Anonymous wrote:More on the (in)ability to claim copyright over cease-and-desist letters:
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2007/10/dont-publish-th.html
http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2008/01/does-copyright.html
http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/10/misuse-via-cease-desist-letters.html
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080125/18070575.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080126/13203876.shtml

Thanks again. I'll work through these. I just finished the earlier article. I found it very interesting. Now I want to go to law school.

Thanks. I hadn't thought about the copyright issue. I appreciate your thoughts on this topic. I understand that it is not legal advice and I won't be holding anyone to anything they post in this thread.

With some regularity I receive letters from attorneys who are representing clients that are upset with a post or posts on this site. It is my inclination to make such letters public and I have done so at times in the past. I am wondering if I am within my rights to continue this practice or whether I have some obligation to keep the letters private?

Furthermore, if the attorney specifically states that he does not give me permission to publicize his letter, am I obligated not to publish it? I do not feel that I should be under any obligation to which I have not consented. Therefore, the attorney should first obtain my agreement to keep our correspondence confidential. Is this a sound position?

My feeling is that since these letters are aimed at influencing discussions on the site and in response to messages posted by our users, the users deserve to know about such correspondence. Obviously, the attorneys tend to feel differently. I would be interested in the opinions of the attorneys out there.

I first came across this story on Atrios' blog, but thought I'd post about it here. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon was quoted by the AP as saying the following:

"Most of us wage earners are paying 39.6 percent in taxes and add in another 12 percent in New York state and city taxes and we're paying 50 percent of our income in taxes," Dimon said in defense of his fellow Wall Street bankers.

If this is Dimon's understanding of our tax system, it is really no surprise that his bank needed to be bailed out. Like everyone, Dimon has a number of exemptions to his taxable income. So, not all of his income is taxed in the first place. Then, tax rates are marginal. So, not all is taxed at the highest rate. Moreover, the top tax rate at the moment is not 39.6 percent. The top tax rate is 35 percent and that only kicks in at $379,151 (for married filing jointly or single) and everything below that is taxed at a lower rate. 39.6 percent was the rate before the Bush tax cuts.

According to Reuters, Dimon's compensation last year was $42 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/08/us-jpmorgan-idUSTRE73681B20110408

Since much of his income was not wage income, he probably pays a lower rate on a large portion of his earnings as well. It would be interesting to know his actual tax rate. But, I bet he would not be as eager to disclose that as he is to make the false claims reported above.

I've recommended him a bunch of times so apologies to those who think I'm his PR agent, but Dr. Perl at:

http://www.housecallsforpetsinc.com/

301-774-5656

He has some sort of affiliation with Friendship, so he is probably in your neighborhood frequently.

Anonymous wrote:To the original question, by keeping the funds flowing into social security low (via the payroll tax cut), which in the past two years has failed to stimulate the economy, you are also screwing over social security as well. The converse to the statement asked, isn't that the GOP is raising the payroll tax, but that the Democratic Party is rushing the Social Security fund to insolvency. I'm glad Obama gave it a try (to cut payroll taxes to stimulate the economy), but it didn't work. So raise it back and try something different. I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I see both parties are doing their damndest to make next election year difficult for the other party. The GOP wants to see taxes go up because they genuinely believe that will piss off enough people to vote for them. Obama wants to keep it low because it helps his chances (perhaps the closest this country will get to an admission by him that tax cuts do improve the economy or rather tax increases hurt). So I'd like to see both parties run out of DC. They are both shameless.

This would be a sound argument were it not for one essential fact of which you appear to be unaware: the funds lost by the payroll tax cuts were replaced by money from the general fund. Therefore, the money going into social security did not change. All current proposals also offset the cuts. It is exactly how the cuts will be paid for that has the two parties at odds. The Democrats want to pay for the cuts with a surcharge on the very wealthy. The Republicans want to take the funds from medicare and a federal employee pay freeze.

Anonymous wrote:but you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

Maybe you do need to be in a pew every Sunday, because I'm having a hard time understanding what's wrong.

Anonymous wrote:
BTW this isn't the first reference Obama has made to the wealth of the wealthiest. He's made several references over the years - it has noting to do with the occupy movement. Don't delude yourself into inflating their worth as a cause.

Obama's speech was clearly influenced by the narrative OWS has injected into the national discourse. In November, Politico reported:

"A quick search of the news--including print articles, web stories and broadcast transcripts--via Nexis reveals a significant rise in the use of the term “income inequality,” from less than 91 instances in the week before the occupation started to almost 500 instances last week."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1111/Occupy_Wall_Street_is_winning.html

Without that sea change, Obama wouldn't have given the same speech. Look at this coverage in today's New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us/politics/obama-strikes-populist-chord-with-speech-in-heartland.html?_r=1&hp

"Infusing his speech with the moralistic language that has emerged in the Occupy protests around the nation, Mr. Obama warned that growing income inequality meant that the United States was undermining its middle class..."

