The Future of Advertising is “Glad”

Soft sunlight and a mild breeze make for the perfect Spring morning. It is a perfect time to enjoy the tranquility of the New York City parks, and for some inner reflection. So I lace up my shoes, slip on a light jacket, and am sure to leave my cell phone and iPod at home. I don’t need electronic distractions right now – I need to drink in the rebirth of the world and find a little inner peace. It’s sad to know that before too long, it’s likely that pedestrians will no longer be able to enjoy a quiet reverie. Instead, interactive advertisements along the sidewalk will call out to us. They will target us by gender, by socioeconomics, maybe even by personal information available through online social media. In extreme cases, ads and billboards might one day scan our eyes and then address us be name. This is the future of marketing, and it’s ironically called “glad-vertising.”

Because getting to work needed to be made just a little worse.

In February of this year, the Centre for Future Studies conducted a research report commissioned by 3MGTG, an organization that specializes in advertising, on the future of digital advertising. The report concluded that the next year will see a revolution in the design of advertising. Currently, ads are not all that technically advanced. They’re limited by their medium, as 2-D billboards and signs, flashing banners and obnoxious pop-ups on websites, and commercials that you avoid by generally muting the volume or flipping through channels. The new developments in digital advertising technology will not only release ads from the confines of a billboard by constructing them as holographic images – that’s right, holograms like you see in sci-fi films – but also by providing them with a voice and information about the viewer, allowing them to interact with you on a personal level, whether you want them to or not.

“Amy, enjoying your commute home? In comparison to your facebook profile picture, you look like you’ve gained some weight. Join Weight Watchers today!”

This type of advertising may sound familiar. In 2002, Steven Spielburg’s Minority Report introduced audiences to a world of constant high-tech surveillance, including ads that scanned your eyes and referred to you by name. In the film, this was used as a means of monitoring and tracking citizens, and that’s not too different from what gladvertising may be used for, the difference being merely who is doing the tracking: the government or the ad agencies. In the world of Minority Report, the main character is attempting to avoid detection so he can’t be arrested for a crime he didn’t commit. Translate that into our soon-to-be real world problem of dodging marketers that want our hard-earned money and this is what the future looks like:

The concept of interactive advertising isn’t all that new. Cable television has been testing interactive television as early as the late 1970’s. The development of pay-period-view television provided cable companies and their advertisers access to unsolicited information regarding viewer’s choices in programming. In analyzing a viewer’s video purchases, the advertiser could determine the viewer’s interests and air relevant ads. The next step was making TV appear to be interactive in the late 1990’s, when viewers could use their remote to select to watch an infomericals or receive information about the product in the mail.

Don’t worry, Shake Weight fans. You don’t have to give your credit card number over the phone. Shake Weight is now available at Walmart!

There are current forms of interactive advertising you’re probably more familiar with, most noticeably on the internet. After all, Hulu isn’t asking you “Is this ad relevant to you?” because they don’t want you to have to sit through a hundred Axe Body Wash commercials. They’re asking so their computers can generate an informed guess as to your gender, age, and interests. Google ads work a bit different, but the same idea is there. Type something in and the ads that appear above your search are all relevant (supposedly) to what you’re looking for. Then you have the dreaded pop-up ads, which are almost never tailored to the page you’re looking at, but it demands you attention and requires action on your part to get rid of them. This is amazingly moderate to what we can expect once gladvertising gets rolling.

Imagine this, only a thousand times worse.

Once you understand how this new technology works, you realize not only how complicated and unlikely it will be for you to avoid it, but also the lengths to which advertisers will go to get our attentions. If you’ve ever caught an episode of Lie to Me, think of yourself as the unlucky person under the unrelenting scrutiny of Dr. Cal Lightman, and the good doctor as the gladware.

Oh, Cal, they’re using your powers for evil!

Gladvertising takes advantage of the newest developments in emotion recognition software. The software detects your emotion through face-tracking algorithm, which is a fancy way of saying the software recognizes one of six essential human expressions, composed of thousands of minuscule facial muscle patterns. These basic expressions include happy, angry, sad, fearful, surprised and disgusted. The software then alters the advertisement to correspond with your mood. Recent tests with this software have been successful, and now it’s time to turn it into a marketable product.

Pondering the outcome of all this, my face would be categorized as expressing disgust

3MGTG has already predicted six other types of gladvertising that will be profitable as marketing tools, and none of them sound appealing. In place of catchy jingles, multi-sensory ads will bombard you with moving holograms, sounds and videos, mood lighting and even smells to reinforce memory recall of advertisements. Imagine gesture-based ads challenging you to digital video games outside of stores, or virtual tours outside of real estate.

