Dogma-driven reality

It often amazes me the ability of the human mind to create its own reality. A set of beliefs, once established, rarely changes once an individual reaches an "adult" state. Every piece of information (for many) must be forced through the filter of dogma that takes the place of independent thought. Trying to convince such an individual that there may be different interpretation is a frustrating and futile exercise.

The other day I found myself "discussing" tax policy with the Gorn ("why?" you ask. Because I'm a fool). Now generally self-avowed "conservatives" dislike taxes. So I brought up the Earned-Income tax credit. Normally, you'd think that this is something conservatives would like; it's a tax break for a portion of the population. Well, as I learned, you'd be wrong.

See... Apparently tax breaks are a good thing, but only if they benefit the wealthy, whereas the EIC benefits the poorest segment of the population. I "learned" that this policy is bad because (according to the Gorn), "poor people will have more children to cheat on their taxes."

I decided (wisely, I think) to walk away and not engage this further, however I feel the need to deconstruct this concept. This classic form of doublethink can be understood in several ways.

First of all, you must make the assumption that all individuals act within pure self-interest. Secondly you must assume that all individuals are essentially the same in their approach to dealing with their finances.

For example, (according to this worldview) since the wealthy plan ahead with a keen eye on the bottom line, so must everyone else. In other words, because people are fully in command of themselves at all times, they will quickly figure out loopholes to take advantage of "giveaways." (After all, the wealthy do, why shouldn't those on the lower end of the income/wealth scale?)

This is a classic American conservative construction. All actions and consequences are tied directly to the individual. If rich people are rich because they choose to be, then poor people are also poor because they choose to be. This is a lifestyle they have apparently "chosen" with all the foresight and planning that all individuals have. If we return to the Earned Income Tax credit, then following these assumptions, the poor plan years ahead to get a discount on their taxes.

Why, then, since conservatives seem to have no trouble with tax cuts for the wealthy, do they dislike tax cuts for others? Quite simply, this is because they see the poor as a conscious criminal drain on society, and that the wealthy provide something for the rest of the population; wealth creates wealth. When you provide a tax cut to the wealthy, this (theoretically) provides them with more money to create more jobs, because they have so much spare cash lying around. The poor just soak it up like a sponge.

The patent absurdity of this idea (or the idea that the poor don't choose their poverty, much less plan for tax-cuts) is completely lost on dogma-driven apostles of the conservative belief-system (read: religion). Even if one accepts the conservative faith that social welfare programs encourage corruption and cheating amongst the poor, it certainly does not follow that taxes would be an issue to them. More likely than not, those at the poorest end of the population do not think of taxes at all... they live more of a cash-based lifestyle. In reality the EIC is one of the few tax relief programs that really make sense; it provides relief (if only a small amount) to those individuals who really need it the most.

What constitutes the doublethink is a complete lack of empathic ability, or the ability to see things through another's eyes. If the wealthy plan for their taxes, then so does everyone else. If you didn't make enough money to pay as much as they do, then you are resented because you do not contribute into the national coffers (which, of course, the conservatives don't believe in anyway). If you don't figure it out you're stupid... if you do, you're corrupt.

Unless you are wealthy.

Dealing with the numbness

Day in and day out, everything pretty much remains the same. Get up, get coffee, go to work, deal with a mind numbingly boring workday, go home, eat, watch TV, read, go to sleep, start over again, all the time with one eye on the weekend.

The excruciating ordinariness of it all can be overwhelming if one cannot find a way to distract oneself from the sheer pointlessness of it all. Most people here have genuine reasons why they get up and perform this silly dance day after day; they have families they need to support... there's a point to all the sacrifices.

So why do I do it? At the age of 39, most of my dreams have shriveled up and blown away... but I keep coming to work every day, doing my best to do a good job at what I do, trying not scream at innocent bystanders, trying hard not to drive my car off an overpass.

I give myself little excuses; I have a house, car payments, etc that must be paid, so I have to go to work, occasionally remembering that the reason I have the car in the first place is so I can get to work.... the endless loop continues until I pay off this 6 year payment plan on my cheap Korean import (the best I can afford).

