Now That We Know This -- And Have No Excuse For Not Knowing -- What Do We Do?

"Police killing ruled 'justified'" -- every single time. No matter what, if the officer says he (or rarely) she felt threatened, then any use of force including lethal force is almost always ruled "justified," and the officer is in essence rewarded for a job well done. Killing, crippling and maiming, causing any amount of emotional and psychological trauma on witnesses, survivors and victims, ruining lives, destroying communities, all of it and more is ruled "justified" if the officers says he or she felt "threatened." Or if, as is so often the case, the officer's absolute authority is questioned...

Now that we know this -- and we have no excuse not to know it by now -- the question is what is to be done?

Tens of millions, hundreds of millions of dollars in payouts to victims of police brutality and murder have had no negative affect on police departments or on elected and appointed officials who write off these sometimes extraordinary payouts as simply the cost of doing business, or as a necessary public safety expense. To them, all these millions are nothing; they are not coming out of the department's budgets or the officer's pockets, or the hides of city administrators. Ha! They're a levy on taxpayers, either directly or indirectly.

The protests don't have any perceptible effect on the culture of suppression, oppression, and killing that has routinized and professionalized among police forces nation wide. The public can rise and yak and yabber all they want about the brutality and killing. Officials and their officers don't care. It's nothing to them, except perhaps some welcome overtime for the officers on the line, and damn, isn't it fun to get out all those riot costumes and toys and threaten the crowds of protesters with immediate and lethal force when they get uppity? Heh. Put them in their place.

"Scathing" reports by the DoJ and investigative journalists haven't had much of an effect on the police killing spree, except for this: when the DoJ issues a "scathing" report, the police undergo a "progressive professionalizing program," in which their rules and their training is coordinated with the "best and most progressive" national policing standards. It doesn't necessarily cut down on the killing for it isn't necessarily meant to. The killing and brutality may get the Rabble riled up, but that's rarely the problem. The problem is that the police aren't doing it right. Once they have the rules and the tools and the training that meets national standards, they're home free. Use of force, especially lethal force, is now routinized. Have at it.

As long as the Right People are served and protected, what's to worry? What's to complain about?

If that means a thousand or more of the Rabble are gunned down by police every year -- 3 or 4 a day, every single day -- so what? If that means tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of the Rabble are brutalized and traumatized by police every year, often arbitrarily -- so what? If that means millions upon millions of Americans are sent through the bloated prison industrial system -- so what? As long as it's primarily the Rabble who's subjected to this, why should anyone who matters care? They don't. They won't. It doesn't bother them because it doesn't involve them.

The way the officials in Albuquerque have behaved toward the problem of police violence and killing is instructive and it should be seen as exemplifying the point of view of most officials faced with growing outrage and protest by the Rabble toward police.

The only time they concern themselves with the opinions of the Rabble regarding the conduct of the police -- or really regarding much of anything else -- is when the Rabble interferes with comfort, convenience and routines of those in charge. The response then is always the same: suppression. If need be: oppression. Otherwise the Rabble is really rather free to carry on as they choose, but no one (who matters) is listening, and no one (who matters) gives a good god-damn. Even if they put on a show of "concern..." Sure. Right. Whatever. They have more important things to do, and a far more important clientele to serve.

The mayor and city manager of Albuquerque have been quite clear that they are not interested in hearing from victims of police violence. The mayor refuses any but the most distance-keeping contact, and the city manager's interactions are typically filled with bluster and threats toward those who seek justice. He was, after all, the chief officer of the New Mexico state prisons. (A whole long other topic, but it is informative to understand where he is coming from, and to understand that his state prison tenure was considered "progressive.")  It's useful, too, to understand that the mayor and city council of Albuquerque are not in charge of the police. As is the case in most cities around the country, the police are not accountable to nor are they supervised by elected officials. They are only accountable to the city manager or the equivalent, an appointee who often holds the mayor and council hostage to an agenda that the public is essentially unaware of. In Albuquerque, too, the appointed police chief appears to be a figurehead, nothing more. From appearances, he has no authority and very little knowledge. The police department appears to be run directly out of the City Administrator's office with little or no consideration of the "chief." That, too, is not all that unusual in city administrations around the country.

How city governments actually work is another topic that I could go on about at great length but not here, not now.

To these people and especially to those whom they serve, "justice" means suppression of the Rabble by any means necessary, including killing and brutalizing them routinely for any reason at all -- or no reason but to keep them in a state of fear, panic and terror.