Through extensive online profiles, advertisers will have access to personal information, and tracking software in mobile phones will mean ads have access to this information on the go, anywhere at any time. That means as you approach a billboard, the ad connects with your phone, scans the SIM card and gains access over the web to everything it needs to know about you to properly entice you to buy whatever piece of junk product is on sale.  From there, it’s not a big leap to eye scans like in Minority Report. Sales clerks and security forces alike will be able to access our personal information through a simple scan. Credit cards, drivers license, passports, medical files, even car keys may eventually become obsolete.

Now if you’ll just stick out your tongue, I can scan your ID chip.

One of predicted forms gladvertising will take is already up and running: advanced high-definition vending machines. That’s right, vending machines. Digital 3D screens with gesture-based controls (called haptic controllers) will allow you to not only see a digital hologram of you bag of M&Ms, but also to feel that bag of chocolate goodness. Haptic controllers are “based on tactile feedback technology that takes advantage of a user's sense of touch by applying forces to the human hand.” We haven’t quite gotten that crazy with our snack machines yet, but the ones on the market do have big shiny screens similar to iPads, so that you can play with your snack food to your heart’s content.

There are a number of draw backs to the development of such advanced vending machines, other than, of course, wasting this technology on vending machines. First, it’s a new face on an old body. Sure, you can now flip through holographic images of Doritos and Ruffles, but once you’ve made your selection – and yes, swiped your credit card, –you still run the same old risk of your tasty Doritos getting stuck. And since these new machines are equipped with scales and alarms, you can’t tip, shake or beat out your desired bag of nibbles.

Perhaps worse is the simple waste of time these new machines are going to be. Some machines with these new touch screens might even come with games. Great, now I have to wait for the asshole in front of me to win his game of Tetris and receive a coupon before I get my Coca Cola?! And that’s just the people who are familiar with and actually like interactive media. Imagine all those times you’ve stood in line at either the bank or the grocery store or the subway, just waiting for the person in front of you to figure out how to use the self-automated machines. It’s pure misery watching them staring blankly at the screen, unable to make a decision or comprehend the simply mechanics of pushing a button, even if it is 3D and glowing. Do not give these people touch screen vending machines, please.

This is getting ridiculous! Will someone up there please show that technologically-challenged woman how to use the self-check out?!

But for all its faults, we are going to start seeing gladware, and here’s why. Even in the current market, interactive advertising is producing profits. And marketers like profits. According to PQ Media, interactive media produced over $6.47 billion in profits in 2010, and is expected to increase by another 16.9% in 2011. I willingly confess to not having read the entire report, and having barely understood the jargon I did manage to slog through, but it all sounds very profitable. For the average individual, some of us unwilling targets of advertisers, that means prepare yourselves for the advertisements you’re familiar with to receive a super dosage of digital steroids.

ATTENTION NEW YORKERS! BOW BEFORE THE MIGHTY POWER OF THE ADVERTISING INDUSTRY!

We’re exposed to quite a lot of advertising already, at home, at work, out on the street, and in our entertainment. Before, we enjoyed getting to the movies early: you found seats together, got comfortable before the lights went down, and watched intriguing trailers about all the new films that were coming out that summer. When those trailers became thirty minutes long, we began to grouch. Now, we sit through television commercials and advertisements in move theaters, before the trailers even begin! And when that is over and done with, we endure the subliminal messaging of product placement.

(For an interesting piece of commentary on the lack of transparency in contemporary advertising and product placement in film, visit TED talks to view the presentation by Morgan Spurlock about ‘The Greatest Movie Ever Sold.)

Opening a website means having to wait to view your content after all the banner and video ads have downloaded, or fighting off a slew of pop-up ads. We advertise for products, brands, corporations, organizations etc on our t-shirts, sunglasses and bags. New York commuters ride subway trains decked out in ads for Nike and Jameson Whiskey (the latter of which at least tries to be witty.) How many people watch the Superbowl so they don’t miss out on the ‘it’ commercial of the year? Even our roadways, the gateway to the great outdoors, bears the mark of advertising.

It’s so beautiful out – OH MY GOD, THEY HAVE SLURPEES AT THE NEXT THREE EXITS!

There are numerous arguments to be made against advertisements in general. It’s all about profit; they take up physical space and slow down the web, their design tends to be tacky and their messages abbreviated without a clear presentation of product; advertising reliant on digital and media technology is an invasion of privacy. Worst of all, because advertising is presented as the ideal, it affects the real world. These are some of the values advertising inspires in us as a society:

Status Over Practicality

Family Time?

It’s true that children should be encouraged to take part in family activities through positive reinforcement. But this is just trading the brain-numbing effects of television for childhood obesity.

Are You Beautiful By Society’s Standards?

Ellen, I feel so cheated by this! What happened to dancing to your own music? Honestly, when you asked why supermodels always look so angry, I seriously thought you were going to say because they were starving narcissists, furious about being treated like life-sized Barbie dolls!

