An Evolving / Revolving World

The Future of Advertising is “Glad”

2011-04-19T08:03:00.000-07:00

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

2011-04-14T08:30:00.000-07:00

“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?

2011-02-18T09:09:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-08T19:22:00.000-08:00

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

2010-11-05T12:24:00.000-07:00

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

2010-11-04T13:09:00.000-07:00

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.

The Happy Meal is Dead; Long Live the Happy Meal

2010-11-04T11:20:00.000-07:00

If you spent any part of your childhood in the United States, you have probably at one point experienced the joy of McDonalds. Strapped into the backseat of your parent’s 1985 Buick, you squealed with delight as they pulled into the drive-through. If you knew the day was going to include this little detour, you’d spent hours bouncing in expectation. If it was a spontaneous decision on your parent’s part as a means of placating you, then that was all the better! And there was only one thing off that whole menu you wanted. A Happy Meal!

Pictured: bliss.

Why? Was it the food? Well, partially, because no matter how bad we know McDonalds to be for us, the food can still from time to time taste great! But as kids, the food was secondary to whatever piece of plastic junk came out of the bottom of that little red box. In short, screw the food. We wanted the toy!

I’m no expert on the history of McDonald’s toys, so I can’t tell you what kids before me pulled out of their Happy Meal boxes. And I certainly don’t have any clue what kids today are getting. Last time I checked, the toy of the week was a miniature, fake Bratz cellphone for the girls and finger skateboards for the boys. But when I was a kid, during what I consider to be the heyday of McDonald’s Happy Meals, the hot items were miniature Barbie dolls and Hot Wheels cars! There wasn’t a chore I wouldn’t do, or a promise of good behavior I wouldn’t make, so long as my efforts were rewarded with a trip to McDonald’s. As a kid, that little piece of poorly-painted plastic was what it was all about.

Oh yeah. That’s what it’s all about.

It’s probably different for a lot of kids these days. After all, when I was a kid, I was entertained by books and action figures that were lacking in moveable joints. Game Boy had just come out. Now, kids want the newest Xbox game, which promises nitty-gritty action scenes of counterinsurgent military strikes in Iraq. But the incentive is still there. As crappy as the prize in the bottom of that cardboard box is, it is still a toy. And in a consumer-centric society, where social traits are passed onto our children, they still all want that toy!

Gimme a AK-47, a grenade launcher, and a Big Mac, please.

Which is why I have to cheer the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, who are voting next week on banning toys in fast food meal deals that are determined to be unhealthy. Meals containing a high dose of cholesterol fat and sugars will be banned from including marketing incentives for youths. That translates into Unhappy Meals for fans of McDonald’s toys. Restaurant chains will only be allowed to include toys in meal deals that offer healthy portion sizes and include fruits or vegetables. And no, French fries don’t count.

GASP! NNOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

I know, on some level, this sounds horrible. My inner child is crying out that these people want to deny kids a familiar joy. Don’t take my Happy Meals away! What will I have to live for?! But the truth of the matter is, that little lump of plastic is a gateway drug into obesity, higher health care bills, and low pop culture. Including a toy in a Happy Meal makes kids want McDonald’s food more than they might otherwise. Parents buy the meal because it is cheap, convenient, and their whining kid really wants it. That is teaching kids self-indulgence and consumerism, and neglecting important lessons on health.

“You’re a lousy mom if you don’t buy me another McRib to finish this large coke with.”

So while I will mourn the death of a familiar object from childhood, I also have hope that other cities will adopt this policy of banning fatty deal meals from marketing to children. No more mini Barbies, no more free Hot Wheels, no more Happy Meals. As fun as it is to run those little cars over the kitchen floor, leaving skid marks on your mother’s linoleum, it’s not worth the influence on your relationship with food. One day, our kids will jump with the same joy as we pull into the drive-through, but their delight will be for apple slices rather than French fries. The Happy Meal is dead; long live the Happy Meal.

Author’s Note: I would love to read the research conducted on the relationship between toy marketing with craving for fatty foods. If anyone happens to come across any articles, please send them along. Thanks!

Complex Frustrations (Part I)

2010-09-21T17:33:00.000-07:00

The world continues to revolve at such a speed that it seems just as I begin to grasp one new development – and its multiple complexities and contradictions – another one comes along that is just as demanding of my attention. I have meant to write a number of posts the last few weeks, but every time I’ve tried, the issue has either seemed so complex that more research and investigation into the influences and consequences was necessary, or I have become so emotionally involved in the subject that I forgot the reassuringly indifferent words on which this blog is based: even though things seem to be getting worse (or occasionally better), in fact history is merely repeating itself and nothing ever really changes.

