First and foremost, I just don’t believe this movement has what it takes (at least in its current iteration) to reach a true critical mass to motivate real change. Yesterday I visited the Occupy encampment at my local state capitol where I found a dozen or so tents and a small collection of people milling about not doing much of anything really. If you’re sitting in a coffee shop a block away without a direct line of sight on the camp you wouldn’t know anything of significance was happening at all. There were no vocal protestors continuously marching up and down the city streets around the capitol building, there were no banners hanging off buildings directing people to the encampment or points of protest and there certainly weren’t any large gatherings of people listening to speakers with megaphones or sound systems.

Now this isn’t just any small town mind you, this is the state capitol we’re talking about, the place where our laws are made. The state capitols (and DC of course) should be one of the primary focal points for a movement like this and yet, there’s hardly anyone there let alone paying attention on the streets. Some might say “Well you just came on an off day when other things were going on or people were busy”. But you see that’s just the thing! I wasn’t there on an “off day” I was there on a weekend, Nov 5th to be precise, a day which was supposed to be a big anti-corporate bank day where everyone was closing their accounts and moving their money. And I’ll note again, it was a weekend, a time when you think more people would have the free time to make it to a protest. Unfortunately that didn’t seem to be the case and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to why Occupy probably won’t accomplish all that much.

The second reason there probably will be little to no change is because protests (or in the case occupies) don’t in and of themselves change all that much. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for people getting out there and having their voices heard but the protesters when its all said and done don’t make the changes, they merely draw attention to the changes that need to be made. There is ample evidence for this in other recent protests around the globe. Let’s take the Arab Spring protests as a pertinent example.

The protestors in each of the countries helped to bring the world’s attention to the plight of the people but in the end one of two things brought down the regime. The changes in question either came about due to elements within the regime itself turning on it (Egypt’s military establishment, Tunisian leadership) or because the protesters took it upon themselves to take up arms and force the ouster of the dictator(Libya). This of course is not to negate the sacrifices made by many involved in the protest for it is the protesters that created the atmosphere in which such events could occur. However, in the end they only facilitated the changes, they did not create them themselves.

In contrast however, the Occupy Movement fails to even check that box. And certainly, no one currently in a position of power either in government or on Wall Street is in any real mood to make significant lasting changes. Without a doubt, changes of one kind or another will be made but those changes will be nothing more than trivial reforms giving small bits of red meat to the crowd. The status quo will by and large be maintained, the rich will continue to get richer, the poor will continue to get poorer and the disparity gap will continue to grow until everyone not in the top 1% may as well be a peasant. That is unless of course we can enact real change.

What is needed in this country is not a revolution of arms, but a revolution of thought, a revolution of the mind. Until that time though, we will continue to wallow in the servitude and blindness that is the ignorance that currently blankets this country. We as a people have become too complacent in our time and that must change. The Occupy Movement is a good start, but it is far from enough and I fear it is already dying a slow death. What we need is to start getting people to think critically again, to realize the interrelationships that surround us all as well as how important civic/political participation and activism really is. We must go to the halls of power and not just speak to them but co-opt them and return them to the people rather than them co-opting us as they have done for so long. Our politics should be a politics of the people, not of corporations or monied interests.

Social Issues (Feminism, LBGT, Racial, etc.) –

An interesting post on how our culture constantly downgrades women with negative language in our common vernacular (i.e. the “like a girl” issue).

Even in death, gay teens are still mocked and derided in our communities.

Here’s a nifty comic that exposes the frauds that are crisis pregnancy centers.

Health & Medicine -

Promising first results from a Spanish HIV vaccine. It should be strongly noted that these are just preliminary tests and there is still a long ways to go before this is approved (if it even gets there) for widespread use.

Scientists may have determined a way to make you sober after a long night of drinking, still a lot of questions though.

Three meals a day, no longer the norm in our society for good or ill.

Domestic Politics –

A heckler at an Obama fundraiser calls Obama the “anti-christ). Fundies strike again!

What’s the budget impasse in congress all about?

South Carolina Republicans… they do make you wonder about their sanity.

The tea party vetting process needs a bit more work me thinks.

Where does responsibility for yet another shutdown crises lie? Well the answer should be obvious.

The GOP: wasting time again on political games and keeping Americans out of work.

There are no GOP moderates left

Health -

Dr. Oz gets taken to task over recent allegations of harmful levels of arsenic in apple juice.

International –

Evidence would seem to indicate that Pakistan is aiding terrorists… what should we do about it?

