Kevin Marshall's America » occupy albany

Ward Stone and the Erosion of Personal Responsibility

kevinmarshall — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 17:10:13 +0000

Charges will not be pursued against Ward Stone, the former head pathologist of New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation who was accused last year of mis-use of taxpayer dollars, taking up residence at the DEC, inappropriate use of state vehicles, abuse of underlings, and various other trespasses which would have landed most other public servants in jail.

The reasoning is likely because Stone, who retired in 2010, has since had four strokes and is currently in the hospital. Pursuing further action would be moot and likely cost the State even more money and resources. He’s already abused and wasted enough of our taxpayer dollars.

What bothered me, though, were those that came to his support and claimed that the charges shouldn’t have been pursued because of the stances he took.

From James Odato of the Times Union:

More than 80 fans of former state wildlife pathologist Ward Stone put their names on a letter to Attorney General Eric Schneiderman urging him to disregard a referral from the inspector general’s office concerning the IG’s findings of years of improper behavior by the now-retired Department of Environmental Conservation veteran. The April 9 letter, describing Stone as the state’s “environmental superman,” was signed by representatives of a host of groups, including the Sierra Club, Save The Pine Bush, Dyken Pond Environmental Center, Occupy Albany, Frack Free Catskills and Community Advocates for Safe Emissions, and Albany County Legislator Doug Bullock and nature columnist Carol Coogan, plus four of Stone’s children and their mother. The missive was unnecessary, however, because Schneiderman had decided not to pursue a case against Stone not long after the IG sent him its highly critical findings, according to the AG’s spokeswoman, Jennifer Givner. “Upon reviewing the IG’s report in February, the Office of the Attorney General declined to pursue the matter further,” she said when asked for a response to the letter. She had no more comment

Gross.

I’ll reiterate my initial reaction to the allegations, which hold even stronger now that this has all been put to bed:

I won’t ask if the ends justify the means, since the issue at hand is a bit more complicated than that, but I worry that too many people are eager to put the personality before the principles and use this as an indictment against those involved in the environmental movement and, on a much larger scale, any of those who view environmental conservation as a priority for the State.

What I’m saying is that we shouldn’t let this discourage those that are in a position to do some good. If anything, it should encourage more people within the system to take a stand when the State and its leaders are in the wrong. I mean, Hell, Ward Stone did it and yet he still got away with living at work, abusing subordinates, and shooting poor defenseless woodland creatures. What’s the worst they can do to you?

So, State officials and administrators, I urge you: be more like Ward Stone was to the public for so many years. Just don’t be like Ward Stone was to everyone else.

Shame on those who signed the letter knowing Ward was guilty of all he was accused of (and more). Actually, I’ll go further and state that all should be ashamed, because that letter specifically states that it was okay for Ward to have stolen from the State and its taxpayers simply because he felt he was owed more.

Part of being an adult and a decent human being is accepting responsibility when you have betrayed the trust of others, knowingly did wrong, and/or erred in an egregious manner. Nobody’s perfect, but a good deed does not absolve the individual of bad deeds, and it certainly does not provide just cause for committing wrong.

The sort of justification Stone’s supporters imply is not only logically and ethically unsound (do they really think there aren’t other people out there like Ward Stone who could have done what he did without his gross transgressions?), it’s potentially dangerous.

Changes made to Albany Cabaret License legislation, but a few more tweaks needed

kevinmarshall — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 16:54:04 +0000

Yesterday was the Common Council Planning Committee’s meeting and public discussion pertaining to the Albany Cabaret License legislation that would see changes to the way live entertainment is regulated in the city of Albany.

=== Download latest revision (PDF) as of 2/16/2012 ===

The idea was to make the process simpler and to tie it to the actual business rather than the land. Currently, a cabaret license is obtained through a clumsy process that results in a one-time $125 fee and is granted to the physical land. Which means that not only does it transfer to new businesses, but also new landowners. This new law, which if approved would go into effect April 1st, would hold specific businesses and business owners accountable for obtaining and renewing their cabaret license annually.

The most alarming aspect was addressed in a revision made two weeks ago. Basically, the application process was going to occur behind closed doors at the City Clerk’s office. That lack of transparency caused many, including myself, to remark that it made the process seem dirty and as if they were trying to pre-emptively shut down what they deem undesirable businesses, which would lead invariably to discriminatory practices muddied with political and racial biases. Thankfully, someone listened, and the process now has been completely changed to include input from various agencies and open it up for public comment.