For whatever reason, many of the Rabble are convinced they can get justice by appeal, but most often they can't. There is no one to appeal to who cares. There are very few who the Rabble might appeal to who see justice in the same way the Rabble does.

That's a major problem right there: "justice" to the victim/citizen is one thing, "justice" to the perpetrator/ruler is quite a different thing. "Justice" to the perpetrator/ruler protects them from the Rabble; "justice" to the Rabble is something else again: a brake on excess, exploitation, and oppression and an expression of social fairness.

So how does the Rabble deal with this situation? What will it take to change the dynamic sufficiently to reduce the rate of killing and brutalization by police on the one hand and ensure fairness on the other?

Is it even possible or have we reached the point where the Powers That Be have so divorced themselves from the interests of the People, there is no longer any way to heal the divide?

What then must we do?

Let's explore the topic next time....

Ferguson Says: "We Hear You Negroes, Now Sit Down and Shut Up!"

Or be gassed and grenaded to Eternity.

Got that? Good.

Class, Prejudice and Outrage in Albuquerque

I watched most of the evening's doings at the Albuquerque City Council meeting last night (on live video, not in person, as we are quite a ways out in the country and all). The meeting was primarily dedicated to hearing from citizens regarding their feelings about the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) and the recent events in which several individuals were killed by police, most notably James Boyd as he was surrendering up in the Sandia foothills after a several hour standoff. The video of that incident has gone viral around the nation and the world. It seemed to me that the Council was primarily interested in dealing with the public relations disaster that ensued, but, as I usually do, I gave the electeds the benefit of the doubt, as it seemed some of them were actually interested in hearing from the public whatever ideas they might have for correcting the situation.

However, it was pointed out very early that the Mayor had "an important meeting" elsewhere and so would not be attending this Council meeting. Interesting. Also, during the meeting, there was a statement from one of the public participants that the AP had just announced that the DoJ's long-awaited report on APD's actions would be released on Thursday. 

At some point, the newly installed -- and rather bumbling -- police chief, Gorden Eden, made an appearance at the back of the room, where apparently he stayed at least as long as I watched, until about 10pm.

The meeting was well attended -- a full house in the Council chambers (241 capacity), and many watching a live feed outside the room on the plaza in front of the government building and apparently in an overflow room as well. It was anticipated that there would be a large crowd for the meeting, and so there was, but from what I could tell, the numbers were not in the "thousands" as had been suggested by some advocates might attend. My estimate is around 500, but I wasn't there, so that's more a guess than I would like it to be.

Quite a few of the speakers were relatives of those who had been killed by police in Albuquerque over the years, and some reported on their own experiences in police custody. There were reports of incidents of police misconduct and brutality going back to the '60s and '70s, the upshot being that "this is nothing new," the APD has always been a sketchy outfit and brutal at best.

I don't know what to say about that. I'm not familiar with what went on in the more distant past, but I did a little research about the Roosevelt Park riots (1971), and indeed, what happened seemed so familiar considering what has been in the news lately. Except for one thing: Crowds don't seem to riot any more. Despite the chief's hyperbole about "mobs" at one of the protest demonstrations against police misconduct and brutality recently, there were no riots.

There were several references to police infiltration, misconduct and brutality during the anti-war protests in 2003, but none about police brutality toward (Un)Occupy demonstrations in 2011 and 2012.

Most of those who spoke were upset with police misconduct and excessive use of force and weapons in Albuquerque, though there were a few speakers who justified and supported practically anything the APD wanted to do. Some of them were current or ex-police officers. I noted that the defense of police actions -- such as the shooting of James Boyd which touched off this latest round of protests against the APD -- often pivots on definition of terms; keep re-defining "justified" for example, and you can justify anything at all. And that's what many police defenders do. Whatever the police do to civilians is "justified" by re-definition. It's bizarre, but it's what happens.

What was clear to me from the testimony last night was that class and prejudice enters into police actions so often as to be definitive. As one speaker pointed out, you don't hear about police shootings in the Northeast Heights. That's because they don't happen there, or in any of the well-off enclaves that dot the Albuquerque Metro area. The police shoot to kill in poor neighborhoods, and their targets are often young, poor white, black or brown men with sketchy backgrounds, often homeless, often struggling with mental illness and/or substance abuse issues.