Regardless of the reasons for why I stay (I still haven't completely figured this out yet; my feeling is that the predominant cause is fear... or laziness), I develop techniques to prevent my head from imploding...

One of the skills I developed from years ago in the academic world was working quickly and efficiently. If one works in spurts, then there's lots of time available for goofing off.

The main method passing time is surfing the web. Though technically this is frowned upon (they can track all of your internet movements; long gone are the days when clueless employers thought that anything done on a computer is work), my current department head seems not to care much, as long as I do my job. Also it's important to develop a fast "Alt-Tab" reflex so as to be able to quickly shift from the baseball fan-site to a spreadsheet or query in a split-second, so nobody notices you are not actually "working."

I also keep, what I refer to as a "chimp mirror" on top of my monitor. This enables me to notice if someone is creeping up behind me. It works sometimes.... but occasionally I get caught reading something non-work-related (or blogging). Luckily this hasn't cost me my job (yet). (Maybe there's a subconscious part of me that does want to be caught; however that part of me is not the financially responsible sector of my brain, so it often scares me, when I "wake up").

Possibly the most frustrating part of being in this environment stems from my total lack of ability to "act professionally." In the corporate world, form often takes precedence over substance. Though, as I have recently realized, most of the time I end up doing something like twice the work as those who do the same job, I do not get recognized for this, mainly because I do not spend a lot of time taking responsibility for others' work, or also because I often take the path of least resistance... not fighting unwinnable battles, not identifying the work in front of me as something which I "own"... I just try to please.

So basically, I am stuck doing the same tasks that I was doing four and a half years ago when I started here, without much chance for advancement (as if that was something I really wanted.... though more money would be nice).

Anyway, it's Friday, so if I can get through the rest of this day, I at least wont have to think about how little I have to think about for a couple of days...

More Corporate Silliness

Okay, it's been a while since the last time I wrote anything... that last post I wrote was far too serious, and many others have hashed over those points again and again in the last few weeks, so I feel I do not need to continue in that vein.

It's time again to look at some of the absurdities of the corporate world. fun fun fun.

A strange conversation took place today at work. Over a normal discussion of frustrations over some of the slowdowns that happen for procedural reasons (too boring to go into here), I casuallly mentioned something to the Gorn about a book I was reading that was basically a parody of moronic corporate procedures. (note, I just started this book, but thought it was mildy amusing which is why I brought it up).

He immediately got riled up, and starting going on about how the "American corporate world is highly successful at what it does" (blah blah blah). I calmly mentioned, that this was beside the point; it was just a joke about some of the more idiotic procedures and types of individuals that tend to thrive in this environment.

The Gorn replied, "I don't find making fun of successful things to be funny."

It was as if I had told him that he was ridiculous (he is, but that's not the point here), and took it very seriously. The oddity of this is given the context in which he said it... he was actually at that moment complaining about such procedures. I suppose I must have hit a nerve, as he lately has become more ambitious, so any overt statement even slightly criticizing corporate processes gets taken as a personal attack. However, this exemplifies the total lack of consistency in his worldview. In fact, he actually keeps a copy of a Dilbert calendar on his desk.

So what was that all about? I suppose it may be because it comes from me. I have over the years made it clear that I do not share his political views, so anything that sounds remotely like a criticism of Corporate Republican ideology is assumed to be a direct attack.

So, now I suppose I must be careful and watch my step again, and quietly marvel at such a fine specimen...

Blaming the Victims

There is something very very wrong with this country.

The level of cognitive dissonance amongst the public, the media, and the government is again reaching a very high level. A disasater of unprecedented proportions has just occurred along the Gulf Coast of the US. While the city of New Orleans is essentially under water, the rule of law has disappeared, and there are bodies floating in the streets, most of the rest of the country has mostly turned a blind-eye to the situation. Oh, there is a good deal of news coverage and lip-service given to the suffering, but compared to the huge response from Americans to the sufferers of the Tsunami in the Indian Ocean several months ago, very little is being done here in our own country. My point is not to attack those who are not giving charity in this case... people are responding with financial donations; what bothers me is the attitude of many people, the media and the federal government to this disaster.