"At one point, he noted that the average income of the top 1 percent — adopting the marker that has been the focus of the Occupy movement — has gone up by more than 250 percent, to $1.2 million a year."

Ezra Klein makes the same argument I'm making here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/wonkbook-occupy-wall-street-occupies-obamas-2012-campaign/2011/12/07/gIQAZVN0bO_blog.html

"But perhaps the most obvious thing to say about it is that this isn't Obama's narrative. It's Occupy Wall Street's narrative. The speech is substantially about inequality."

"Inequality has not been a major theme in Obama's economic addresses over the last year. But it looks like it will be the major theme in his reelection campaign. And it's hard to believe that's not in response to Occupy Wall Street's success in turning the national conversation towards inequality."

So, OWS gave "income inequity" media prominence and Obama adopted their rhetoric as a central theme of his campaign. Like I said above, not bad for a bunch of thugs.

Anonymous wrote:
Jeff, I thought you were above cherry-picking quotes. Apparently not. You cut off my quote before this part "Movements like this - regardless of cause - will attract "undesirable" people that commit crimes. And unfortunately, they give the movement a bad name even though they have little to do with the movement."
Nice diversion on your part, too bad you were caught.

To me (and most), a thug is someone committing crimes. Rape is a crime. Lewdness is a crime. There have been thefts and vandalism as well, google it. So yes, crimes are being committed, by thugs or whatever you want to call them. And yes, any movement will get this, LIKE I WROTE. And it detracts from the message.

There are very few foreclosures where people should not have been foreclosed on. People incurred a debt, and failed to pay it over a course of many months, if not years. Foreclosure is the appropriate action.

Okay, so according to you, there should never be any type of movement because all movements will attract thugs that will discredit them. I guess that all college sports have been discredited as well. The Catholic church has been discredited. The US House of Representatives has been discredited. In fact, virtually all of American society has been discredited because of unrelated crimes committed by people on the margins.

You are correct that people incurred debt. But, much like the tango, a mortgage requires two parties. One party should not seek a mortgage that is beyond its means. Similarly the other party should not offer a mortgage that is not soundly secured. What we have seen is that while both parties to these mortgages erred, only one party has had to suffer. That is an injustice that is worth protesting.

As for crimes, consider the fraud committed by the finance industry that contributed to our current economic problems. From mortgages that were made on optimistically-appraised homes, transferred under dubious circumstances so that frequently the actual owner cannot be determined, wrongly bundled and sold, misleadingly rated, and so on. There was fraud at every step of the process. Doesn't that discredit the finance industry? Doesn't it discredit capitalism entirely? I doubt that you think so. Yet, you so easily condemn people who put themselves at risk.

Today, President Obama said this:

"Look at the statistics. In the last few decades, the average income of the top one percent has gone up by more than 250%, to $1.2 million per year. For the top one hundredth of one percent, the average income is now $27 million per year. The typical CEO who used to earn about 30 times more than his or her workers now earns 110 times more. And yet, over the last decade, the incomes of most Americans have actually fallen by about six percent."

Do you think those words would be coming out of his mouth if there were not occupy movements in cities all over the United States?

Not bad for a bunch of thugs.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm the PP quoted. I don't watch Fox News either. But there are a few thugs giving the movement a bad name. Let's see...
In Novemeber, a woman protester at the Occupy Philadelphia encampment at City Hall was raped in a tent (reported on multiple news outlets, like ABC News). Sexual assaults have been reported from camps in Hartford, Montreal, Australia, DC, and Baltimore. The protesters in New Orleans didn't notice a dead homeless guy for 2 days (death had nothing to do with them, just a body in their camp that no one paid any attention to). In LA, Madison, and Austin, there have been reports of public lewdness, including one allegation that a protester exposed himself and masturbated in front of several people, including children.

This is what you base an allegation of "thugs" on? Yes, sexual assault of anyone is appalling. I can tell you that in the DC encampment someone was arrested for sexual assault and theft and at least one allegation in Baltimore (were there more than one?) turned out to be false. All in all the number of incidents you are able to report is amazingly small and I can't begin to see how you would use that small number to discredit the entire movement. What you listed are public safety concerns that would apply to almost any large gathering. When you claim that violent thugs are discrediting the movement, I would expect examples of people violently attacking police and/or innocent bystanders or taking other violent actions. What you cite are cases of common criminality and the sort of thing that the occupiers themselves participate in combatting.

You can all watch the "thugs" live here:

http://www.livestream.com/occupynyc

Complete with thug balloons and a brass thug band. They are thuggishly occupying a house that is marked for foreclosure.