I believe one of the speakers pointed out that of the 23 men killed by police in the past four years, 11 were clinically mentally ill. There was little or no treatment available for many of them, little or no safety, little or no effort made to keep them out of trouble or out of the line of police fire.

Mental health care services and social services for Albuquerque's growing cohorts of poor, homeless, mentally ill, and substance abusers were broken or absent altogether, and the APD, when called on, too often used lethal force where there was little or no danger to themselves. They got away with it, too, because the men they shot and killed were "the least among us."

The killing of James Boyd was a last straw. He was well known to social service workers and to the police. Despite obvious need, there was no help for him. He was just being cycled between jail and homeless shelter, with occasional interludes at a mental health facility. But he was on his own much more than not, and he was shot and killed because he was trying to survive away from the people who had simply rejected him or couldn't offer him anything.

There are thousands of homeless in Albuquerque, many tens of thousands of poor people, many of them young or youngish, many barely getting by or desperate. These are the people the APD concentrates their force on, and these are the people they shoot and too often kill. Some have extensive criminal backgrounds, but often enough, they are "criminals" for being homeless, for being young, sassy, black or brown, or because they use drugs or get drunk.

The APD is trained to persecute these people. There was testimony from poor, homeless, brown and black people who went through "living hell" from the Albuquerque police because of their status, their color, their location.

It's a a prejudice the police are trained to act on.

And it's not just in Albuquerque.

As more and more Americans are forced into poverty by the endless recession, more and more Americans face this kind of gross prejudice by authority, prejudice based on status, or rather lack of it.

The outrage felt by so many Burqueños is based on long and in many cases very cruel experience. Many said they had been warning the council and the mayor's office for years about the dangerous behavior of the police, and they had been advocating reform after reform, but nothing was done. They were ignored. And now this.

There were a number of representatives of A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, which has been in the forefront of police misconduct protests in Albuquerque. I haven't seen them on parade since the Anti-Iraq-War protests which they organized and implemented on an enormous but ultimately ineffective scale.

In concert with Anonymous, the members of the coalition who testified last night issued the following demands:

1) We demand an immediate takeover of APD by the D.O.J.

The recent outrageous and disgraceful shooting of James Boyd by the APD clearly demonstrates that the Chief of Police and his subordinate commanders are unable or unwilling to do anything to address the ongoing excessive use of force and disregard for human life by APD officers.  It is simply imperative that the D.O.J. step in immediately and assume control of APD in order to prevent further abuses.  Whether by consent decree, some type of federal receivership or otherwise, immediate D.O.J. intervention is critical.

2)  We demand authentic and verified citizen oversight of APD to include the authority over hiring and firing (and discipline) of APD leadership and officers.  Once again, the Chief of Police and his subordinate commanders have demonstrated a complete lack of authority/ability in supervising and, where necessary, disciplining and/or dismissing officers who continue to perpetrate abuses of force.  Over the last several years officers have learned that they are free to utilize excessive use of force and that their actions will always be determined justifiable.

3)  We demand the immediate arrest of the officers who participated in the shooting and killing of James Boyd, particularly the two identified shooters. These officers are entitled to the same constitutional protections we all have but they must be arrested and charged just as we ordinary citizens would have been had we surrounded and shot Mr. Boyd.

4)  We demand the immediate termination of Chief Eden.  Despite his assurances of appropriate discipline if and when necessary which he promised when he was appointed, the Chief has clearly shown that his tenure as police Chief is simply going to be more of the same business as usual when it comes down to justifying actions of his officers.  Different name, different face, same result.

5)  We further demand indictments of all officers who have been guilty of violating citizen rights.  

It is time to bring charges against all of the officers who have engaged in excessive use of force cases over the last several years and let them face the same charges and prosecution we would be facing.  Officers cannot be allowed to escape above the law simply because they wear a badge.  In fact, they should be held to a higher standard, not a lesser more lenient standard.

6) We demand the demilitarization of APD.  We have become dismayed and disgusted with the new, modern 'look' of our APD officers.  These officers appear to enjoy strutting about in their tough muscle cars and showing off their modern tactical weapons including high powered rifles, and assault type, almost military looking uniforms, including helmets and bullet-proof vests.  They seem to enjoy the opportunity to roll out their armed assault vehicles.  One recent event involved an officer who arrived late at a police scene and exclaimed that he was sorry he has arrived late and wasn't going to be able to try out his new toy "i.e. his assault rifle.