Recently, I’ve been considering a number of events and developments taking place that, at the time, seemed compelling in the new and unique challenges that present us with. They all demanded a great deal of consideration. Often, I found myself so worked up; I couldn’t find the words to properly express any of it, and so neglected writing for this blog. One issue in particular has left me feeling particularly betrayed, and I’ve wasted a lot of brainpower silently ranting to myself and dreaming up resolution scenarios, culminating in nothing other than mental exhaustion and emotional frustration.

All of the things that have been going on recently deserve in-depth review and consideration. They deserve posts of their own, but they are so numerous and so very frustrating that I cannot seem to compartmentalize enough to write about each one at any given length. So I’m going to take a page out of Cracked.com’s book here and list some of the things that have been stressing me out recently. I might return to some of them in later posts and address them as they deserve. But for the moment, the best way to calm down seems simply to get this out there. These appear in no particular order of importance, because truthfully, they are all equally apart of what is currently upsetting about the world. In the end, though, I am striving to remember the words of Dunne: that we live in a constantly revolving, rather than evolving, world.

The Green Movement’s Failure to Bloom

We’re supposed to be more environmentally friendly these days, aren’t we? Well, aren’t we? But that doesn’t seem to be the case. There’s been two stories in particular in the news lately that seems to highlight the failure of the green movement’s ability to accomplish anything of any real significance. They’re the kind of incidents where it just seems obvious that our earth is not only down for the count, but is being maliciously kicked!

The first is the story that was followed by Democracy Now! concerning the solar panels that once belonged on the roof of the White House. They were installed there during the Carter years, with the president, interestingly enough, remarking that these solar panels could be: “a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” These solar panels were taken down during the Reagan administration and transferred to Unity College, where they remained until the second weekend in September of this year, when a group of college students, having faith in the Obama administrations professions of environmentalism, returned the panels to the White House. And President Obama declined their offer.

I think we've settled on "a road not taken." Sorry, Mr. President.

Why? What could possibly have been the reason? I would have hardly taken any effort to install them, and it would certainly have gained the president some much-needed points in popularity. This seems like such a small matter, and such a promising gesture, that to reject it seems absurd. I can understand the president currently being too busy to meet with these young activists and thank them for their efforts. But to simply reject the entire matter out of hand? “No, we don’t want to put a few solar panels on the White House! What kind of message would that be sending?” That so simple a matter – which would have had both positive PR for the administration and been a boost to the green movement – received such a response is an example of the failures of that movement to have recently gained even superficial ground.

Attached to this story is another, concerning the oil giant British Petroleum. It’s not an uncommon process to bring corporations in one some panels to assist public departments to developing their policies. So when you read that BP was involved in developing the curriculum for public schools in California, that has to be taken under consideration. And yet, does it really make any sense at all for environmental education policy to include the insights of oil companies? Aren’t we attempting to teach our children to be friendlier to the environment? My question on this matter would be: what exactly does BP bring to the table? What is it about their perspective that is necessary to include in classes on protecting and preserving the environment? I can understand – say – logging companies or fishing industries. As much as many environment activists promote protection, we need to consider conservation and proper management. Some areas can be logged, to prevent over-growth forest fires; wildlife populations need to be controlled so they do not consume the entirety of their resources. But oil companies teaching about conservation? I have a hard time picturing it.

Revision of the American Dream

Once upon a time, there was the American Dream . Supposedly, everyone knew what it was, and that they were supposed to achieve it, and there were guidelines laid out and milestones established that helped people get from where they were to where they wanted to be. This American Dream was built in the concept of what America is – as a nation, as a society, as an imagined community. The problem with this, however, is that nothing is ever always something. The America that is an ideal has never and will never exist, and attempts and/or failures to achieve that ideal have led to the reimagining of that America. If we can’t achieve the American ideal, or the America we have now doesn’t seem to be what we want it to be, we have set ourselves on a course to redefine it.

The American Dream as it was originally conceived – to quote Eddie Izzard , was to “be born in the gutter...to grow up and get all the money in the world and stick it in your ears” because you have so much wealth you can do that – no longer really applies. Neither does the American Dream of owning a house, a car, a dog, and having a wife and 2.5 ids, as it was conceived of in the post-war boom of the 1950’s. Those ideals are either no longer available to the twenty-somethings because of the economic recession, or because of a shift in social and cultural norms, no longer wanted. When we talk about spreading the American Dream overseas – a highly ironic phrase given our foreign policy – we’re bringing democracy to Third World countries. This philosophy proposes that democracy gives birth to capitalism, which will raise these countries up out of the economic dirt that our financial hegemony and cultural imperialism has subjected them to, and create a nation as great as our own. But does that American Dream even still exist? Perhaps our insistence on spreading this spirit of America overseas has ore to do with our own need for it right here at home.

Is this the American Dream?
New Orleans residents would disagree.