Life Is Better With A Substance Addiction

And Whatever This Is About

Be an pioneer, be an explorer, be independent, be an American who says no to all the rules except branding and unmitigated consumption!

And we know that the ideal presented in advertising has long-term negative effects, for people in all walks of life. For women, female objectification in advertising can result in depression, anxiety over physical appearance, sexual dysfunction and eating disorders. Constant exposure to ads for children and adolescents leaves them susceptible to alcohol and cigarettes, poor nutrition, and influences early sexual development. Men are no less affected by advertising: images of financially successful men in media serve as a scale against which real-world men unfairly judge their own achievements. Now take into account that the average American is exposed to over 40,000 advertisements a day, and you can begin to feel the effect this has on us. To be happy means to be constantly consuming. And a failure to match up to these constructed ideals leads to stress and severe depression.

If you are not a smoking hot woman wearing a Victoria Secret push-up bra and a muscular heartthrob doused in Ralph Lauren Polo cologne, wearing “dangerously low” Levi jeans, juiced up on refreshing Coca Cola you bought on your Platinum Mastercard, then you are NOT happy people!

The generation that comes after us won’t know the difference. They’ll be perfectly fine with the fact that the logo on their soda can encourages them to enjoy a refreshing beverage. They’ll enjoy “test driving” a holographic car and “trying on” holographic clothes before ordering them online, no real social interaction required. They’ll be used to hearing their name shouted in public and their personal information available for exploitation by corporations. And every one of them will spend their entire lives desperately trying to achieve the perfection and glamour of life in a gladvertisement.

In this future of holographic, multi-sensory gladvertising, we’ll all come down with cases of hypertension, clinical depression and attention deficit disorder. That lovely Spring walk to enjoy a little quiet time no longer exists. We’re happy, and the advertisements will know it, and do their best to take advantage of our pleasant and amenable mood.

So what are you still doing in front of your computer screen? 
Go outside and enjoy a last, quiet walk through the park.

The Era of Populist Politics? A Rant Against Distraction

“We meet in the midst of a nation brought to the verge of moral, political and material ruin. Corruption dominates the ballot-box, he Legislatures, the Congress, and touches even the ermine of the bench. The people are demoralized…The newspapers are largely subsidized or muzzled, public opinion silenced…The fruits of the toil of millions are boldly stolen to build up colossal fortunes for a few…From the same prolific womb of governmental injustice, we breed the two great classes – tramps and millionaires.”

This was the platform of the Populist Party, established in 1892 from the remains of the Grangers (farmers union) and the Knights of Labor (urban workers union). The historian Kenneth C. Davis describes the organization of their party and their platform not as “the rantings of wild-eyed college kids who had just read Karl Marx. The Populists were working-class, backbone-of-America types who had been pushed too far by the excesses of business in league with the government.” In perhaps one of the most hypocritical and nefarious acts in party politics, the Democrats stole this pro-union platform in 1896 and declared that the current administration (in bed, of course, with big business) would “not crucify mankind on a Cross of Gold.” Which, of course, sounds both ostentatious and pandering, and is just what both parties continue to do even today.

It’s both amazing and not the least bit surprising that the above quote could be about today’s political conditions as much as it was about the situation in 1892. Replace “newspapers” with media and “tramps” with lower and middle class and you have the contemporary social and political quagmire of today. In all likelihood, you could also replace “nation” with world and you’re talking about the effects of globalization on the Third World for the benefit of shareholders, dictators, and hegemonic “national security” concerns.

And yet, we are still absolutely convinced that in the power of populist sentiments. We are convinced in the righteousness and effectiveness of our democracy, that we are a government and a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. We tell ourselves that no matter how many slices the 1% cut for themselves, there will still be plenty left over for ourselves, and when there is not, our solution is to allow the spokesmen for that minority to point fingers and delegate blame to each other, cry “off with their heads!” and elect new representatives that are even deeper in the pocket than the previous batch.

So what is our chosen alternative? How many of us, everyday angered by the news and the decisions made by our government or events overseas, decide to put aside our personal concerns and delve headlong into the unceasing battle? For a moment, we feel like we should, when that white-hot maelstrom of frustration and fury goes ripping through our tissue, rattling against our ribcages. We think about all the things we would do, if only we were somehow empowered. Demand answers, reform, accountability. We grumble to ourselves until the everyday comes crashing back in with chores and bills and a friend’s birthday party.

And that might be forgivable, except that we live in an age of excess leisure and distraction. That’s the American Dream, isn’t it? To have enough leisure time to play video games, watch television, browse the web? Go to the gym, go out partying, go for a drive? We have so this leisure time that we don’t even know what to do with it all! We plan activities so as not to be bored! Hans Rosling is right: leisure time empowers education and creativity.