BTW, what people do to their homes after foreclosure has nothing to do with OWS or the unfairness of the foreclosure crisis. Nice diversion attempt, however.

Anonymous wrote:I am truly I have a great idea, all of you who support the occupiers should foot the bills for the police, clean up etc. Why should the rest of us have to pay for these idiots? Personally I was disappointed here in Calofornia that the LAPD didn't go "LAPD" on the occupiers. I just about threw up when they brought them turkeys for Thsnksgiving and let them squat for 2 months. Imagine how many job applications could have been filled out, while all these buns sat around in tents doing nothing.

1st Amendment rights are guaranteed and don't come with a bill. The police could easily reduce their expenses by ending the shows of force. There is absolutely no reason to deploy what are essentially armies against peaceful protesters who are doing nothing more than chanting. But, if you want protesters to begin paying the costs of their activities, let's apply that across the board. As a resident of DC, my tax dollars are constantly used to pay for the costs of protests from an entire slew of causes. Our public safety resources are almost always being diverted to some march or other that rarely has anything to do with local DC issues. You don't thing Glen Beck's demonstration with its "five million" participants was free do you?

Anonymous wrote:Trump was a businessman before he started the Apprentice

Not a very good one. His companies filed for bankruptcy 4 times:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-filed-bankruptcy-times/story?id=13419250#.Tt5zQWDB994

He was lucky to be given his father's real estate development firm. That gave him a good headstart.

Anonymous wrote:I understood "Occupy Wallstreet". Now... it just seems like bored people that don't have jobs. I'm not sure what good camping out is doing. The point was made months ago - big banks got bailouts but hard-working average Americans that fell on bad times didn't, and that just isn't fair or right. Now what? The message was heard, but the message is now getting diluted by the few violent thugs and by the perception that its just a bunch of bored unemployed guys with nothing better to do.

First, where are the "few violent thugs" that keep being mentioned? That must be a story that only appears on Fox News because I am a news addict and haven't seen any such stories (but, I rarely watch Fox News). As for "now what?", today OWS is engaging in "Occupy Our Homes" in order to draw attention to the foreclosure issue. All over the country, occupiers are engaging in activities aimed at stopping foreclosures. This is where the gap between the 1 percent and the 99 percent really becomes clear. The bankers were bailed out and not are provided record bonuses. At the other end of the spectrum, people are being tossed out of their homes. A concrete step in addressing this inequity is to reform the foreclosure process.

Also, many of the occupiers are employed. These are not a bunch of bored college kids. Bored college kids would have moved on by now. To the contrary, there are people of all ages who are making a huge commitment. They deserve an immense amount of praise.

I support Occupy DC. I would like you to support your description of them as "thugs". A thug is a violent person. Occupy DC has been decidedly non-violent. Dvorak's article is inaccurate in many ways and is contradicted by the live treating of Post Reporter Tim Craig who was on the scene yesterday. Regarding Dvorak's claims of taunting and insults of the police, Craig tweeted this today: "I think, while clearly a few often taunt police, most do not, so got to be careful about over generalization."

I watched the livestream being broadcast during the arrest of the five protesters who climbed on the structure. I could clearly hear many of the chants of the crowd. Several were friendly toward the police, and even humorous. For example, when the police began putting on riot gear, the crowd chanted, "You're sexy, you're cute, take off your riot suit." There was also a chant that -- paraphrasing -- said "even after this is over, we will still give you a hug". Another chant said "the police are just like us". Of course there are always a few jerks who go beyond what is acceptable. That's true on both sides. Yesterday on the livestream the narrator told of seeing a protester knocked to the ground in order to be arrested. A commanding officer of some sort ordered an officer to use his tazer to subdue the already subdued protester. The officer refused the command and arrested the protester peacefully.

But, I will stress that the police have mostly been professional and respectful. The Occupy Movement in DC enjoys a much better relationship with authorities then in other cities. Sometimes the bar is set pretty low. For instance, praising officers that didn't pepper spray people who were simply taunting them seems like a low bar. But, the DC and Park police perform well above that bar. The police really didn't need to remove the five protesters who were on top of the structure -- how long could they have lasted without food or water while standing on thin beams without even the benefit of warm clothes? But, given the police didn't want to wait them out, they did the best the could under the circumstances.

The Occupy Movement deserves praise for bringing attention to issues that were being ignored. The fact that people living comfortably in their warm homes choose to ridicule these brave protesters who are sleeping out in the cold is a shame.

Today, Jackson Browne stopped by Freedom Plaza to perform for the protesters. It's good to see his offer of support.

Anonymous wrote:I don't believe Eleanor Holmes Norton would necessarily be elected. It is currently a position with no power. Once it became a position with the power of one vote, more people would compete for it.

I agree, but even more where the Senate seats are concerned. There will be "DC residents" coming out of the woodwork ready to run for the Senate.