Occupy Boston 2017-05-10 14:49:10

Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

Two great things have finally come together: Beer and Ranked Choice Voting.

Voter Choice Massachusetts invites you to Somerville’s first ever Ranked Choice Voting Beer Election! Join us, along with State Representatives Mike Connolly and Denise Provost, at Aeronaut Brewing, 14 Tyler St., Somerville, MA [map] on Monday, May 22 at 6pm, for an evening of drinking, voting, and supporting the movement for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) [video]. You can RSVP here.

Ranked Choice Voting is a voting system just passed in Maine that allows you to rank your candidates (1, 2, 3…) in your order of preference. RCV solves the problem of spoiler candidates and vote-splitting, encourages more candidates to run, discourages negative campaigning, and ensures that the winner gets a true majority. (Read more about Maine’s enactment of RCV here: [Boston Globe / NY Times].)

We’ll be sampling beers and ranking our favorites in a live, interactive RCV-style election. We’ll hear from leaders of the RCV movement as well as our special guests, Rep. Mike Connolly, who is the lead sponsor for the RCV local option bill , and Rep. Denise Provost, who has been a long-time co-sponsor of RCV and other voting reform bills. Remember to RSVP here.

Here’s the run-down of the evening:

6-7:30pm – Arrive and drink beer

7:30-8pm – Listen to guest speakers present RCV (and drink more beer)

8:15pm – Last call for RCV ballots

8:30pm – RCV election results

We hope to see you at Aeronaut on May 22nd!
Many thanks,


PS – Now is a great time to get involved! Visit our New Members page here, or check out the latest action opportunities here.

Voter Choice MA · Boston, MA, United States

MIT May Day Walkout and Rally

May Day MIT Walkout and Rally (May 1, 2:30pm, Killian Court)

On International Workers Day
Stand up for immigrant and worker rights
Join fellow students and workers in a show of solidarity
Help build the resistance movement
Participate in the nationwide Un Día Sin Inmigrantes

Tax Day Rally

(from MassPeaceAction)

Tax Day Rally Saturday, April 15, 1:00 pm
Cambridge Common

Trump must release all his tax returns
Corporations and 1%ers should pay their fair share in taxes
Oppose the Trump/Ryan “Death Budget”
Support the People’s Budget

Sign up/Volunteer

If ever patriots were needed to address threats to the country, that time is now.

Trump’s lies, corruption and his new budget proposal pose a clear and present danger to the nation

  • We Demand that Donald Trump release his tax returns! Expose Trump’s conflicts of interests and business connections. As a billionaire, he will directly benefit from his proposed tax breaks.
  • We Demand that big corporations and people with very high incomes pay their fair share of taxes. Oppose the hundreds of billions of dollars in even more “big, big” tax giveaways promised by the president.

Welcome To Boston: Admission $100,000

(from Housing Justice Boston)

March B R A housing approvals point to six figure only residents in the New Boston

During March 2017, the Boston Redevelopment Authority board approved almost 2,000 new housing units for construction in Boston. The projected costs for these units tells a clear story. This city is being rebuilt largely for residents able to pay $3,000 per month and up to live here and will effectively require an annual income of $100,000 or more to do so. Boston is rapidly becoming a city affordable to those who make six figures.

“Affordable” housing as defined by HUD is when households pay 30% or less of a their annual income toward housing costs. Using the March B R A approvals as a snapshot relative to that criteria, 88% of Boston’s current residents will be ineligible to live in the “New Boston”.

City Hall has made repeated claims about record amounts of “affordable” housing and that we should “Imagine” a Boston for all. Instead, the data shows us that the new Boston will be for the few. New housing being built is, for the most part, only affordable to the top 12% of current Boston residents… Imagine that.

Most of us here in Reality Boston accept that Downtown and Seaport are not places we will ever be able to live. But the troubling part about the March B R A new housing unit approvals is they are in the neighborhoods beyond Downtown. Developers are running out of places to build downtown, which the means outer neighborhoods are now in the cross hairs.

$3K per month, $100K a year is the new norm and nearly 90% of Boston households are not part of that equation. It’s 2017 and we’ve reached a tipping point,unless more of today’s Bostonians begin to challenge the current redevelopment model in this city (where a questionable Mayor and the B R A are all powerful), many thousands of People are about to become former Bostonians.

B R A March, 2017 – Scorecard:

  • 1,953 New Housing Units
  • $2,777 Average projected cost per month
  • $111,080 Annual income required (per HUD guidelines)

This analysis is based on data extracted from commonly available public sources listed below:


Koninklijke Philips N.V. versus Bureau of Intellectual Property (2016) – Supreme Court Decision Number 2877/2559

The Thai Supreme Court has turned around the Trademark Registrar’s choice to dismiss a blemish on the grounds of closeness, expounding on the need to deliberately consider the particular way of the focused on merchandise while deciding comparability.

In this 2016 choice, the Thai Supreme Court took the position that the contrasting way of merchandise, however comparative, assumes a critical part in choosing the probability of perplexity between two imprints.

Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Petitioner), connected for the trademark “PHILIPS” in class 21 (for different family unit electronic machines, including electric toothbrushes). The application was dismisses by the Trademark Registrar and the Trademark Appeal Board on the grounds of the similitude of the check connected for to an outsider’s earlier enrolled stamp, i.e. “DR.PHILLIPS and Device” in class 21 (for toothbrushes and dental floss). The Claimant advanced the choice to the Intellectual Property and International Trade (IPIT) Court, which found for the Claimant. The Department of Intellectual Property engaged the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court isolated the likeness thought into two parts:

intrinsic likeness as far as visual portrayal, etymological organization and articulation of the individual imprints; and

the likelihood of such closeness bringing about buyer disarray with regards to the starting points of the particular products at issue.

As far as the second segment, the Court considered the sorts of the particular products and the cover of their business sectors (channels of exchange) in the brains of customers and general society’s impression of the separate merchandise.

It was watched the Claimant spends significant time in the family unit electric apparatuses area, has showcased its electric machines in Thailand since 1951, and has been utilizing the “PHILIPS” stamp for those items in Thailand since 1991.

The Court found that, despite the fact that the “PHILIPS” check has been utilized as a part of connection to a wide assortment of Claimant’s items other than electric toothbrushes, that reality does not give the Claimant a privilege – under the legitimate simultaneous utilize arrangement of the Thai Trademark Act (Section 27) – to be enrolled as the proprietor of the “PHILIPS” stamp for the products recorded in the application being referred to. In any case, the Court indicated people in general everywhere knows the “PHILIPS” check distinguishes the Claimant for the most part as the source of family unit electric products and this reality permits shoppers to promptly comprehend the Claimant makers the particular electric toothbrushes being referred to.

Advance, the Court watched electric toothbrushes have a place in the classification of electric apparatuses. It expressed the buy of electric toothbrushes requires a specific level of care and thought by buyers, especially as far as security and moderateness, and this thus expands the shot of shoppers coming into contact with the Claimant’s image, and increasing further comprehension of the item’s starting point.

Subsequently, the Supreme Court finished up a low likelihood existed of buyer perplexity between the imprints, and the choice of the IPIT Court was maintained.