However, such an excess has given way to distraction and boredom. Our populist fury is doused with the introduction of entertainment. We prefer the bright, shininess of some new gadget or the mud of a recent scandal, because if we put all that aside, stripped our lives of distraction and plunged into the complex conundrum that our politics and society have become, we would realize just how bad things really are. We are daunted by the deep, entangled roots of politics, society and economy. And as a national and global community, the popular forces do not have the energy and the resources to dig deep enough and push hard enough to ever create measurable reform.

And yet, we are reminded about the dangers of populism, of the uninformed, belligerent, shortsighted constituent that forms society’s base. Easily manipulated, self-serving, and unwilling to compromise, the contemporary populist movements suffer from an extremist standpoint that automatically engenders rejection and derision. Consider the Tea Party, which touts as it arguing points fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free trade. Their platform is based on the bias of sensationalist programming, is lacking in any coherent strategy for effective reform, serves the corporate robber barons in their push to privatize health care and institutionalize religion, and in general is nothing more than a woeful moan of misguided patriotic fervor peddling a white conservative national mythos.

It is easy in an era of populist politics to give in to sensationalism, to come up with stereotypes and hyperbole in place of balanced and rational discussion. How else to boil down such complex issues as the global economy, the failure of just government, and our own social moral qualms, without stick figures and cartoon speech bubbles? And yet, it must be possible! How else are we to ever overcome the hysteria and frustration, the deception and disinterest of contemporary discourse?

Where are the levelheaded, reasonable individuals with a comprehensive perspective and rational goals? Are we bored, without energy, hopelessly distracted? Unable to communicate and coordinate a modern day rebellion? Are we convinced it is hopeless, that any efforts on our part will be without real consequence due to the size and nature of the challenges we would have to undertake? Or perhaps we feel entirely alone, without resources, inspiration, leadership. Our most recent rallying cry for Hope and Change, for bipartisanship and a global, communal perspective was shushed by politicking and commercial profits. Are we unable to look to each other, our neighbors, our communities, our internal heroic selves to take even the first step?

Are we all so apathetic that no one cares enough to bother? I’m hoping Dave Meslin is right, that apathy is an emotion engendered by outside influences as a means of dissuading us from taking part in our own society, that we do not develop this emotion of innate disinterest.

The era of populist politics? Certainly, not for all our new technologies, our social media, our global perspectives, and our supposed progressive enlightenment, we are really no different than the workers and farmers who organized in 1892. We are divided by internal differences, with limited understanding of how the machine of politics and commerce work against us. Our opponents are the very people we put into power, and are often helpless against. The only element we have in our favor is the same tool our predecessors carried with them out of the sweatshops, the mines and the tenant farms: our longing for a more just, more equal, and more sane society. What we get instead is deceit, corruption, manipulation, and intentional distraction, so that we never look farther or think beyond than The Next Big Thing.

A Downward Spiral?

Since the beginning of the new year, I’ve had a hard time writing a post, for the simple fact that there are so many issues that need attention and they are all so closely interlinked. Every time I sat down to write about something – a confusion of interests between policy makers and the public, developments in the Obama administration, and now the riots in the Middle East (which are laughably being called pro-democracy) – something else comes along that adds another layer to this already enormous discussion.

I’m often left speechless these days and the ignorance, the pandering, and the intentional deception that seems to underline both domestic and international events. Whether it is news stories, policies and bills, or public views, I am left feeling deflated, shrunken even, at the absurdity of everything that is going on. To me, it feels more and more like we are waging a war against institutionalized ignorance and corporate scheming. Worse, it feels as though many of the public are on the side of the opposition. Saddest of all is that before now I have always resisted the perception of these developments as a war of any kind. A war suggests an inability to communicate and negotiate. I don’t want to think it has come to that. And if it has, then who exactly are we fighting against?

I listen to Noam Chomsky, and realize just how intertwined everything is, how issues run so much deeper and are so much more complex every time you dig just a little further down. It seems strange that everyone is clamoring that the US is headed in the wrong direction, and we each point to each other as the reason. The only way out is our way, but that way is actually the one everyone else wants to avoid. Are we spiraling farther and farther into social and political chaos? I don’t want to think so. I want to believe Dunne that the world and society are just going through their paces. Maybe because it is a rationalist perspective; maybe because its comforting to imagine there is an acceptable outcome.

I know this interview is very long, but if you have the time, I urge everyone to listen to Noam Chomsky on recent developments. If you can’t find the time to watch the video, download the Demoncracy Now! podcast from February 17^th, 2011. Once I’ve had time to really consider everything and form some sort of coherent response, I’ll be back with more posts.