That would certainly explain our most recent revision of that dream which leads me into the next event I intended to write about, but which got me so worked up, I spent a week in an incomprehensible tizzy. Glenn Beck and the Rally to Restore Honor to America . I will agree with Beck on this one point and only – ever – this one point. America has lost its honor. Seemingly unbeknownst to Beck, however, it lost it long before now, and his sudden understanding of this fact has more to do with the current administration not supporting his views rather than the image of America and its belief system. Beck and his cohorts and followers are attempting to reconstruct the American Dream to suit their conception of the ideal. They are unhappy with current developments – and who wouldn’t isn’t – and while their solutions are often absurd and exclusionary, their intentions are valid. That is not to say that I in any way agree with any of the values of the Tea Party movement (which are what, exactly?). I do, however, recognize that a re-envisioning of the American Dream is taking place. And it probably needs to happen. The problem here, however, is that the wrong type of people are the ones presenting their reconceptualization of the American Dream to the masses for approval. Their's is exclusionary, and probably isolationist, which is not what we need right now.

Islamophobia

Do you remember in school reading about the Civil Rights Movement? There was something perplexing and agitating as a kid learning about practices of discrimination that are no longer prominent. When I was that age, I looked around the classroom and couldn’t fathom not sitting in a room where Whites, Latinos, Blacks and Asians mixed together. Sure, we had our differences, but most of us now in our mid-twenties grew up when discrimination – if not absent from our lives – at least was not openly encouraged. As a new school year starts, I watch the Muslim children in our neighborhood walk to school next to their Dominican and Jewish classmates, and wonder if the same lessons in diversity and tolerance are taught in today’s New York classrooms.

Considering so many of us were raised with an awareness of historical events like the Civil Rights Movement, the holocaust, the Rwanda Genocide – and those are just the big ones that just about everyone is familiar with – you would think that the societal aggravation galvanized by politicians and the news media against Muslims would result in a sort of mass déjà vu. There have been a number of incidents that occurred over the summer that should have us raising our eyebrows in both surprise and concern, and reigniting in us that same awkward bewilderment we experienced as school children attempting to understand historical circumstances of discrimination. And shouldn’t we have learned by now to be more wary of the shouting heads on television or the slick professions of sympathies offered up by politicians, especially with midterm elections fast approaching.

We need to ask ourselves the question: why aren’t we, a supposedly tolerant society, more concerned when we hear about some of the recent slander or hate crimes taking place against Muslims?

The Tennessee Lt. Gov referred to Islam as a cult, and now thousands of websites have sprung up denouncing one of the world’s largest religions as a cult. Usually this term conjures up images of Kool-Aid-assisted suicide, not millions of people worshiping the same god as the Judeo-Christian faithful. The Tea Party, with their mostly absurd beliefs and their obsessive following would be better categorized as a cult, with individuals like Glenn Beck as their leaders. As an example, consider the Restoring Honor rally. I’m actually reminded of a quote (and I’ll tell you in a minute where it came from):

There are illiterate men among them who, ignorant of the Scriptures, know nothing but wishful fancies and vague conjecture. Woe betide those that write the scriptures with their own hands and then declare: ‘This is from God,’ in order to gain some paltry end.

There was further slander of Muslims during the 9^th anniversary of September 11^th, when a right-wing lawmaker, Geert Wilders from Holland who opposes Muslim immigration remarked “ We must draw a line in the sand, so that New York, rooted in Dutch tolerance, will never become New Mecca.” The hypocrisy of this statement if, firstly, obvious: if the Dutch are so tolerant , why are you not only opposing the Islam center, but also attempting to deport the Muslims in Holland? And secondly, historic: if you believe the national myth that America was founded by pilgrims seeking religious freedom and tolerance (some of whom were fleeing the Dutch!) then shouldn’t that require tolerance of immigrants by contemporary Americans? You know, since we’re so enthralled with our traditional values.

This lack of rationality continues in the proposal that no more mosques should be built in America. Regardless of Islamophobic policies, the population in Muslim communities is going to continue to grow, and denouncing their right to worship by withholding the right to build mosques in areas of increased population is going to generate a sense of isolation, marginality, and eventually, homegrown anger against American policies. Essentially, we would be breeding anti-American sentiment right here, without the need for expensive overseas flights to the Middle East. Denying people their right to worship is not only unconstitutional, it’s hypocritical. If you’re going to taut American values, shouldn’t that mean you have to uphold them as well?

Then there can only be can be categorized as hate crimes, and yet have not been charged as such: the stabbing of the Muslim New York taxi driver, the drunk bursting into a Queen’s mosque and peeing all over the prayer rugs. And nobody is about to forget Terry Jones’s Burn A Koran Day, in which a man threatened to burn the holy scriptures of a religion. How are these not classified as hate crimes? Is that how complacent we have become where discrimination is concerned?

