation.
And if it wasn’t obvious what network broadcasts their unbiased ‘info’ just ask Ron Paul, and how he manages to swim through the bs to deliver his message. Most people understand the major media moguls are backed by certain parties and or Corporations, which is why they show many identifiable characteristics. Examples of media bias include the failure of the media to question the legality of the Vietnam War while greatly emphasizing the Soviet war in Afghanistan as an act of aggression. Other biases include a propensity to emphasize violent acts “genocide” more in enemy or unfriendly countries such as Kosovo while ignoring greater genocide in allied countries such as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, even China could be used as well. This bias also said to exist in foreign elections, giving favorable media coverage to fraudulent elections in allied countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala, while unfavorable coverage is given to legitimate elections in enemy countries such as Nicaragua.
Its also worth pointing out that biases that are based on only reporting scandals which benefit a section of power, while ignoring scandals that impact the powerless are far more numerous. The biggest example of this was how the US media greatly covered the Watergate Scandal, but ignored the COINTELPRO exposures. While Watergate helped Democrats, and only harmed people politically, COINTELPRO harmed average citizens and went as far as political assassination. Other cited examples include coverage of the Iran-Contra Scandal as only focusing on people in power such as Oliver North but omitted coverage of the civilians killed in Nicaragua as the result of aid to the contras.
According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, Fox News’s editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo: “frequently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day’s news – invariably, he says, in a way that’s consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration.” You could dominate the radio airwaves, but miss almost half the population…