The other major downside was the cost. Originally the range was a minimum of $300 to $900. The price has been brought down drastically, and is tiered according to capacity:

Up to and including 150 persons $150
151 to 300 persons $200
301 to 500 persons $300
501 or more persons $500
for each year or fraction thereof.

Note: if a venue has multiple rooms where events can be performed, there is a surcharge of $60 for each additional performance space.

Still very expensive for small businesses. One of the points I made to the committee was that many folks (and unfortunately one mustached member of the council whose name I unfortunately didn’t get) have this idea that businesses can afford whatever the city throws at them, what I referred to as a “tophat and monocle” image of small business owners. The reality is far different, particularly for those that own small coffee houses in the city limits.

One of the compromises in a recent revision attempts to address this. From Section 111-72 B:

B. Licensed premises that do not serve or sell any form of alcohol and whose amplification is only necessary for balancing acoustic instruments by means of a public address system or amplifier shall pay a fee of $50.

Again, it’s an earnest attempt, but done by people who don’t have a real working knowledge of what’s going on in the city and a general trend throughout the country. Many coffeehouses do in fact have liquor licenses in order to supplement their income. There’s also the rise of the Wine Bar – we’re having one opening right here in downtown Troy run by city booster Vic Christopher – that’s serves as more of a cafe than a bar/tavern. So while it’s a step in the right direction, there’s still some work to be done.

While most of the revisions were for the better, there was one that seemed to be shoe-horned in by a misguided council member reacting to some anecdotal circumstance:

C. For the purposes of this chapter, a premises owned or occupied by a religious organization which permits musical entertainment, singing, dancing or other forms of amusement in said premises that do not coincide with a religious service shall be deemed to be conducting a cabaret hereunder.

So basically, if a church is having a mixer, technically that can be construed as not “coinciding with a religious service” and subject them to needing to obtain and pay for a cabaret license. What I stressed to the members of the Committee and all present is that sometimes with a law like this, less is more. The easy way to fix this wouldn’t be to add more qualifiers as to what would be deemed as coinciding with a church or religious service, but to instead provide an exemption to all religious organizations. As hard as these fees will be for small businesses, it will be even harder for churches to cover them; they provide an invaluable service to underserved communities and, as such, rarely see the kind of cash flow that would justify the city charging them annually for a cabaret license. It would amount to the city looking like cruel overseers trying to draw blood from a stone, and all because one committee member was privy to an isolated incident.

This change is akin to someone getting cut off in traffic and, in response, trying to get legislation to make it harder for drivers to make a lane change. In that sense it serves as an apt metaphor for this whole process, which in my public comments I compared to taking a hammer to a housefly. Through the public’s input, however, we have seen a lot of changes made to the legislation that would make it more affordable and the process a lot more transparent and reasonable.

There’s still work to be done, but they’re getting there, thankfully.

As for Occupy Albany’s dog and pony show outside…ugh. Ugh ugh ugh. “Don’t tax the music” and “they don’t care about us” was the song being sung when I entered City Hall at 4:45pm and when I left at 6:00pm. The vast majority stayed outside, with only a handful coming in towards the end to get a sign onto television. They didn’t hijack the problem so much as embarrassed themselves by showing a fundamental ignorance or intentional misrepresentation (which would be worse) of the issue. It’s not a “tax on music” or “personal expression” as they were stating, it’s a tax on local business. Unfortunately the news cameras went right for them, which I saw coming from a mile away and had confirmed by several annoyed Facebook posts from people present at the meeting who watched the evening news.

My response: whatever. The circus ringmasters in television news media are naturally going to try to draw everyone’s attention to whoever’s rolling up in a clown car, so as cynical as it may seem, we can’t be too surprised. The good news, though, is that this process is moving forward in a positive way and there’s still time to provide more feedback and pressure to get the necessary changes made to make this a fair, affordable, and wholly transparent process.

PREVIOUSLY:

Comedy, karaoke and Albany’s cabaret law (All Over Albany)
Crashing the Albany Common Council’s Planning Committee Hearing (Kevin Marshall’s America)

Say what you want about Occupy Albany. I want to talk about pepper spray.

kevinmarshall — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 04:30:54 +0000

I have my issues with the sentiment and tone behind the Occupy movement, the vagueness of some of its goals, and the propensity for melodrama and grandstanding. They’re pretty well documented.

An APD mounted officer arms a can of pepper spray during the Occupy Albany eviction on Thursday, December 21st.