Holidays Post: The Jolly Squash

The pumpkin is a jolly squash. Its round, bulbous shape and bright coloring gives it an air of jocularity. It is an easy-going and sociable vegetable. The pumpkin, in my opinion, always seems to be heartily laughing.


You can't say these colorful assortment of squashes doesn't look jovial.
You'd just be lying to yourself.

It would be easy to mistake the pumpkin as an aloof, blustering, pompous fellow, who harrumphs in indignation when pulled from its patch. But then how would you explain the delightful and cheery taste of its innards? Baked, mashed, pureed or deep fried, the pumpkin is sweet and accommodating in flavor. It is everyone’s friend, the favorite uncle who comes barreling through the door during the holidays, arms full of unexpected gifts and surprises up his sleeves. The hints of cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger and cloves are what we recognize as the first taste of the holiday season. When offered a pumpkin pie, pumpkin cookies, pumpkin bread, pumpkin anything, no one can bring themselves to turn it down.

I'll just have a little of everything, thanks.

I’m sure these were my mother’s thoughts as she packed up a holiday care package to send to me in New York. It is my first holiday season away from home, and she probably meant to kindle holiday cheer with the inclusion of baking ingredients, cookie cutters, and family recipes. Of course a can of pumpkin puree would be included, to bake a pumpkin pie for myself and my sweetheart.

 

Mmmm...pie.

But lo and behold, there arose from amongst the baking goods a boisterous, jolly pumpkin laugh. Lining the bottom of the package was not one can, not two, not three, but six – SIX – cans of pumpkin puree!



Think of this...only doubled.

You are probably asking yourself now what I asked myself then. What do you do with six cans of pumpkin puree? It was not a whole pumpkin, so I couldn’t hollow out the jovial fellow and set his sweet inner lining aglow. (Pumpkin carving actually has quite the interesting history.) I couldn’t separate seeds from sticky tendrils for roasting. Although the traditional pumpkin pie brings seasonal joy whenever eaten, how many pies can a single household indulge in, holiday season or not?



   

I couldn't think of what to put here, so how about some pumpkin carvings?

You have to admit, as grotsque as these are, they're still really awesome!

My first thought was to do away with the holiday tradition of fruit cake, and instead present delectable pumpkin pie to friends and guests. But unlike fruit cake or cookies, pie does not keep very well, nor can it easily be transported. And while the fruit cake is a generally reviled fare of the holidays – poor thing – it has a longstanding relationship with social history that saves it from the fate of the tangerine.* The fruitcake and history are two snobbish social dandies sharing a brandy in the parlor, and the common, jovial pumpkin is not welcome in their prestigious company.

It looks jovial, but really, its silently judging you.
That's just the nature of fruit cake.

I decided the problem was not the abundance of pumpkin, but the limited mediums in which I was accustomed to eating it. And while I did eventually come to the disheartening conclusion that six cans of pumpkin is simply too much, the jolly squash and I enjoyed our time in the kitchen together.

The recipes which I used to dispense with the six cans were taken from my favorite food blog, For the Love of Cooking. This site serves me well, with delicious and healthy meals for every occasion. The final recipe was given to me by a friend, who serves it every Thanksgiving to her family. As always, the merry guffaw of this jolly squash brings cheers all around.

In case you have six cans of pumpkin puree taking their ease in your pantry, smiling with pleasant patience each time you look their way, consider one of these recipes, and have a happy holidays!

Happy Holidays from me to you!

(Recipes and photos by For the Love of Cooking.net)

Pumpkin Scones with Spiced Icing

Pumpkin Bread

Pumpkin Pie

(how could I not include it?)

Pumpkin Snickerdoodle Cookies

Pumpkin Muffins with Cranberries and Pecans

Pumpkin Pancakes

Pumpkin Curry Soup



*The tangerine, along with nuts and fruits, was a traditional Christmas stocking stuffer from most European children, until the introduction of wrapped presents. I became familiar with this holiday tradition while living in the Czech Republic. In Slavic and Scandinavian holiday folktales, St. Nick would come through town with an angel and devil, who would deliver either treats - which included tangerines, rare in the winter - or rocks, depending on a child's behavior. Since the avaliability of certain food products in the West, even during the winter months, the tradition of providing children with these types of treats in their stockings has gone out of fashion.

Interns Crave Cake: Incentive in the Workplace

On the day I earned my first quarter selling lemonade as a kid, people warned me that my first real job would suck. I heard horror stories about high schoolers working summer jobs, and college students slaving away in part time and intern positions. If you didn’t graduate with a degree in something that catapulted you through the lower ranks, you ended up at the bottom of the totem poll in an entry level job. Whether I did hard labor or sat for eight hours in a cubical everyday, people guaranteed me that my first job was going to suck. Apparently valuable life lessons and character building requires a miserable work environment.