I decided recently to attempt reading the Koran, hoping it would provide me with insight, if not into the Islamic religion, at least into the culture of a society or nation which bases their value system on it. That's where the above quote came from. It has been very interesting, but also very tough to tackle, mostly because the majority of the text is composed of repeating lines that warn the reader to both fear god’s wrath and to trust in his mercy. The text lacks subject coherency, jumping from topic to topic without any real structure. The Koran is similar to the New and Old Testaments in that it relies upon the construction of an Other, the non-believer, against which to pitch the believer. There are a number of contradictions, but overall, I’ve found it a rather fascinating – if slow – read. And while, yes, there are many passages in it which Terry and his followers – and myself, in some cases – disagree with in principle, there’s really nothing in the Koran that makes it worthy as kindling. The entire event smacks of publicity, rather than actual moral indignation.

This post is getting a little long, so I’m going to leave off here and return to the other events later. Please feel free to leave any comments, or address the questions I’ve posed here. This has helped to focus my frustration, at least concerning these events. The larger, more demanding concerns are still to come.

What the pic says.

In Defense of Twenty-Somethings

2010-09-01T13:01:00.000-07:00

A week ago, the New York Times published the article, “What Is It About Twenty-Somethings?” discussing the potential for a new age group – the “emerging adulthood” or twenty to thirty-year-olds. There is evidence to suggest that those of us in the category of emerging adulthood are beyond the emotional upheavals of adolescence, but have not progressed into the maturity level of full adulthood. Our psychological development is not as complete, and we tend not to conform to the social expectations of adults, such as having become financially independent from our family units, completion of academic education, acquired a secure profession, or settled on a permanent romantic relationship. Instead, the article points out, those of us experiencing “emerging adulthood” tend to wander through this portion of our lives, uncertain and yet hopeful, eager to try new things as well as concerned about the vagueness of our future and aware of a constant pressure to having already achieved these milestones. Cracked.com attacked these cornerstones of coming-of-age in “What the Hell is Wrong with Twenty-Somethings” with a comedic take on the question most twenty-somethings feel they are facing right now: what is wrong with you?

The research by Jeffery Jensen Arnett in the New York Times article suggested that there is, in fact, nothing wrong with twenty-somethings who have not achieved these milestones. It’s hard to pin down the exact reason that this age group is developing – the economic recession makes it hard to “get out and get a job,” contemporary social norms allow for a more relaxed view on dating and relationships, higher (and expensive) education can take longer to complete, etc. However – and I say this speaking as an uncertain twenty-something – there is still that lingering pressure that looms over everything, that subtle suggestion that failure in these matters is due to a sense of entitled leisure or perhaps a personal laxity. Underneath the proposed rational by Arnett that contemporary twenty-somethings are merely responding to social developments, the unspoken criticism winked at in the Cracked article is a real and defining pressure for every twenty-something. In the back of our minds – whether a twenty-something is a hardcore partier who works part-time at Starbucks, a dedicated PhD student at Columbia University, or a full-time employee in an entry-level position at Wall Street – we are all wondering what it is we’re doing wrong. Why haven’t we reached “adulthood” yet? Why does the American Dream seem suddenly so obtuse and out of reach?

The shameful return to the over-burdened family unit

Critics will immediately point out the holes in all of this seemingly post-adolescent angst. Arnett in the New York Times article remarks that there are twenty-somethings, particularly in the developing world, that have had to become adults well before their psychological development was ready for the intense complexity of adult responsibilities. Some young adults have already settled down and begun to raise families, requiring twenty-somethings to become responsible care-providers even as they continue to rely on their parents for emotional and financial support. This concept of “emerging adulthood,” some critics of Arnett argue, can be interpreted as a reaction to the leisure and luxury available to young adults of educated, moderately affluent, and predominantly Western societies. This may very well be true, but does that mean that the application of pressure to “get out and get a job,” to acquire the contemporary conception of the American Dream is the antidote to our uncertainties? Have we really just created a later stage of adolescents as a means of postponing the inevitable burden of adulthood?

Are we just kids playing adult roles?

Perhaps. Or perhaps what we are seeing with the development of an “emerging adulthood” age group and the increased study into the twenty-something psychology is merely the acknowledgement of the social changes taking place in the first decade of the new century. It would be unfair to say either the recession or social tolerance of so-called twenty-something procrastination is to blame. We should take a step back and consider this development among young adults as a piece of the larger social puzzle currently developing. Consider the economic, political, social and international events occurring that shape not only our future but ourselves as individuals. The developments among twenty-somethings could be interpreted as responses to these shifts. Perhaps it is not our failure as “emerging adults” to grasp the American Dream and thus achieve adulthood, but rather the reinvention and debate over that dream that has stretched it beyond our grasp.