When speaking of the disaster, a common theme seems to be running across the television... "those people who did not evacuate New Orleans when they were told have only themselves to blame." This sentiment can be revealed in silences left by news anchors who purposely don't state their opinions about "why people didn't leave." The underlying meaning of this is that the residents of New Orleans must be stupid, regardless of the fact that this is one of the poorest cities in our country, and many people had neither a) a car, b) money to pay for gasoline, or c) somewhere else to go. The television cameras state what people are unwilling to say out loud. The victims of this crisis are predominantly black and poor. They are the ultimate "other" living within the midst of American prosperity.

Most people accept the truism that we are the richest country in the world. The dissonance appears when people cannot reconcile these images on the TV and in newspapers with this belief. How can such people exist in such a wealthy country? Despite the fact that 12-15% of Americans live below the official poverty line, most people are blissfully oblivious to this fact, as this segment of the population seldom appears in the media. Now we have images of poor refugees in our own country being shown regularly (the media cannot resist a disaster; ratings are just too good), we cannot reconcile our American beliefs that anyone can be successful if they try hard enough with such pictures without blaming the victims.

I have heard comments from people which inherently contradict each other and reveal deep-seated biases. In the last two days, I have heard people alternately wonder out loud "where the international aid is, when America does so much for the rest of the world" to stating that this is "Louisiana's problem, and not the responsibility of the federal government" (yes this was the same person). I have also heard people whisper (nobody wants to admit their biases out loud) that the reason why lawlessness has gripped the city is because the residents are black.

People loudly condemn the looting that is occuring in New Orleans as despicable. Of course we all know that stealing is wrong, but why are we not hearing a response to the massive price-gouging and profit-taking happening across the country as the energy industry cannot bear to make a cent less despite the fact that everyone else must suffer. They claim shortages are the reason, but couldn't they be expected to "tighten their belts" just a little, like the people of Lousiana, Mississippi, and Alabama? The reason is, of course, that we worship power, and despise the weak (though this is often mixed with condescending pity).

The response of the federal government has been far less than adequate. Granted, I understand the sentiment of many that this is the wrong time to be picking political battles, in the middle of a crisis, however if one sees very little response, it becomes a necessity to loudly criticize. It took almost a full week for the National Guard to be mobilized, and despite the fact that we are perfectly willing to send these same troops to fight battles clear across the globe. Getting troops and aid should have been a no-brainer for anyone in office

Maybe this person who suggested we need international aid is right. This country is far too childish to take care of its own problems... we need the stern moral hand of an adult to steer us right.

Who defines what is real?

A large part of what many journalists have referred to as the "cultural divide" has been mythologized by these writers themselves. The simple act of writing (I don't necessarily mean blogging, as very few people actually read most of these enough for them to have any kind of significant impact) creates the reality itself. If a Journalist, such as David Brooks in the New York Times, or one of the many talking heads on the Fox News Network states that this country is widely divided, then to a certain extent it becomes true.

The media creates a context from which a large number of people define what occurs in the world... the media is the culture, at least in the sense that it exists as a summation of our cultural mores, desires, and fears. It also serves as a driving force.

If you doubt me on this, pay attention to the lack of actual content in most news articles; there is far more discussion about the trappings of the news than actual details about what is happening or what it means. This is most evident during political campaigns, wherein you may find it very difficult in most news broadcasts (including the Times and NPR) to find out what a candidates actual opinions are. You are more likely to hear discussions of "electability" than about whether the candidate actually has some suggested solutions to the problems of the day. Oh, you will hear about them, but they will often be referred to as "the issues" or "policy-papers" without going into any depth about what they actually mean. Most of the time you will see pictures of a candidate throwing a football, standing in front of various organizations, or with a gun or baby in their hands.