Ugh. Suddenly unemployment doesn’t look so bad.

There’s a saying that happy employees are productive employees. But considering no one ever really wants to get up and go to work in the morning, it’s been assumed that there really isn’t such a thing as a happy employee. And no amount of incentives is ever going to change that fact.

Pictured: acceptable workplace duplicity

Companies supposedly offer their employees incentives to increase production, such as minor pay increase or potential promotion. They attempt to cultivate a pleasant workplace through enforced bonding of coworkers, which is often met with derision and eye-rolling by employees. There aren’t enough trust-building exercises and human pyramids to make certain jobs worth all the misery. And when all else fails, companies pander with cheap tricks such as sending out office reminders of birthdays and throwing holiday parties.

Why is James always on top? I hate him so much!

That doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t such a thing as a happy employee, or that incentives don’t work to increase productivity and improve the workplace. You just have to know how to go about it. It requires a light touch and a great deal of sincerity.

And not working for THIS guy.

How can I be so sure? I work at such a place. Go on, hate me. While I certainly don’t jump up out of bed every morning, eager for the hour commute and then an eight hour shift, it’s nice to know what the work load will be lightened by the company of my coworkers and the occasional incentive. The comfortable and productive environment is not something that is forced. It’s something that is encouraged through small kindnesses, cooperative interaction, and incentives that actually benefit employees. Or to put it succinctly, there’s cake.

Gasp! For me?! Of course I’ll work on Saturday!

It’s not unusual to come into the office in the mornings and find someone has brought a box of fresh bagels or muffins from a local bakery. If it’s cold and rainy outside, our controller runs out to buy mix for hot chocolate. Staff will treat each other to lunch, or we all order take out together and sit at the conference table, as you would during a large family dinner. Occasionally, the office treats everyone to lunch, ranging from Thai, Chinese, Indian and Italian.

I can’t turn down hot-pot.

And every other Thursday, work is called off at 4pm. Music drifts in over the intercom system, calling staff to the upstairs lounge, where an array of delicious food has been spread out. Bon Vivant, or Enjoy the Good Life, is an hour in which staff are treated to wine, cheese, figs and an assortment of other goodies. We mingle and talk about our current projects, our weekend plans, our lives, whatever topic comes up in this cocktail party-esque atmosphere. And if there is a special occasion, such as a birthday or going-away party, the office arranges for a beautiful cake from one of New York’s upscale bakeries.

Caaaaaaakee!!!!

Though these examples all involved food, that’s not what really inspires the warm environment here. (Though the cake certainly helps.) It is what goes on around the food and similar incentives. Another intern and I decided we were going to use the oven in the office library and bake something for everyone. We would stay late and prepare the night before, and then come in early the next morning. As staff arrived, they would breathe deeply the delectable scent of fresh cinnamon rolls. Not only were we given time to compare recipes and acquire ingredients, we were also pretty sure that with a fresh cinnamon roll in hand, our controller would readily accept our grocery receipts.

Anything. I’ll do anything you want! Oh, the cinnamony goodness!

There was only one small hiccup in this plan. No, it wasn’t HR or our respective bosses breathing down our necks. It was that we couldn’t get the electronic keyboard on the oven to work. We made mention of this to our administrators. Throughout the day, people went into the kitchen to attempt to work the oven. Our controller went online and found the instructions, to no avail. The entire office became involved in an effort to work the oven so we could bake cinnamon rolls. Sadly, we never succeeded (this is perhaps the only sad part of this post), but the encouragement and assistance from our coworkers has encouraged us to try again at a later date.

Because honestly, who can resist?

Hierarchy is perhaps the biggest obstacle to constructing a work environment that runs on cooperation and good cheer. Through enforcing positions of power, order is supposedly also being enforced. But often, it can be demoralizing for those on the bottom. A boss’ concern for productivity, rather than happiness of their employees, often results in a dehumanization of the employee, as a means of creating distance. Treatment of someone as something other than human is highly unlikely to increase contentment and thus pride and effort in one’s work. The push for productivity, then, in fact decreases the amount of that productivity. There is a cyclical, hamster-wheel effect.

Pictured: other people’s workplace experience.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a system of hierarchy where I work. It just isn’t enforced to the point that distance is created between people, dehumanization occurs, and discontentment gives way to low productivity. The incentives we are offered in return for good work – good food, a relaxed work schedule, camaraderie – do not smack of pandering. Instead, they remind us that we are working in a unit to produce something that is of value to our readership and of interest to ourselves. Community and basic human dignity, then, are the means by which to increase productivity and happiness in the workplace.

And, you know, there’s cake.

