The St. Paul occupiers are still working on the plans which may not include actually "occupying" the state Capital:
"There are those who want to camp out all winter," Jewett said. But he said, "Occupy is a consciousness. It's a new awakening. It's not all about a physical location."Huh. Let me get this straight: According to all the other "Occupy" movements in the country, the point is to OCCUPY an area, preferably near a bank, and annoy the bankers so much that they'll finally agree to shut their doors, right? So, if the Occupy St. Paul movement doesn't do this, if their idea is that "Occupy" is a "consciousness", shouldn't it be called "Consciousness" instead of "Occupy"? Or are they hoping to occupy the consciousness of the public and the bankers? Or avoid having to share their food with the homeless people who flock to all the other Occupy locations? (Which, really, people? Isn't your movement about wealth redistribution and helping the poor? Why are you selfishly refusing to share your food with the poorest of the poor? Or is just that it is easier to yell about the top 1% and covet that money than to do what is right and share with the poor out of their own pockets. Most of that money was either panhandled or "donated" anyway - not earned at all by the protesters.)
The Minnesota Occupy movement is concerned about the coming cold (Global Warming, where are you when the Kool Aid drinkers need you?), but have been distributing information with their plans for dealing with the cold, which includes occupying empty foreclosed-upon homes. Yeah, that'll work. I'm sure the suburban cops (that is, if the Occupiers venture out of the sanctuary of RT Rybak's world) would LOVE to have a crack at evicting squatters from homes: it would break up the monotony of their days usually spent stopping speeding moms as they fly between appointments, schools and hockey rinks.