American society at large is changing around us, and we are beginning to encounter cultural shifts that provoke reactionary responses. Young adults moving back in with their parents are one of these changes, but it isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s just seems like that since the prosperity of the 1950’s allowed for younger family members to create their own family units separate of their parents without any economic repercussions. Before that in America, and still today in many parts of the world, family units provide financial and social support for their younger members. Children are raised in households that include grandparents, rather than taking a weekend to go down to the nursing home and visit Grandma. Extended cousins and siblings live within the vicinity, and a network of relations shared communal burdens of money, housing, and childcare. This concept of buying your own house in the suburbs and settling in with a family of four is a modern, affluent concept constructed out of the post-WWII boom. For the first time in decades we are facing an economic crisis that requires us to return to what should be the open arms of a communal system that shares these responsibilities. That this is being frowned upon as somehow a failing on the part of either the parents or the twenty-somethings is residual expectations from a more prosperous era.

Are we really failures for not achieving these milestones?

There’s no point in harping on the economic recession, because by now we’re all feeling the pinch. On top of that, health and longer lifespan allows for older members of the work force to remain in their positions longer. So for those of us just emerging from college, there are limited options. We apply for internships and entry-level positions with bleary hope, already resigned to some desk clerk job which we are overqualified for. Some of us go back to school, having received faulty advice that a higher degree will earn you a better position. Those of us who turn our attention to civic organizations or international aid agencies are viewed by the mainstream as wandering do-good vagabonds, our efforts to improve the world and ourselves interpreted as idealistic and unworthy of our potential, which apparently should be directed at making money. Only the military appears to offer an honorable alternative, and that path seems to lead down a potentially grave future.

An article by Time in July, “The Only Child: Debunking Myths,” included in its discussion of the benefits of couples choosing to raise only one child the reduction of financial pressures on the family. Couples with at least some college education have rationalized that in this poor economic climate, it’s not wise to have more than one kid, and that a return to a more communal setting decreased the validity of the argument that an only child will somehow be lonely without a sibling. This argument can be expanded to address the concern of twenty-somethings not choosing to settle down and start a family. Young couples today are recognizing the economic difficulties of starting a family, and are choosing to postpone having children until later in life, when financial security has been obtained through an improvement in the job market.

Without this pressure to have kids, there isn’t the need to settle down with a permanent partner. I am not condoning the type of blind, grimy fornicating that results in websites like Texts From Last Night; rather, relaxing of social norms allows for more variety in our dating practices, to find a partner best suited for the long-term. While a supposed milestone to adulthood may be entering into a permanent romantic relationship in the form of marriage, it seems rushing into a life-long relationship for the sake of social conformity is what leads to our high divorce rate. Cohabitation with a partner allows you time to work out the kinks. As an example, my grandparents married when my grandpa came back from the Pacific Theater; he was 19 and my grandma was 16. They’ve stayed together all these years because, as good Christian folk of the Midwest in the 1950’s, that was what you did. Society told them that they had to put up with each other, even after that first blush of teenage infatuation faded away to reveal personal faults. Avoidance of divorce or life-long unhappiness through cohabitation – a sort of trial period for relationships – doesn’t seem like it should receive so much criticism.

Cohabitiation allows time for infatuation to give way to real affection and then cooperation.

In a podcast of The American Life aired back in 2001, a Mexican-American college student discusses her feelings of failure in achieving happiness in life. Sylvia recounts how her mother, a very traditional woman, used to keep her in a cultural box, telling Sylvia how she needed to get married and have children. Sylvia rebelled against this mind-set, wanting to take advantage of the broad opportunities available to her because of her academic record, and went off to college in New York. She became isolated, depressed and anxious about the choices she had made. Her cousins and high school were married with children; they had houses and stable incomes and seemed happy, whereas Sylvia couldn’t get a job she wanted, living in a rat hole in the city and despaired of ever being content. According to the podcast, when Sylvia finally returned home, her emotional state improved and she found work. She isn’t married yet, but she is back in a community where she feels secure and has support.

Perhaps that is what most twenty-somethings need. Twenty-somethings may be a new age group, and we may be going through an unrecognized period of psychological development, or we may just be reacting to the shifts in cultural norms and social events. The response to our drifting, however, should not be responded to with the question: “what is wrong with you?” We should be provided we communal and familial support. And yes, in a time of economic crisis, financial support from our families may not be available, but that does not mean that emotional support from both our parents and society at large is not warranted. In the New York Times article, Arnett discusses the benefits for both parents and twenty-somethings who remain in close contact, providing each other with “practical assistance” such as “advice, companionship, and an attentive ear.” He suggests the construction of social and civil programs that assist twenty-somethings, by providing them with a means of continuing their period of freedom and exploration while giving back to the community. This isn’t all that different than suggesting teenagers get summer jobs or internships, while remaining within the safety net of home and school. The difference is that those of us in “emerging adulthood” need greater freedom from the restrictions set by these organizations, but without having been entirely cut loose.