In recent weeks, I’ve become more and more disatisfied, disenfranchised, and cynical towards the movement. Part of it is because I’m exhausted by the rhetoric, the overstatement of its sentiment by drawing comparison to Middle Eastern protestors literally fighting for their lives in the streets and the Civil Rights movement, and the construction of elaborate scenarios where every single politician and officer is part of some secret cabal or conspiracy which misdiagnoses the ailments in our system and is self-defeating. But much of it, too, is due to supporters of the movement who hold steadfast to the movement’s claim that it is a collection of varying and differing ideologies, viewpoints, and world views. Yet if you express any hesitation about claiming solidarity with them, you are roundly chastised. And if you do what I am wont to do, which is make jokes about them, forget about it.

Still, with all my apprehension, I don’t think it’s right they should be pepper sprayed.

You can read a full recap of today’s eviction of Occupy Albany from Academy Park over at All Over Albany, complete with photos and videos. What I want to talk about, though, is the use of pepper spray by law enforcement.

The issue I have is that I feel that things like tazers and pepper spray, by their nature, should be used as a last resort; tazers because of the danger it poses to cardiac health and pepper spray because in a crowd it harms not just single targets but bystanders. In both cases, there seem to be more and more instances where the use of it is unwarranted, unnecessary, and/or excessive.

There are conflicting reports over what happened with the mounted Albany Police Officer who used the pepper spray. Videos of the incident are, while prevalent, inconclusive. But while the benefit of hindsight can provide excuses for the use of pepper spray, it does not excuse what I feel is knee-jerk use by police in not just Albany but throughout the country. This instance was not as excessive as what happened at UC Davis last month, yet still I look at these videos and don’t see any point where I feel it was necessary to resort to it.

In infamous pepper spraying incident at UC Davis started a conversation that should be continued about its use by officers, both public and private.

When raising the concern on Twitter, I was asked what non-violent means of protection could be afforded officers. One person, even while the rest of the conversation remained civil, drew the comparison of Kent State and asked if that would be preferable. But that’s a false dilemma. Police for decades were able to engage in crowd control and other situations such as what occurred in Academy Park without the use of things like pepper spray and tazers. This is, really, a more recent phenomenon.

The other suggestion was that it’s preferable to the use of a baton. Yet while that sounds more brutal, I disagree that it’s inherently worse. The benefit of the baton is that not only is it something that can only be used on a single person (unlike pepper spray) and does not carry the more immediate dangers of tazers, but it makes the wielder more discriminating in its use for the very reason pepper spray was adopted: because of the liability it carries.

Obviously, in the days to come, we’ll get more of the story. Or maybe we won’t. I’m sure, either way, I’ll continue to come under fire from my fellow Lefty friends for not supporting the Occupy movement enough (as if support at all is a requirement – how very Soviet) and my friends I politely disagree with on the Right end of the spectrum for the sympathy I carry towards those who were sprayed. But I’m trying to find any justification for continuing to allow police to use things like pepper spray in a situation involving protest and crowd control and, to be frank, I think until we can get to a point where officers are competent enough with it to only to use it as a last resort, they shouldn’t be allowed to have it on their persons.

The official demand(s) of Occupy Albany and my response

kevinmarshall — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 16:13:36 +0000

Occupy Albany released a statement read by John Jaye outlining their demands.

Occupy Albany has made a shocking, controversial, and altogether unfathomable demand: to take money out of politics.

Ridiculous! Ludicrous! Far too specific! This would undermine everything!

Personally, I think there should be MORE money in politics. In fact, I say do away with voting entirely. Replace it, instead, with glass jars for each candidate. Whoever collects the most cash wins, and then that cash is used to run the country as those people see fit. This way we ensure our representatives are working the hardest they can for our dollars, and only the most hard-working fundraisers will be in positions of influence. Also, corporations should be represented by living, breathing cyborgs that can they also run for office.

I’m being facetious, but not because I think the notion is ridiculous. But because I don’t think it’s nearly specific enough and as a liberal myself, I take offense to the notion that the demands and regulations being alluded to in the most vague possible manner here should just be universally accepted by any and all of this “99%” people keep talking about (the use of which does more to stifle conversation than encourage it and really needs to be abolished). Particularly when I and many others might (*gasp!*) disagree with the positions they are holding as universal to the variety of ideologies they represent.

I want to run down, point by point, the specific measures and issues they are demanding to be addressed “in the short term.”