While the majority of the time I find myself onside with Prof. Harris-Perry, I fear that in this particular instance I must vehemently disagree with the Prof. In the clip referenced above, Prof. Harris-Perry appears to suggest that the progressive movement use religion as a tool in advocating for their polices thereby tapping into the religious fervor currently dominated by the Republican party. In support of this notion, Prof. Harris-Perry references a handful of examples from the last two centuries which benefited to an extent from religious arguments.

To be sure, religion plays a role in the daily lives of a majority of Americans, however religious arguments cannot and most importantly should not be used as a basis for ideas or policy proscription within the progressive movement. There are a number of holes in Prof. Harris-Perry’s thesis, most notable of which perhaps being her call to use the various faith traditions within the progressive movement as a foundation upon which the movement should build. The trouble with this is which faith tradition do you use exactly? Religions are inherently contradictory with each other and in many cases internally as well. The Christian’s just god is not the same as the Muslim’s just god which is not the same as the Jewish just god. Basing ideas or policy proscriptions within the progressive movement on any religious notions would do nothing more than create division, I would think that would be self evident. Indeed, if it is unity you seek, religion should be cast out of the question entirely replaced by the knowledge of the common bonds we all share, not only as citizens of our country but as brothers and sisters within the greater human society as a whole.

Of course, such things do not come easily, but that does not imply that we have no recourse but to turn to religion for inspiration. Far from it indeed, the philosophies of Enlightened Self-Interest and Humanism are more than sufficient in their robustness and universality to provide the foundation Prof. Harris-Perry seeks. I personally believe that it is these guiding lights to which the progressive movement should turn. But I digress as that is a debate for another day. In addition to the already noted divisive nature of religious foundations one should also take notice of one very specific growing trend in the United States: we’re becoming less religious.

In 2008 survey appeared documenting the increasing social secularization of the United States. I would postulate that the liberal religious among the progressive movement don’t much care for religious rhetoric in the political environment and those religious that do tend to lean Republican anyways. Combine that with the increasing secularization of the US and I can only see the use of religion within the progressive movement as a hindrance to the cause not a boon. We as progressives must leave religion in politics to the GOP as that is the dead end road leading to irrelevance. Instead, we should look to the future, find unifying principals (whether the ones I noted earlier or others) that are inclusive not divisive and build upon that creating an increasingly broad coalition of liberal religious and non religious alike. It is with that coalition that the progressive movement stands the best chance of  prospering, as opposed to the alternative proposed by Prof. Harris-Perry which due to its divisive nature would prevent that coalition from forming in the first place.

Let me just remind people that our country is currently bumping up against 10% unemployment nation wide and not ONE jobs bill has been brought before the House. Where is the rancor and anger over this? How is it that those who are in a position to make a genuine difference to unemployment in this country can take a five week vacation in the middle of this crisis? Is there someone out there that can explain to me the cognitive dissonance necessary to let something like this slide? The government has the power to influence the economic situation in this country and it is thus incumbent upon them vis-a-vis the Constitution, that they should take steps to remedy said situation lest we sink further into catastrophe.

Really, talk about low expectations. When did respecting the president and ascribing to scientifically demonstrated phenomena supported by empirical evidence become a laudable position? One should not be impressed by such a stance and nor should one receive a moderate moniker merely for holding such views. No, these views at a bare minimum should be required of all legitimate candidates for any public office as well as an acceptance of the theory of evolution along with all the other major scientific theories and principles upon which our world and universe operate. Now, it is not entirely necessary for one to be an expert on such matters but one should at least possess an educated layman’s understanding of each. Such an understanding demonstrates a faculty for critical thinking and an ability to analyze evidence in a rational, intelligent manner. Again, such abilities should be ingrained into the very foundation of a candidates character, how could their judgment on any matter of significance be trusted otherwise?

These low expectations are pernicious and as such must be fought lest we permit ourselves to be governed by ignorant fools or worse yet, zealots. It is incumbent upon us to hold candidates for office from any party to a significantly higher standard and to dismiss those that do not meet this bar as nothing more than the cranks and attention whores they are.

Now of course, advocates for the United States as a global leader are split into their own camps, the two leading and most notable being the Neoconservatives and the Liberals (those not of the isolationist bent). Again the neoconservatives have it fairly easy, everything for them is zero sum with every action we take on the global stage designed with us as the primary beneficiaries. The talk of protecting human rights for a Neoconservative is but another in a series of strategic moves on an insanely complex 3D chess board. Unfortunately for Liberals such as myself (and ostensibly the one currently in the presidency) we’re left to bear the difficult problem of conscience.