7)  We demand an increase of funding for social services including substance abuse prevention and treatment, preventing homelessness and an acknowledgement that each of us is entitled to housing, shelter and the peaceful enjoyment of our city.  A redirection of funding from police weaponry and tactical training to social services will certainly go a long way in reducing the confrontations between the police and the homeless in our City.  Similarly, substance abuse treatment will reduce the crime rate which leads to violent confrontations.

8)  We demand a new vigorous investigation of the APD hiring practices.  We hae learned that APD recently lowered minimum standards for new officers and is not requiring lateral transfers to undergo background checks and psychological exams.  This has resulted in a rash of 'reject' officers from other jurisdictions finding a home in APD.  There was a reason these rejects were let go by their departments.  How can we believe they will no longer be problem officers?

9)  We demand that access to deadly weapons by APD officers be dramatically reduced.  As mentioned in demand number 6 there is too much emphasis on more modern, more tactical weapons.  Officers place more and more emphasis on newer more deadly weapons.  This has resulted in more officer involved shootings and overkill where the victims are not just shot once or twice but multiple shots.

10) We demand authentic and verifiable policing that puts positive police-community relationships ahead of violent confrontation.  Clearly officers and citizens are both better served and safer when they can work together in collaborative rather than a confrontational fashion.  What has happened to 'community based policing?' This is a term we never hear anymore.

11)  We demand a non-police emergency response of trained mental health professionals and crisis negotiators who can be called upon at all encounters that carry the potential for possible use of deadly force.  Especially in situations like that which led to the killing of James Boyd, there was plenty of time to bring in trained crisis intervention personnel to help defuse rather than escalate the situation.

12)  We call upon those police officers who recognize the problem of the police violence to publicly support these demands.  In spite of the many problem officers within APD, we acknowledge those officers who are just as disgusted as we are with the outrage which have occurred.  We call upon these officers to stand up and be counted in taking a stand for sound and rational police practices designed to serve and protect the citizens.

13)  We demand that the city counsel adopt the Police Oversight Task Force's recommendations for police oversight immediately and without amendment or alteration. These recommendations are well thought out and reasoned approaches to the problems we are facing.  These recommendations must not be diluted or watered down so that they become ineffective.

14)  We demand immediate and ongoing medical evaluation of all APD officers to determine their mental fitness to carry a weapon and serve as a police officer.  As mentioned in demand number 8, we insist that APD reinstate previous screening procedures designed to identify and weed-out potentially problem officers.  These procedures are already in place, they have not been enforced during the last few years.

The council accepted the Police Oversight Task Force's report at last night's meeting, but what will become of it is anyone's guess. There have been many reports over the years, none have made much difference. The problem with the APD is inbred in its culture, and is reinforced by leadership. There were calls for the immediate resignation of the police chief and the mayor, but the council pointed out that the city's Chief Administrative Officer is actually the one who has authority over the police. Some called for his resignation as well, but the council was at some pains to assure the public that they had very little actual authority over the police and their conduct. They pointed out they only had policy and budget authority, not operations authority. Some wags responded that "policy and budget" are two of the chief ways to control the police department, but that seemed to go right over the council's head.

I was curious about whether this would be as raucous a meeting as I'd witnessed in Oakland, but it wasn't. It was far more polite.

But the mayor wasn't there, and the police chief stayed in the background. How it will all turn out remains to be seen.

I Hate Politics

The Sacramento City Council meeting at which the issue of OccupySacramento's Occupation of Ceasar Chavez Plaza was discussed at length -- and very articulately argued by numerous OccupySacramento participants and supporters (I've decided most are law students or lawyers, but that's surely not true) -- because the council pulled their usual shit on the citizens. They heard them reasonably respectfully, then they turned the tables.

There would be no vote, the Mayor said. They couldn't vote on the matter, it wasn't an action item on the agenda. There was no way. They could only take testimony. The Mayor smiled broadly at his cleverness. But some of them knew the kind of thing that is typical in their dealing with -- ew-- "citizens." The crowd began to murmur. Then after all the testimony was taken -- and I think there were close to fifty speakers, though only forty were announced at the start of the testimony -- one of the councilmen, the most sympathetic of them, said he thought it might be possible, over time, to work out some kind of compromise that would allow the material and equipment to stay in the Plaza and perhaps a "protester" or two could stay in the Park overnight to make sure it was safe. Then the councilmember for the downtown district decided to claim that the occupation wasn't peaceful because a police officer was bitten by a dog in the Plaza. She was nearly roasted over a spit, and she demanded to be heard. She wanted a flood control levee for her district, but she couldn't get one because of Republican earmark rules, and the Occupation can help in that situation somehow. She had talked to the Occupiers for a while. She knew what they wanted. She would work with her colleagues on crafting a compromise.