Truly effective campaign finance reform. Okay. How and what aspects? It’s not as simple as just saying it. If it were, McCain-Feingold would have been stronger and more effective. Sadly, it was not. But there are a variety of factors that need to be addressed first before we try to tackle campaign finance reform as an issue. Mostly because it is not an issue but rather more of an idea and long-term goal, and the sooner you treat it as such the easier it becomes to address. Categorizing it as a “short-term” goal, as Occupy Albany explicitly states, is a wonderful thought but literally impossible and, really, self-defeating.
Corporate personhood. This is a tricky one. It’s a phrase invoked by my fellow lefties to elicit outrage from those who believe (as I do) that corporations are often given more preference in legal and political manners than the individual in this country. It doesn’t help when members of the GOP like Mitt Romney snarkily respond to criticisms by stating that “corporations are people too, friend.” What he actually meant, even though ideologically avoiding the issue, is that corporations consist of real people and are not wholly faceless entities. In the literal sense he is right. But the problem is that the influence of a corporation as a collective group is very narrow and self-serving, yet can overwhelm the influence and interests of the people. So what do you do in that case? Do we eliminate corporate personhood entirely? Absolutely not! Part of corporate personhood that doesn’t get acknowledged is that it also serves to protect us from them. Although expanded through legal decisions in the twentieth century, the concept also allows for us to do things like sue a corporation as an entity rather than every single person within that corporation and/or specific people, making it not just easier but literally possible to seek retribution for their transgressions (otherwise we’d be priced out and exhausted by legal fees and logistics). It also makes it easier for us to hold them accountable, financially and otherwise, when they break the law and/or imposed regulations. The other problem is that the more objectionable aspects of corporate personhood aren’t the result of legislation but rather, as Occupy Albany themselves point out, legal precedent. So it’s not as simple as passing a law undoing the concept of corporate personhood and stripping them of that status, as doing so would have consequences on our ability to pursue legal action against them, protect ourselves from their abuses, etcetera.
Incentive structure for representatives. I’d love to hear what they are actually proposing. If it’s a matter of simply raising income for representatives…well, good luck convincing a cynical populace that they should pay politicians that they’re unhappy with more money that the government does not have.
Changing the culture of disinformation and divisiveness rampant in our society. If you read letters and statements going back as far as the Founding Fathers, the sting of rhetoric, divisive stances, and politicians parading as ideologues is hardly a new phenomenon. You can and should call it out whenever you see it. It’s childish, anti-intellectual, misleading, and manipulative. But to think that you’re going to solve it through any action or actions is, I’m sorry, childishly naive.

Occupy Albany’s permit for encampment in Academy Park ends today. They show no signs of leaving, citing that it would be more effective for them to be present when legislators return to session early next month.

The video and full text transcript (typed out by yours truly – you’re welcome) of Occupy Albany’s statement is after the jump.

Thank you for joining us on this special day.

There has been much speculation in the media as to why we have been occupying Albany. What is the reason we are going through all this hardship? Struggling through tough weather and putting careers on hold?

We are proud to announce that within the movement’s rich ideological diversity, we are issuing a formal demand. The people of Occupy Albany hereby make the following statement, which represents a powerful commonality within a diversity of beliefs and goals.

We have joined together to occupy as an affirmation of the virtue of democracy where each person has an equal voice in shaping our common future. While we come from diverse background and world views, we stand united in the recognition that our current system is failing us. The voice of the people is drowned out by the corruptive influence that concentrated economic power exerts on the government. The interests of those who purchase influence are awarded at the expense of the people, for whom the government’s just power is to be derived. We believe that this failure in our system is at the core of many interconnected issues we face as a society and its resolution is key to a just future.

We therefore demand true democracy, unshacked from the corrosive influence of concentrated economic power, and ask all who share in this common goal to stand with us and take action towards this end and statement.

As more and more concentrated money tramples on the political will of the people, there is a growing movement for real democracy in the air. From Tunisia to Egypt, to the Occupy movements throughout the country, the demands for genuine democracy are echoing across the globe. While in this country we have the right to vote, we at Occupy believe that voting does not ensure that our representatives are serving our interests. To get elected, they must sell themselves to the highest bidder. And once in power, they are put under intense pressure by lobbyists. Lobbying firms who in many case write legislation and directly hand them to our politicians. And all too often, the people appointed to oversight in specific industries have interests directly linked to these industries; to the very industries they are supposed to regulate.

So who’s interests are the government serving?