With some confidence I feel I can say most Liberals abhor the notion of war as a general rule unless doing so is in the aide of a good cause such as liberating Europe, Asia or the slaves. So when confronted with our record of genuinely protecting the human rights and the defenseless against genocide it goes without saying that from a Liberal’s perspective we have been miserable failures. Yet, our country has been presented with an opportunity to turn that around and to begin to bring about genuine change on the global stage. It is my contention that that opportunity has been taken in Libya and that we as the most powerful nation in the world have an obligation to do what we can to protect the defenseless and human rights the world over. We have talked the talk long enough, now it’s time we started walking.

Why Libya though? Why not Yemen or Bahrain or Syria or the Ivory Coast? That is the question which currently vexes many on the Liberal side of the equation some going so far as to say we should not do anything at all in Libya. Liberal opponents site the violence in these other nations as being on equal footing with what is currently occurring in Libya and on this point I disagree. Now I fully admit, I may not have all the information available as to exactly what the situation is in all these countries. But from what I do know, my assessment is that Libya prior to our (and the U.N.’s) recent involvement had reached a critical tipping point that none of the others appear all that close to. Yes, I concede that there is deplorable violence against civilians going on in these nations among numerous others and I do not demean or downplay the loss of life therein. However in none of the other countries were we faced with a mercenary army surrounding a city of over a million people where the leader had vowed to find and kill anyone that resisted him.

Additionally there are in many cases critical reasons not to intervene (at least currently) in these other nations. In Yemen, the military is fractured with large segments joining with and protecting the protesters. In Bahrain, despite the assistance of the Saudi government, the ruling sect is significantly outnumbered by the protesters. They may inflict a handful of casualties here and there but I’m fairly certain they’re aware that if any greater numbers are harmed they’d stand virtually no chance of surviving the overwhelming numbers they’re facing. In the Ivory Coast, there are no clear lines of organization easily discernible among the populous, the pro-government side is interspersed among the opponents and vice versa. Syria is still in the early stages and no one is quite sure yet how it will develop. Of all the other candidates for assistance Ivory Coast would probably be the most likely however that would require a much greater commitment on our part including troops on the ground more than likely. Libya though has allowed us to protect civilians, possibly affect change and send a message to the other despots out there while minimizing the amount of risk on our part.

The people of Libya (and the other nations) still have a fight on their hands but its one that they want on their own terms. Our assistance has for now averted a possible genocide and evened the playing field to a great extent affording the people the chance to have a say in their fate. We should continue to do good where we can (including in the other areas and countries) and where we’re wanted to minimize bloodshed as much as possible, but this is their fight in the end just as it was ours in 1776.

When you pare things down like that, you, as with most non famous/rich people I’m sure, would probably arrive at a very small group indeed. Of course there is nothing remotely wrong with this, it has been this way probably for time immemorial. As social creatures we naturally aggregate into self segregating groups, some smaller, some larger depending on a number of factors. These very specific small groups of people are what we have, perhaps traditionally, always considered our friends. It’s these people who, if we were living in the 18th century we’d probably be writing letters to, they’re the ones for whom we’ve always bridged that gap of interminable distance. In terms of these friendships then, facebook and other social media merely makes it easier for us to stay in touch, something for which it is to be praised. It might also be suggested that it allows for one to rekindle lost/missed friendships or ones where perhaps there was not as much impetus as with some others. However, I feel that there may be a price paid for such connectivity, one that may outweigh its benefits, namely the devaluing of the idea of friendship.

My generation is the first to grow up in the internet age, it was upon our backs that it was built, we are the creators of the social network. It is also we that may be the first to experience and truly understand the pitfalls of our creation. In an era where the world around us travels at an unbelievable rate, it becomes more difficult to keep up day by day. Its times just like this for which we have friends, not to fix our problems but to provide the support, that shoulder, that safe place where you can stop and catch your breath before entering back into the fray. Unfortunately, it appears that the mentality of many has been warped with the advent of the social network and this has deanchored what it is to be a friend leaving it floating in the ether. There are those who’s conception of friendship begins and ends with a brief chat, a message or a wall post. Some may go a bit further perhaps going so far as a text exchange/phone call or perhaps even a very occasional group hang out. Such people in other circumstances would more than likely be described as drinking buddies or fair weather friends but to confuse them with actual friends in the past would’ve been silly. But this IS friendship for so many people nowadays where to me, these things are merely the first stage in the construction of something greater, or at least it should be.

Friendly acquaintances compose the vast majority of my “friends” on facebook/myspace and I’m happy to know most if not all of them. It’s good to keep in touch with people, to exchange ideas or network professionally but only a small percentage of people on the social network truly qualify as full fledged friends, at least for me. This is no slight against those who haven’t reached the pinnacle of friendship with me, indeed for me good friendships can begin here but they can only flourish with real interaction. People calling someone they know only through facebook or other social network a friend I can handle, what worries me most though is how the thinking surrounding what it is to be a friend appears to be shifting. Real friends, people who you have a genuine connection with are few and far between. Sure there are billions of people on this planet and you can always find more friends, but never will any friendship be quite the same as another.

