The seizure of the last remaining tent in the Occupy Albany encampment caused an impassioned tug-of-war between cops and protesters on Friday. So did this require use of chemical weapons? Despite national outrage, the heavy handed treatment of protesters continues while lawless corporations elude justice.

The seizure of the last remaining tent in the Occupy Albany encampment caused an impassioned tug-of-war between cops and protesters on Friday.

Yesterday we published a list of 61 active occupation encampments across the country that are planning to be there through the winter. People were helpful in the comments in identifying 5 more. One received and eviction notice and moves to today’s list of 9 occupations facing eviction from the city. That brings the total number of encampments we’ve been able to document in the past week that are planning to be there through the winter to 65.

When we were through the first exit door, and approaching the outside door, Kevin and I heard behind us, “Ma’am! Sir!” It was the woman employee with the wonderful smile. She’d followed us out to wish us both a happy Thanksgiving. Had the young man told her why we’d bought all those batteries? Was it the “Occupy Albany effect”?

Amazingly enough, allowing the Occupiers some space to make their point, and not ordering up cop-inflicted violence against them, results in not only peaceful coexistence, but far less overtime for law enforcement personnel — which results in saving money!

Really, there was no “need” for the police forces of these cities to spend the past two months engaged in gradually-escalating warfare against the Occupiers in their locales. There was only the growing irritation of the one-percenters at seeing a bunch of “rabble”, to use the Murdoch-owned New York Post’s own term for the ninety-nine percenters, suddenly changing the terms of political discussion from “how much can we destroy of the social safety net so we can give more tax breaks to our wealthy campaign financiers?” to “um, maybe we’d better stop talking so much about cutting things and start talking about jobs and income inequality”.