We believe that by the very nature of our system, our representatives serve with deep conflicts of inflicts; conflicts between the public good and the good of concentrated economic powers which have corrupted the system. This is not sustainable. This is not tolerable.

At Occupy Albany, over the last few weeks, we have been developing a strategic road map to address in the near term issues of campaign influence, lobbying influence, and the revolving door. Included in this planning are measures towards a truly effective campaign finance reform, overturning the horrible legal precedence of corporate personhood, changing the incentive structure of our representatives so that they are truly working for the people, changing the culture of disinformation and divisiveness rampant in our society, and other near term measures. The end goal of this is true democracy.

We understand that this demand is broad and bold. This was intentional. The challenges we face as a society are simply too great to believe that baby steps and watered down compromises will be effective. Accordingly, this demand does not set a limit on what is possible. This system is broken and this must be addressed systematically to the root for the future of this generation and generations to come. We have a legacy and we owe it to them and we owe it to ourselves.

The occupy movement have given the voiceless a voice, and this voice will continue to grow louder. This voice will return our system of government to the people.

Like the Occupy movement itself, the crackdown isn’t organized…and that’s the whole point.

kevinmarshall — Wed, 30 Nov 2011 20:26:37 +0000

A popular theory being propagated is that the Occupy Crackdown is organized at the federal level. It’s not true…and it’s also part of the problem.

One of the biggest issues I’ve always had with conspiracy theorists is that they get so wrapped up in the fantasy and paranoia it induces that it blinds them from seeing the real issues that they often skirt around. Mind you, not every conspiracy theory has its hidden merits, principal among them the ones involving faked moon landings and NASA photoshopping pictures to hide “space elevators.” Note – remind me sometime to tell you aboutthe world I ventured into when a friend introduced me to an absurd documentary that claims, amongst other things, that the moon is simultaneously home to ancient civilizations and ruins, alien visitors, and terrestrial governments. But then there’s those like Naomi Wolf’s claim that the police crackdown on Occupy protestors was an organized effort and mandate from the federal government.

Thing is, it wasn’t, and Naomi got most of her facts wrong in her overzealous effort to paint an exciting espionage thriller where the government isn’t as dumb as you think it is. Worse, though, is that it’s exactly this kind of grand fictionalizing of the system that distracts from what’s really wrong: in particular, that corruption is right in your own back yard.

Political scientist and author Corey Robin put it best:

Like many critics of state coercion in America, Wolf seems to assume that political repression requires or entails national coordination and centralized direction from the feds. But as I argued in this piece in the Boston Review in 2005, and in a much longer piece in the Missouri Law Review [pdf], that notion gets it wrong.

From the battles over abolition to the labor wars at the turn of the last century to the Red Squads of the twentieth-century police departments to the struggles over Jim Crow, state repression in America has often been decentralized, displaying that very same can-do spirit of local initiative that has been celebrated by everyone from Alexis de Tocqueville to Robert Putnam. Though Tocqueville and Putnam were talking of course about things like creating churches and buildings roads, the fact is: if the locals can build a church or a road on their own, they can also get rid of dissenters on their own, too, no?

I urge you to read the article in full, because it’s a fascinating piece and hits the nail right on the head.

Wolf’s theory isn’t as outlandish as the 9/11 Truther ethos, but it is every bit as logically flawed and tragically misguided. They rely on a theory of a hyper-competent government, creating the image of a powerful and invisible central force; sometimes a small group of people but more often than not an impractically large group that can somehow manage to all keep quiet about it against all semblance of human nature. But it’s a self-induced ruse that distracts from real problems.

As Robin notes, the repression isn’t centralized at all. It’s systemic and sociological, built into our system and spread across a microcosm of municipal, county, and state institutions. In New York City, it’s Bloomberg who said enough was enough. In Albany (to a far lesser and much less violent extent), it’s Andrew Cuomo using OGS guidelines and a knowingly eager group of pseudo-activists to engage in a dick-waving contest with political boss and Albany mayor Jerry Jennings. Did they conspire to do it at the same time? Or did they receive their mandate from a higher power that may or may not be the President or Congressman Peter King or the Department of Homeland Security or the Bilderberg Group?

No and no and no and no. They did it because they have the commonality of being a part of an American system of democracy that is littered with money from the very institutions that the Occupy Movement is railing against. But even simpler than that, political oppression and/or reactionary pushback always occurs when, right or wrong, there is a perceived threat to stabilization.