Yes, there are those twenty-somethings who are immature and negligent, who are unwilling to adopt the burdens of adulthood. But many of us are willing, some even eager, to accept the responsibilities. We are crippled by current social conditions and our own niggling self-doubts. Support from our families and our communities should be the positive response we receive, rather than exasperation sighs and disappointed looks, which has proven to result in self-directed disappointment and further feelings of anxiety and failure. Social expectations and pressures insist on asking us: “what is wrong with you?” Our response needs to be: “Nothing. I can only make the most of what I’ve been given.”

Blogger’s Note:

I’ve been very lucky in having the type of familial, if not communal support that Arnett believes twenty-somethings need while trying to find an anchor in this period of drifting uncertainty. I owe a debt to my family for having supported me as much as they could in every way. My own experience suggests to me that it is as much societal shifts as it is psychological development that is defining this new age group, and our continued anxiety as “emerging adults.”

Sacred Ground and ‘Insensitivity’: Ground Zero Mosque and Mamilla Cemetery

2010-08-12T21:05:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of heated debated, passionate emotions, and not a little name calling recently between opponents and supporters of the Islamic community center and mosque to be built in the vicinity of Ground Zero here in New York. Reading and listening to all of it, I’ve heard a number of accusations from the opposition to the mosque that doesn’t entirely make sense, and seems to stem more from insensible hatred and a sense of burning self-righteousness than anything else. Claims have been made that the location of the proposed community center and mosque is insensitive to the victims of 9/11 and will serve as a monument to terrorism. These opponents apparently didn’t bother to take note of the fact that this center will include not only a mosque, but also numerous community spaces, such as a performing arts center, a gym, and even a pool. Is their complaint that a Muslim community center is going to be built in the area, or that it will include a mosque? Are they angry about the presence of Muslims, or an Islamic house of worship? Either way, they seem to have overlooked something essential to this issue.

Now who is being insensitive?

In their anger and their passion for a cause they consider to be so righteous, opponents of the mosque have disregarded the fact that through their tirades against Muslims, they are condemning an entire cultural and religious community without any rationale. The bitterness that rises out of opponents to the community center in New York takes the form of absolutes and stereotypes, unjustifiable fears, and yes, intolerance. The Muslim community en mass should not be associated with or held accountable for the actions of a handful of fanatics. The building of a mosque in the vicinity of Ground Zero should not be interpreted as insensitive, but rather, as a progressive and healing step forward, away from the seething hatred engendered by that traumatic event ten years ago. Why can’t the location of this community center, with its close proximity to where the twin towers stood, be considered a sign of tolerance rather than of an affront? I am not only speaking about religious tolerance here, though that is certainly an issue. Consider instead that the presence of this community center – and yes, that would include the mosque – speaks in favor of unification against terrorism, and fanaticism, and bigotry.

Something doesn't seem quite right here...

Opposition to the community center fails to take into consideration the message that we would be sending – and are probably currently sending, what with all the raging media coverage. First, it screams a willingness to disregard our own moral values, such as freedom of religion, due to bigotry. Secondly, it would appear that even peaceful practitioners are unwelcome, which will further sully our supposedly-sparkling image of progressive tolerance in not just Islamic communities, but in other cultural and religious communities around the world. Finally, in rejecting so fervently this peaceful community of religious practitioners, we are more likely to encourage further distain and incite passions against us than future attempts at peaceful accord. The construction of this mosque, then, should not be greeted with such hostility. It should be interpreted as a sign that we can be inclusive and are capable of thinking beyond baseline associations such as Muslim = terrorist and mosque = hotbed of extremists. By accepting the construction of the mosque and the incorporation of the Muslim community into the larger downtown community of Manhattan, the new message would be an acknowledgement that Islam and Muslims are not equivalent to terrorism, and that we as a city and a country are above the biased hatred of fanatics. Surely what we want to arise from the rubble at Ground Zero is a symbol of peace and progressiveness, and acceptance and inclusiveness, rather than resentful bigotry.

Yes, that's right. It shouldn't be OUR responsibility to promote tolerance.
Let someone else do it first. Then, we'll think about it.

This should hold true for any community, not just the area surrounding Ground Zero. The constructions of mosques have been denied in a number of other New York boroughs, including Brooklyn and Staten Island, and for what reason? Those opposed to a mosque near Ground Zero lay claim to ‘insensitivity’ or that the building that would be torn down is supposedly a historic landmark. (I think we can all agree that buildings older than the 1850’s have been torn down to make way for far less. It’s not like Starbucks is merely filling up empty lots.) There has even been the claim that a piece of landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers supposedly damaged this building, as if that random contact with debris somehow marks this as a sacred site. Paterson’s offer to provide state property in another location for the community center seems like a good compromise, except that now the issue has grown well beyond where the center is located, into a question of religious tolerance, civil rights, and unmasked bias against an entire cultural community. And I have to cheer Bloomberg, with whom I do not always agree – leave the artists in Union Square alone, please – for backing the rights of New York citizens to build a house of worship according to the law, even if he did crouch his defense in property rights lingo.