The Occupiers demanded loudly that the arrests stop. The Mayor said no. He would spend two or three days at the Plaza in dialogue, and then perhaps something could be worked out, a compromise perhaps, in due time. Perhaps. They must dialog first. The Mayor then designated an Occupier as his point person with whom he would coordinate his visitations of the Plaza; some people were not happy with that arrangement at all. By that time, people were so furious, it hardly mattered.

They were played. This is how this council works, which is something they might have been told in advance by some of those who had been through that wringer (who, me? Well, I have said something, but there's a great unwillingness to believe won't work out for the best.)

The Occupation will not get what it wants. It probably won't get anything except "dialog" -- which could go on literally for years with no resolution, nothing. That's what the Safe Ground people discovered. The city will actually spend hundreds of thousands of dollars commissioning studies and running task forces and hiring people to write reports that will be presented by staff to Council and Council will direct some modest followup study and report and might even get so far as to have staff draft an ordinance or revision, and then it will sit, "dialog will continue" indefinitely. That's the course they've decided on.

Obviously, the Council is taking this episode as a really big deal, because what they are doing is attempting to defuse the protest by co-opting the Occupation through the selection of certain "players" with whom to "dialog." Apart from the fact that the Mayor is sitting down with a representative of the Occupation -- which is a basic splitting tactic -- nothing is happening. Nothing will be done beyond the "dialogue" apart from hiring consultants, who will produce glossy reports that will be ignored --or that may result in the establishment of, say, an "Occupation Commission" which will be an advisory body to Council, possibly even with staff support, though not any time soon. The whole point is to corral the energy of the Occupation and channel it into something productive for the Council. After all, the most supportive of the councilmembers wanted to be sure the Occupiers were shopping and dining at local small businesses. They need the support. As one of them said, "We would, but we can't afford it."

There are preparations under way for arrests tonight, but they are still sorting out volunteers. Cindy Sheehan was back to give moral support and to testify at the council hearing. She said she couldn't stay tonight, but she was planning to come back as soon as she could. OccupySacramento is her "home base" Occupation because it is closest to her home in Vacaville. She and the young folks get along great, by the way.

There is talk of bringing in Cornell West (he was raised here), but I doubt anyone will hold their breath. Meanwhile, word has come that Bay Area Occupations, especially Oakland's, will be sending representatives on visitations.

This is good. This is very good. The more contact between Occupations, the better. And it would be good to send OccupySacramento people to visit as many other Occupations as they can.

What I had been warned would happen (a unanimous negative vote) did not happen, and so the internal split I expected to result from it didn't happen either. Instead, the city is going to try to co-opt the Occupation by splitting it from the outside.

At this point, I doubt it will work, but my Magic 8 Ball has long been on the fritz.

They're packing up now, getting ready for the arrival of the police armadas. The police come in large contingents, 60 or 70 typically; there there according to the Livestream, and it isn't even 10:45. They're taking up positions around the Plaza, paddy wagons at the ready. They've had as many as three dozen patrol cars, two paddy wagons, 70 officers in riot gear, CSI vehicles, etc. etc., making the whole operation way overkill.

I'll watch the Livestream. The tension is rising.

Damn I'm Easily Amused

[via dKos]

"We need to sacrifice on behalf of our suffering brothers and sisters on Wall Street!"



City Council meeting in a few.

The scuttlebutt is that it will be a unanimous vote against a variance or exemption or special use permit for the OccupySacramento folks in Cesar Chavez Plaza Park. The Mayor has come out against any further accommodation, the Bee has declared the that the Occupation has "worn out its welcome," and something is being cooked up by some of the Occupiers for after the Council meeting. I have no idea what. Much secrecy and skullduggery all around. There was a rumor that Cindy Sheehan might come back today. Then again, we've heard plenty of rumors before.

