Forum Post: Does OWS need, or want, this kind of celebrity support?
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 16, 2011, 11:48 p.m. EST by Confusedoldguy
(260)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
According to this week's Newsweek, Bill Maher drove a Tesla Roadster to Los Angeles to visit and lend support to the Occupy LA camp at City Hall. Two questions for Mr. Maher:
1) In light of your professed support of the movement, what is the level of income disparity between your salary and that of the janitor who cleans your studio, and what do you plan to do about it?
2) Are you ignorant of the irony of driving a $120,000 car on that mission, or are you aware of it, and chuckling because no one has the guts to call you on it?
I don't think it's an issue of making money, that makes someone a 1%er. Fox news points out that Michael Moore has $100 million in assets, but no one would consider him part of the 1%.
The same goes for Bill Maher I think. IN fact, I remember when his show was censored for daring to go against 9/11 propaganda by arguing that the terrorists who flew into the twin towers must have had SOME courage.
Not everyone in the 99% has the goals of making a socialist nation, where the wealth is spread evenly. I think it's mostly about income disparity from the astronomical salaries at the very top and those at the very bottom. Hedge fund managers making a million dollars an hour for example. There aren't very many celebrities in America that aren't millionaires, and you aren't going to get a lot of support for the movement if you insist that these people start giving their money away.
[Removed]
So the message of the movement to Hollywood is, "If you agree with us, we'll give you a pass on your obvious overconsumption of resources and the income disparity between you and those who work for you. We need your support, so you can keep your money." How is that not a sell-out?
If anyone supports the OWS cause, that's great!
Making money isn't the problem. Abuse of power and infiltrating our government with corruption is the problem. To my knowledge Bill Maher has never outsourced jobs nor has he accepted a bail out, nor has he been responsible for devaluing our US dollar, nor has he been responsible for starting a false war in Iraq for oil, nor has he been responsible for legally bribing candidates to pass legislature that he drafted, also Bill Maher and Michael Moore have never taken away any of our constitutional rights either.
why is accepting a bail-out BAD and not Giving one?
you want to get drugs off the street you take down the dealer. get help for the junkies.
or is this just because it's the guy you backed doing the bailing out and rather than blaming him you turn to the ones he is giving it to.
well, I can vote out Obama but I can't vote out Solyndra.
just my opinion.
Great point!!! Bill Maher is just bringing awareness to the issue, and might even help gain increased support. At this point, everyone I've talked to (except for 1 person) has completely lost support for OWS, particularly because of the publicity surrounding the protesters and feelings that this movement is too radical. And.... if you work your ass off to get somewhere in life, why can't you drive a Tesla?
Yes I have to agree with Trevor. Wealthy celebrities really aren't the problem, it's the financial industry, the bank bailouts, outsourcing jobs to China, etc. That's why it's 'Occupy Wall street' and not 'Occupy Hollywood'.
If you are upset at income disparity in corporations, why would you not be equally upset about the same issue in Hollywood? It still sounds like hypocrisy to me.
You seem to be too fixated on this movement being about income disparity. It isn't. You may misunderstand the 99% - 1% theme that OWS uses and that's understandable, a lot of people do. The 1% is a metaphor, it's not supposed to be taken literally. It isn't about income. It's far more about corruption. It's about that small percentage of individuals that use their wealth to influence our politicians for their financial gain to the detriment of the rest of the population, the economy and the environment. It's about the heads of the largest banks in the country engaging in fraud, collapsing the economy, getting taxpayer funded bailouts then giving themselves billions in bonuses. TrevorMnemonic helps explain it above.
No, not really. As has already been pointed out, Wall street has been playing a ponzi scheme which benefits only themselves, and when they lose money through toxic assets, THEY get bailed out, WE get sold out.
These people are also responsible for corruption in Washington, keeping illegal wars going so they can pocket the profits from the sale of weapons to the US, bought with taxpayer money.
Just because J.K. Rowling makes a million dollars off book sales, doesn't make her part of the 1% we are fighting against. It's not about the money, it's about what you do with it.
Warren Buffet is part of the 1%, who wants Washington to raise taxes on him, so really, he isn't part of the problem either.
If you hold a Hollywood celebrity accountable for crimes of Hollywood execs, that's the equivalent of holding an employee of a major corporation accountability for the crime of his/her superiors. I don't think that's what anyone that is a part of OWS is trying to accomplish.
yea, a week ago this would have made a big stink but OWS does gradually narrow its' enemy down. that 1% is now no longer a street or a government or a rich person or an invisible "mr. scrooge" boogyman but somewhere in the corruption of bedfellow politicians and corporations.
Eventually with enough digging some good bones will turn up, and YES they will claim it is what they were opposed to the whole time and YES it was the 1% who distorted what they were saying.
but, we will let that slide.