I am well aware, as jealous friends like to remind me, that this will not last forever. Eventually I will move on to another job and the workplace environment will be less accommodating. And sadly, there will be less cake. Having worked in this type of environment, however, has dissolved the fears of the hostile, soul-numbing workplace. Wherever my life takes me after this, I will always keep in mind that small kindnesses – and the recognition that we are slogging through this together – are the best kinds of incentive in the workplace.

Author’s Note: Another example of the awesomeness of where I work. I returned from lunch on Friday to find a rich lemon tart – again supplied by our controller, whose core, I am certain, consists of chocolate-coated graham cracker organs that pump caramel – which immensely brightened the day. With a hot cup of tea, I was eager to return to work.

Faded Glory, Decimated Hope

I have been meaning to write this post – or any post, for that matter – for some time now. Life has been demanding so much of my attention, however, that lately I just haven’t had the time. And then I watched the recent episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, with President Barak Obama as the guest speaker. A year ago, I would have been in a state of high anticipation to have the populist president sit down with the hard-hitting pundit. I had imagined an intense, provocative conversation with the occasional chuckle and overall goodwill. Obama would expound upon his views and Stewart would ask sophisticated questions that engendered consideration and further discussion. And I, as a viewer, voter and involved individual, would be reassured what while there was still a great deal of work to be done, progressive issues had the confident support of at least one reliable man in government and another sane one in the media.

“You have to come on the show, Mr. President, because it’s true what they say. Long distance relationships are tough.”

Instead, I found myself fidgeting in aggravation and general displeasure as the conversation unfolded. Perhaps out of respect – or perhaps, similar to all other presidential interviewers, restrained – Stewart reined in his usual criticism and substituted a tense jocularity that failed to either encourage discussion or lighten the mood. On numerous occasions throughout the conversation, Jon appeared to be holding back a barrage of questions, criticisms and demands for clarification. I was right along with him.

Pictured: a frustrated man.

Stewart has never shuffled off his self-appointed duty to walk down paths of inquiry where mainstream media talking heads are unwilling to grow limbs and tread. Perhaps before the beginning of the show, he was presented with a list of appropriate discussion topics, and was attempting not to veer from these restrictions. Regardless, I half-expected him to risk it all and demand answers to the burning questions on a number of topics. I do not fault him in any way for withholding. I only felt further frustrated by the muzzling of one of the vigorous voices for sanity and progress by previously one of the strongest advocates of these very same principles.

Ah, the Glory Days.

Though a believer in realpolitik, I was moved – along with many others – by the passionate, progressive stance of Obama when campaigning for the presidency. Aware of the depth of ineptitude and hyperbole into which the country had waded, I had no grand imaginings of a changed nation brought on by the dawning of hope among educated and well-informed masses. I merely imagined that pragmatism based on that idealism would lead to eventual positive change, in both the government and society. And as it would be unfair to place the whole heaping of expectation on the president, I also imagined he would receive assistance from the same young and energetic crowd who had supported his election. So when I say I am disappointed in the president, I do not consider him wholly to blame for the failing of reform efforts. Certainly we have all failed through lack of participation, support and motivation.

And the occasional filibuster.

Within the span of two years, a number of issues trumpeted on the campaign trail have been dealt with – as the president pointed out during his conversation with Stewart. However, it is his reversal or otherwise dismissal of immediate and essential issues that has weathered my patience first into disappointment and now into disillusionment. (It is perhaps a good thing I was forced to wait to write this post until now. My ire has cooled considerably.) These are the issues which I would have liked Stewart to be able to address.

Or the lack thereof.

The relationship between the United States and Israel is one that will continue to plague international relations and hinder efforts towards conciliation in the Middle East. America’s unsound insistence on supporting Israel is a topic for another blog – this one is already long enough – however, that even the Obama administration would profess continued support for this theocracy is a matter of deep concern. It is highly unlikely Obama is unaware of the situation in Palestine and the serious consequences of supporting the policies and military action of the Israel government. Certainly he isn’t earning the trust and cooperation of the region. Our historical reasons – the Cold War, mostly – for originally supporting Israel no longer holds. Do we continue to support them because of threats of annihilation from Iran? How can you offer protection from destruction to Israel while blindly allowing that same nation to destroy the Palestinians? Obama has even congratulated Israel on “showing restraint,” when if this situation was happening another nation, the actions of the Israelis would be considered genocide and the situation would be termed civil war. Mr. President, this isn’t looking good for your appearance as “fair and balanced.”

Liberation verse Occupation

We move east to our relations with Iraq. Obama promised an end tour entanglement in Iraq and Afghanistan, probably unaware of the complications of keeping that promise. We have been slowly pulling out troops, only to send more in. Now, supposedly, all active troops have been pulled from Iraq, with “consultants” left in their place. Only now, everyone seems to be just now realizing that if we leave entirely, the country will collapse due to corruption and inefficiency. Since we are no longer technically at war, we’ve settled on the only alternative: occupation. The situation certainly matches the definition. Mr. President, what solutions have you considered?