According to Democracy Now!, mosques around the country have come under attack in recent weeks. There is either opposition to having mosques and community centers built, or that they are somehow found to be offensive to the community. Therefore, it is hardly the case that this single mosque is such an issue because of the proximity to Ground Zero. It is apparently anti-American to be Muslim or practice the Islamic faith. And what exactly, to diverge onto a tangent for a moment, does it mean to be American? If I can be ‘insensitive’ for a moment, it would seem that to be American is also to be in favor of commercialism and consumerism; otherwise, surely people would be howling about the number of McDonalds and Starbucks that surround the supposedly sacred ground that is Ground Zero. Am I being insensitive? Am I, in being in support of religious tolerance and civil liberties, somehow un-American? Opponents to the community center would probably agree with that, but it seems far more likely, given their blatant disregard for these deeper concerns, that they are somewhat blinded by their loathing for a religious community that they inappropriately have come to associate with terrorism.

I would like to offer not exactly a counter to this story, but rather an addendum that provides a different perspective.

In February of this year, Democracy Now did a report on the violation of sacred ground in Jerusalem, in which 12th century grave sites – tombstones and bodies – were disturbed to make way for a museum that promoted tolerance. It sounds relatively familiar to the current problem here in New York, where the sanctity of hallowed ground is being overturned in favor of an institution claiming good intentions. The cemetery, in fact, is the Mamilla (also referred to as the Ma’man Allah) cemetery in Jerusalem, where centuries of Palestinian Muslims’ family members, as well as state politicians, artists, judges, scholars and saints, are buried. The Israeli authorities intend to build an extension of the Los Angeles-based Siman Wisenthal Center, and are in the process of bulldozing the tombs and supposedly re-interning remains in undisclosed locations. Despite protests from relatives of the deceased and the local community, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled in November of 2004 to go ahead with the demolition of this scared site.

How can we reconcile these two events? Opponents of the Islam community center claim that the encroachment of Muslims on sacred ground is somehow insensitive to the deceased, and yet, similar claims made by the Muslim community in protection of a site sacred to them are dismissed. A potential defense of these events is that the latter is happening is Israel, not America, and therefore we cannot hold them to the same values of civil liberties and religious tolerance. But doesn’t that mean we should hold ourselves to them? In both cases, the intended construction claims to be one of tolerance and peace, and both are considered to be violating sacred sites. And yet, I cannot say, well if we allow the mosque, we have to allow the museum, because either way these buildings are disturbing grave sites. The difference between these two cases is that the community center being built near Ground Zero is not at Ground Zero or on Ground Zero, and is an attempt to rise beyond the dissident emotions engendered by the event of 9/11. In contrast, the Museum of Tolerance requires the demolition of a sacred site and the eradication of a cultural community from that portion of the city; their intentions appear to be those of exclusion rather than tolerance. How can we even consider these two events without linking the current of emotions and issues that bleed them together?

The emotions that frame the discussion of the community center near Ground Zero in New York seem to have bubbled up from one of the dark, festering wounds of this country. The anger and resentment expressed by opponents is a sharp knife, cutting away the ties to reason and leaving us afloat in a heavy pool of sensationalism and intolerance. The building of this center and its mosque should not be interpreted as an insensitive decision meant to reignite bigotry or wave some victory flag over the ashes of a national tragedy. Rather, it should be seen as a sign that ten years should be long enough for us to now be able to see beyond our initial anger, to recognize that we are not the only ones adrift in a world of intolerance and injustice, and reach out to others willing to promote peace. If an Islamic community center and a mosque are built near Ground Zero, it will not say that “the terrorists have won,” that we have allowed them to soil a sacred site. Rather, it will say to the world that we are a people that embrace freedom of religion, that acknowledges civil liberties, and are eager to celebrate acceptance and peace, in whatever form they may take.

Why A Blog?: A Haphazard Introduction

2010-08-11T19:05:00.000-07:00

Last week, while tossing textbooks off my bookshelves in preparation for finally leaving grad school, I came across Standing Up to the Madness by Amy and David Goodman, hosts of Democracy Now! I couldn’t remember the last time I had read a non-course related book, so I opened it up and felt my world receive a much needed shake. When your life is taken up by relentless research and banging your head on a keyboard, you tend to miss everything else going on out there in the world. Sure, I read headlines and listened to the news and was “up-to-date” through social networking sites. And I was more than aware that most of it was filtered and organized to suit some agenda, but I figured that was the best anyone could do.