And I've been getting some calls from people who know people and they say, basically, "Watch it..." ... sounds like somebody is prepping some kind of endgame, but who or what... don't ask me, I don't know. We've been hearing that sort of thing all along anyway, but now it seems to be driven by additional anxiety over an "official" refusal to accommodate the Occupation. Also, I'm hearing warnings about some of the individuals involved in the Occupation. But again, what's new with that?

A cop got dogbit in the Plaza yesterday, a dog that was tied to a tree but was guarding a demonstrator's tent while she went to the store for some supplies I'm told. A cop went to check her tent, the dog lunged at him (although no one actually saw this, but that's the current story as of last night). The cop pepper-sprayed the dog, and the dog bit him. Major to do in the Plaza, much Emergency Services, arrived, the dog was detained, the cop bandaged up, and the tension level in the Plaza went sky high.

The call went out not to volunteer for arrest last night. The dog-bite incident was one reason. There were others which will have to wait, cause I've got to get down there.

Things are changing. But for the time being, watch the Revolution Chant as performed in New York City.

Down at the Council Last Night

Damn, we are a polite bunch.

----------------------------
A note on all this almost baroque politeness and rituals of courtesy in Sacramento.

There is a strategic element to it, though it may seem counter intuitive. Sacramento is the Capital of California, but the city has long been something of an afterthought and a stepchild as far as the Powers That Be are concerned. This goes back to the days of the Railroad Barons, or even before that. At any rate, there can be a strategic advantage to linking arms with the city in solidarity and unity and in cooperating with the city authorities rather than contending with them unnecessarily.

This collaboration can change the character of the Occupation, but one of the points that was made by Steve Cohn was that there's nobody on the council who isn't part of the 99% (at least in terms of economic status), and in fact, the way our city government is structured, the city council and the mayor have very little power. The city manager is in charge, not the elected officals.

So whereas it might be right to challenge officialdom in some cities and to keep on doing it -- to get what you want -- in Sacramento, doing it the way the Occupation has been doing it is pretty much the way to go in order to get what you want, and it has the further and longer term advantage that the council then looks to the movement for cues and guidance. That's a heavy responsibility.

Down at the Occupation

Preparing for the Arrest, Sacramento, California, October 8, 2011, Cesar Chavez Plaza
From OccupySacramento Facebook photo page

Tonight was City Council night, and Occupiers were pretty jazzed by it. Some of them, of course, were experienced with the ways of the council and its staff, but most were not. Many had prepared very eloquent pleas to the council to cease the arrests and allow the Occupation to continue in Cesar Chavez Plaza indefinitely. For the most part, it was a beautiful thing, and the council appeared to be impressed with the diversity, the eloquence, the determination, and the objectives of the Occupation.

Of course there was no decision; there couldn't be. The vice mayor and the councilman for the Downtown district explained that due to open meeting laws, they could not take up the matter for a vote but they would direct staff -- here we go -- to study the issue and report back next week when the issue would be an agenda item and they will be able to consider it properly and take a vote.

There was also talk of having the chief of police and the city manager come up with some kind of accommodation for the Occupation in addition to that which they have already supplied: two parking places on the street for a truck to hold the Occupation's equipment overnight. There could be an exception under the anti-camping ordinance for public events -- including protest.

There has been some talk (not official talk by any means) of pushing the issue by claiming the Plaza in any case, regardless of what officials say or don't say, want or don't want, do or don't do. That's actually how #occupywallstreet originated, just taking over a public space (they were kicked out of the first one that was actually on Wall Street; Liberty Plaza is the second occupation site in New York.)

But here, that idea doesn't really seem to be gaining much traction. The general feeling is that they want to stay legal to the extent they can, they want the city's support, and they want to maintain good relations with the police. There is a very wide range of issues to deal with, and the belief is they can deal with them better if they are all on the same side.

There is some informal discussion now about how best to proceed, but more than likely whatever the decision is will be low-keyed for several more days.

The fear of infiltration and take over by a political party or machine is not really justified. I spoke with Karen Bernal's husband about it tonight, and he just laughed. To his mind, there was no likelihood at all that the Occupation would become a TeaBagger-ish branch of the Democratic Party or any branch of the Democratic Party. No. Won't happen! On the other hand, what might easily happen, perhaps too easily, is that the Occupation might become kind of a civic outreach, not necessarily a branch of the city government but something like private counselors identifying and dealing with the most intractable issues the city faces.

Don't laugh. It could happen.

This may be the real co-optation issue for many of the Occupations.