I fear that social networks may give a false comfort to some people saying that “oh because you had a fight or disagreement with this friend you can lose them, you have 300 more to choose from!” is a terrible mentality to have. Such a mentality has made it easy for people to avoid confrontation, to avoid having to deal with difficult things in friendships and relationships allowing for the loss of countless friends some of whom may have been life long in a different time. Working things out between two people can serve to strengthen the bond they share but the friendship or relationship has to be given the chance to do so. Rather than running from confrontation or difficulties as the social networks might encourage you to do one should embrace the opportunity to strengthen the ties between two people. To be sure it won’t always be an easy thing to do but it is a necessary thing to do if you wish to have true friendship with someone. If however you’re unwilling to do the difficult thing you may, in the end, find yourself surrounded by fair weather friends just when you need a real friend the most.

I wish I had an easy answer to fix this, to stop this shifting mentality but I don’t. At the very least though I have to put it out there, bring attention to it and start a conversation. Social networks and media have many brilliant uses that is not disputed but is this a possible price worth paying? I don’t know. It has always been poor form to end a piece with a quote, however if you’ll permit me this one time, I’d like to end with a rather fitting quote from a Baz Luhrmann song:

“Understand that friends come and go,but for the precious few you should hold on. Work hard to bridge the gaps in geography and lifestyle because the older you get, the more you need the people you knew when you were young.”

If I recall correctly, the comment had to do with the notion that unless its less than 140 characters, the majority of Americans won’t pay attention to anything written. I believe the discussion in question was revolving around a recent article or book dealing with the current financial crisis and how said piece of long form writing possessed a great deal of insight regarding the aforementioned event. Why exactly has it become so difficult for Americans to take a few minutes out of their day to read something of genuine worth? I’m not saying that everyone should be fully informed on all the important topics of the day though I wish that were actually possible. What I’m getting at is the ever shrinking attention span of the general public.

I know people are busy, I know people have lives, but don’t you think you could maybe take half an hour or an hour out of your daily intake of Jersey Shore or Americas Next Top Model or Dancing with the Stars to read a little bit of something to do with current events or at least SOMETHING to expand your mind? What is happening to our country when college educated individuals are complaining to me that a three page double spaced essay or a five paragraph blog post is too long to read? A blog post! Seriously people, where’s the curiosity, where’s the thirst for knowledge and the desire to better ones self through the exploration of ideas? If college educated individuals are this bad I can’t imagine its all that much better in the general public.

This is why I hate Twitter, it epitomizes this notion of quick n’ easy and applies it to knowledge and information. Twitter is brilliant at getting peoples attention to things, but so many people stop at that thinking they’re informed because they read a couple tweets. If you’re lucky they might turn on the 24hr news machine in the background for a few minutes but I think we can all agree that’s not much better. The culture of instant gratification via twitter (and similar products) and tawdry reality TV could be pushing long form journalism along with writing in general towards oblivion in this country if we’re not careful.

My message to you, do a bit of reading, current events would be great but even a piece of fictional work is better than nothing. Also don’t be put off by something that looks complex or might be a few pages, its really not as scary as you might imagine and if you apply yourself you can probably understand just about anything. Whatever you do though, don’t allow yourself to be engulfed by this new twitter culture where instant gratification is king and the world of terrible reality TV or your mind could atrophy along with the collective intelligence of this nation.

Why is it that people inhabiting our culture have such difficulty with this? Can you not see that it is this facade, this brash unwarranted confidence that gets so many of us into trouble in the first place? Such overconfidence was perhaps the critical linchpin in the economic collapse/recession of 2008. A similar sort of confidant facade has cost untold millions of lives in wars across the centuries all around the world as generals led men into combat without proper forethought because it was and still is a weakness to admit that you simply do not know or aren’t 100% sure and its not getting any better.

Recent studies have shown that while the United States is falling behind in virtually every educational category the world over, there remains one area where we dominate. Yep, students in the United States are number 1 when it comes to confidence, we’re 29th and 35th when it comes to science and math by the way. This problem is systemic in our culture, don’t get me wrong, it’s great to have a confidence about yourself but its even better to have a self awareness and knowledge of your weaknesses and limitations in ability. If you don’t have that kind of awareness, how can you ever expect to improve and grow as an individual and how can we as a nation expect to survive? If we don’t change things and teach ourselves to truly appreciate genuine doubt and the ability to ask for help we’ll just continue to create the same kind of people that were responsible for the economic collapse of 2008, you know, the one we’re still recovering from.