This is key to understanding our system and what needs to be done to fix it, particularly if you’re part of the Occupy movement or even sympathetic to their leanings. You owe it to yourselves, your compatriots, future generations, and anyone that might benefit from the reforms you seek to know the what, how, and the why of events happening around you. That includes both being able to distinguish the real corruption from the imagined conspiracy and being engaged enough at a local level to know that government isn’t some mysterious far-away force. It is literally in your own back yard.

In a weird way, I think many find the idea of a central government force issuing a mandate to crack down on protesters comforting. It’d mean that the “bad guys,” so to speak, are limited to a small group of men. It also makes the problem much simpler to comprehend. But the sadder and ultimately worse truth is that it isn’t.

Occupy Albany: you had me at hello, then you lost me at “this is what oppression looks like!”

kevinmarshall — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 07:52:43 +0000

Since the start of Occupy Albany, there’s been a rift between Albany’s municipal government and the state of New York. While Cuomo had wanted the protestors removed immediately, the Mayor’s Office, police, and the Council wanted to give them the right to stay and demonstrate in Academy Park. It even gave them exceptions, allowing them to camp out and stay out past the curfew established by law.

Tonight, as All Over Albany recaps, they crossed over to Lafayette Park with the knowledge that the cameras would show up and the State police would enforce the law by removing protestors. About 24 (maybe more?) were arrested, then immediately released.

This is where I get fed up and tell you to go home.

Rather than re-write what I already wrote in response to one of the protestors, a well meaning fellow who I think has just lost perspective like so many others, here’s a quick image snap:

The optimist in me says it’s all just misguided. But the cynic in me was waiting for this moment all along, where it exposed what’s really behind this. It’s an attempt to join, not an attempt to thumb the nose at authority.

Democracy and politics is about compromise. It means that some things happen in government that many of us won’t agree with. I’m not suggesting things are perfect and/or shouldn’t be changed. Far from it. We had an economic system that arrested a handful of people for the obvious Ponzi schemes but let the rest of the financial system run rampant with abuses of speculative economics that cost people jobs, homes, and potentially their very lives.

But that doesn’t mean you in Albany are being oppressed. You’re not. You live in one of the areas that’s actually more sympathetic to the cause. As mentioned previously, you had police, politicians, and scores of others show up to support you.

The chants that broke out of “this is what oppression looks like!” reeks of people that lived thousands of miles away from New York City and never even spoke to anybody East of the Mississippi River that still act like 9/11 happened to them. It’s intellectually dishonest and a cartoonish disservice to real liberal politics and concerns, rife with ideas and policies that could make this country better.

Instead, we make “freedom forts.”

Thanks, guys.

*****

In response, right as I was finishing this up, Sean responded on FB:

“Protests are supposed to be attention grabs. The whole thing from the start has been an attention grab. That’s, like, the point. Continuous escalation. Yes, we could just sit there in the part of the park we’ve been allowed but the point is to continually escalate. That’s how these things…work.”

But that’s just the thing: is it for the cause or for yourselves and being there? Rosa Parks refused to move from her seat because the Jim Crow laws were a violation of civil rights and a great injustice. The people of Libya and Syria took to the streets because they were tired of tyrants trampling on human rights and dragging them from their homes and throwing them in prison without due process.

The comparison may not seem fair but it’s apt. Those are acts of bravery and defiance, not of attention-grabbing. They were and are done for a very specific cause or injustice, not because they weren’t already being arrested.

I don’t know. I guess my whole thing with the Occupy movement as a whole is that as a liberal, I want to believe, but they keep making it so goddamn hard. Is this what my Republican friends that get called RINOs felt with the Tea Party movement?

Occupy the Voting Booth

kevinmarshall — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 19:48:52 +0000

There’s an Occupy movement that all of you, particularly those who identify as “the 99%”, should partake in:

It’s called Election Day, and it’s happening right now.

If you’ve been engaged in any of the campouts across the nation, whether it be in front of a bronze bull or under a tree in Academy Park in dowtown Albany, then you owe it to yourself and your beliefs to be at your local polling place today. Because you can occupy whatever you want for however long you like, but if you’re not where you need to be when it matters, then what’s the damn point?

Make all the excuses you want – it’s an off year, there aren’t any federal elections, our gripe isn’t with our Mayors, these elections don’t matter. It’s all bunk. Democracy begins in your back yard. If you can’t be bothered to have a voice and take part in the most important elections – the ones that most directly affect your day to day life – then your quarrel should be with internal factors in addition to the 1%. Occupy the voting booth.