Reading this book, I was reminded of why I had gone to grad school rather than getting a job. No, it was not in an attempt to continue to leech off my parents (thanks, mom & dad), or to avoid the grueling tyranny of a nine-to-fiver for as long as possible. It was because I believed information, knowledge (the two are NOT the same thing) and education were crucial to social revolution. And while I had heard of the crystal tower of academia, sacred authority on all things actually irrelevant, I made the faulty assumption that there was no better place to become involved with everything going on in the world than a college campus, where opinions and ideas were inspired and broadened and discussed, all with the intent of formulating a socially-conscious intellectual.

Nope. Nada. Not at all. And I am very sorry to say that I got sucked into it. That is not to bash higher learning. It’s the bee’s knees, as they say in the Old Country. However, like every institution, it has its faults. Rather than the world around you, your attention turns to completing assignments, fulfilling requirements, keeping up on the newest research, developing theories, apply those theories through endless rounds or research, and eventually, you begin to feel the library walls close in around you. Everything that had concerned me before – global events, social issues, the ironic repetition of history, the exchange of culture – faded away as papers and exams and grades interceded.

Last month, I finished the thesis paper required to earn my masters degree in cultural anthropology. It is a completely irrelevant paper. I am not proud to have written it. I don’t care if it gets published or not. Perhaps the fault was my area of research, but in reconnecting with the world and all the things that once commanded my attention, the madness discussed in Amy Goodman’s book, I am aware of how disconnected I have become. Not from my friends or family or my partner, but from my community, which extends beyond the city and the country and out into the world. There is a lot going on out there, and my intention has always been to be a voice, though I’ve never been sure if that voice was going to speak up, speak out, or simply comment on what’s going on. The latter seems so passive, but for while I’m getting my feet back underneath me, that may be what happens here.

This blog is my first small step in getting involved. It’s not much, I know. You can say to me that there are plenty of other things to do, especially since there is absolutely no guarantee that people will read this. You can say: join an organization, give money, take up a cause. To which I am ashamed to reply: I need to get a job, I don’t have much money, and there are so many causes, how can you possibly choose? I’ve always been good at writing, at expressing myself and my concerns. So writing a blog seems like a good first step. I know in this world of mass media, flashing headlines and twitter – I will proudly admit right here and now, I hate hate hate twitter – that my posts will be considered too long. And maybe my voice is not as amusing or as engaging as the pundits. Give me some credit, though. This is merely a first step. I have dreams, you know. One day, I would like to be involved up to my nose, fully dedicated to some great cause for social change. “When I grow up, I wanna be an activist!” But for now, I will settle for joining the rank-and-file of wanna-be bloggers. It’s a bold new – it’s not really new anymore, is it? I kinda missed the last boat out, so this is me in a borrowed canoe, trying to catch up to the flotilla – world, baby!

The quote that inspired the title of this blog is taken from the writer and humorist Finley Peter Dunne, a Chicago author from the turn of the 20th century. He’s famous for his Mr. Dooley sketches, in which an old-school version of a Mary Sue – that being Dooley – spoke on behalf of Dunne about then-current political and social issues. His choice of venue? Irish pubs in old Chicago. If we spun the digital clock back to the late Victorian era and everyone agreed to temporarily don top hats and monocles, he’d be Stephen Colbert. They both have Irish heritage, so it works. His remark seems aptly timed for a world facing numerous natural disasters and conflicts. For every bit of ground we seem to gain, whether in the struggle for human rights, the environment or simply disseminating common sense, we take one iridescent Na’vi-sized step backwards. Global warming, gay rights, international relations, to name just a few. Never mind that we still consider movies like Avatar to be blockbusters (maybe it’s just the years in academia talking but, hello! Orientalism, anyone?) and we’ve got a new youth culture in American that considered it cool beyond cool (or sick beyond whatever; I am so out of touch) to be above actual concern for anything not ironic.

The world, as Dunne so aptly notes, isn’t changing, despite all our efforts. It just keeps spinning. That is not to say any efforts are hopeless or pointless or naïve. All quite the opposite, I believe. But it is as important to notice the advances as the regressions, and to acknowledge the continued support of the status quo. In pointing that out, maybe people will start to take notice, like I did, and want to do something to change that. Remembering that the world is just going to keep turning can also keep us from losing hope when nothing seems to change. I mean, in the 1950s, everybody thought they were going to have their skin melted off in a nuclear apocalypse long before now. They couldn’t imagine beyond the Cold War, and when they did, life involved a racial (species-ist?) struggle between men and rubber-lipped monkeys. For everything that we as a generation and a world face now, you’ve got to wonder – maybe eagerly, maybe in slight pants-wetting terror – of what’s beyond now.

This has been a very long-winded introduction – I can’t promise my posts will be any shorter – to say that this blog serves as a place where I post my ponderings about the world and the direction in which it turns. I don’t know where it’s going, but I’m eager to find out, and maybe along the way, I can become involved with all the other helping hands that are trying to turn our world in the best possible direction.