Well, this is a cheery picture that inspires hope.

Oh, nevermind. Our new plan is to bomb Pakistan. These missions are considered to be “secret drone” and CIA strikes against militants, but reports pouring in suggest that citizens are constantly caught in the crossfire. First of all, these are hardly secret considering information about them is splashed all over the internet. Secondly, do we have any proof that this is actually helping or these are actual militants we’re taking out? And how is this any better than Bush sending America into war with Iraq over WMDs it turned out they didn’t have? I feel like there should be a lot more ruckus about this little development. Mr. President, can you explain to me, without “endangering national security,” why you authorized these supposedly secret strikes, and how the entire operation is justified as necessary?

Lego demonstration, in consideration of your “sensitivies.”

We move from this delightful development in the war on terror to the topic of torture. Mr. President, weren’t you going to outlaw this or something? I thought we were closing Guantanamo Bay, and holding trials for the convicts who you were rather certain had been unjustly convicted as terrorists. Oh yeah, and then tortured. Following the most recent material made available through Wikileaks, it really doesn’t look like you’ve done much to improve the situation. It actually looks quite a lot worse than the previous administration. Currently, our human rights record isn’t looking much better than China’s, thanks to the “improvements” made during this administration.

Back at home, we’ve got our failing education system to worry about. There’s a lot to say on that topic, so I’m going to let two professionals state their case, and then the president can defend his stance. In the meantime, allow me to point out that free attendance at university for students with records of civil service was a point raised during the campaign. I was naturally thrilled that America might follow in the steps of European countries of offering its youth such a wonderful opportunity. This opportunity, sadly, has yet to be considered seriously.

Finally, there’s the environment. Everybody already knows about the big story of the BP oil spill. But there’s a small story of almost equal importance. In September, a group of college students set out on a road trip to D.C., hauling solar panels that President Carter previously installed on the roof of the White House. It was the hopes of these students that President Obama would reinstall them as a sign of his administration’s good faith with the green movement. The administration, for some unfathomable reason that did nothing to improve their standing with their former young supporters, rejected the solar panels. I imagine a grumpy old man at the door of the White House, shouting “hey you kids, get off my lawn!” Along comes Day of Action against Global Warming in October, and suddenly Obama is thrilled to reinstall the solar panels, recommitting himself to the green movement. Mr. President, I don’t feel the need to ask a question here, as I feel the situation is rather obvious. You’re on the verge of pandering, and I don’t appreciate it.

Thanks for your help, LOL Cat.

If anyone is reading this, they might respond with: but consider everything the president has accomplished! Health care! The economy! Health care again!

President Obama himself discussed the achievements in these areas on the Daily Show, and admitted that there were topics – though not those discussed above – which had fallen by the wayside due to the effort and attention dedicated to, well, health care and the economy. Two very pressing matters, I agree. But they appear, as Stewart points out, to be papier-mâché over a system that continues to teeter and sway without addressing the underlying causes and concerns.

It could be argued that I am nothing more than another victim of political and social idealism in a long history of generations rallied, used and discarded to achieve the goals of a politician. But the grim set of the president’s mouth suggests otherwise to me. He looks like a man who has encountered realities – such as the unwillingness of opponents to adopt bipartisanship despite presidential reprimand – and allowed these experiences to beat him down into a submission brought on by disappointment and perhaps even his own disillusionment. I remain convinced the president would seek alternative, progressive solutions to these issues. It is his failure to rally against the pressure of the political status quo and continue to seek that alternity that has engendered my dissatisfaction with him.

Maybe we all had our expectations too high?

The utmost effort has gone into making this post sound moderate in its criticism. Similar to Stewart, I feel restrained in my discussion of the failings of this president to produce the necessary reforms. The blunt truth is that when I read articles about the continuance of certain policies, or the reversal of a progressive stance because political compromise is easier, or worst of all, the sanctioning and expansion of policies for which we vilified the last administration, something in my chest burns white hot. My patience with lack of political bipartisanship gave way to frustration with passive compromise, and finally, fury over overt flouting of the reversal of promised reforms. I want to be in Stewart’s seat. I want to demand answers and would refuse to be hampered by pre-established appropriate topics and presidential immunity. I want to ask, “President Obama, why are you doing this? We believed in you. I believed in you.”

And you believed in us.

You can say that sounds like the naïve supporter of idealism waking to find harsh realities impede any real progressive action. The idealism of the Obama campaign, however, was based on an actual pragmatism. When even hope reliant on a pragmatic perspective encounters only disappointment, it is not a matter of naivety or idealism fallen short of reality. It is something much worse.