The press' assumption that the public is not interested in these details is outright insulting; the assumption that what people want is the People Magazine-ization of the news is self-fulfilling. It's not "give the people what they want," but instead, "give the people what we believe the people want so that our corporate sponsors can sell more products."

When it comes to determining what to write, journalists necessarily write revealing a specific worldview. Even the attempt at "non-biased" or "balanced" reporting reveals a bias in itself: the belief that reporting should be done without bias. For years we have been hearing from the conservative side of the political spectrum about the evils of the "liberal media." There does seem to be somewhat of a bias here, but the nature of it is not made particularly clear. (Note: I tend to think that labels such as "conservative" or "liberal are misleading, and only valid within a specific cultural context, but that is another discussion, so I will use them here as a shortcut to prevent this discussion from becoming overly arcane and obtuse).

The very concept of "balanced reporting" is in itself a liberal concept. It includes the idea that we do not know things for certain, so we should show multiple angles so that people can make up their minds on their own. On the conservative side, there is no such belief in "balance" even though the term is used quite cynically by conservative organizations such as Fox News (yes they are definitely a Right-wing biased organization... they have stated goals within the organization to present the news from a conservative slant). They call themselves "fair and balanced" while not even really attempting to do this in a serious way. This is almost a direct laugh at the rest of the (supposedly liberal) media establishment. The belief on the neo-conservative side is not actually that their views should be seen as balanced against liberal views, it is that they are right, that they really know the "truth" and anything stated (even if it is broadly misleading or even an outright lie) is okay as long as the ultimate outcome serves to advance the current agenda.

On the other side, the supposedly "liberal" press bends over backwards to show that they actually are balanced, principally because this is a value that a liberal society holds dear. For an example of this, witness the way that the press has reported the "debate" between "evolution" and the "Intelligent Design Theory." Anyone with a smidgen of a scientific background will acknowledge that this completely inane idea when considered within a scientific framework, simply because it is not testable or falsifiable. It is a belief system, which if left at that level could be acceptable, but if treated as a scientific theory, it is comparable to those who believe that the earth is flat. Yet the media has allowed this idea to enter the mainstream, including the supposedly responsible (and to conservatives, "liberal") New York Times, simply by stating that there is a debate at all; this debate does not exist at all within the scientific community. Because of the culture-dictating power of the media, giving both sides equal voice on a public stage has the effect of legitimizing this ordinarily laughable view, and down the rabbit-hole we go.

So how do we sort all of this out?

My personal biases (which I am willing to acknowledge may be socially constructed; I was raised and educated to think this way) lead me to mistrust anyone who claims to know the truth. I would rather at least see an attempt to show both sides of an issue so that I can sort these ideas out myself, but of course, I am realizing that I am still having trouble trusting what I read. Am I more likely to believe something that fits in with my already established worldview? I catch myself doing this all the time... if an article states something that I don't like, I start looking for holes; if someone states something with which I feel I already agree, I'm less likely to do so. A clear framework helps, so the balanced, scientific approach appeals to me. However, I can at least be convinced if enough evidence is presented to me to that my presuppositions might be wrong.

On the other side, those with a more "conservative" worldview may not trust someone who appears to equivocate. They already believe they know the answers, and they also may already acknowledge that people are inherently biased. In this sense, they mistrust what is perceived as the liberal media with its attempts to appear unbiased. They may trust sources such as Fox News, not only because the reporting clearly resonates with personal worldviews, but also because it is unyielding.

I suppose I must rely on my mistrust in the fallibility of humans. If we trust too much in one position, we may be blinded by our biases, and leave us open to the danger of false prophecy. If we endeavor to leave our minds open, we might actually learn something.

The questions remain: "What? And from whom?"

Cognitive Dissonance

Sometimes I get to see academic concepts mangled to new corporate meanings.

I first became aware of an oddity within the meaning of specific information as it relates to social context when I was still a grad student. There was one particular undergrad Sociology course, Social Stratification, which was required of not only Sociology majors, but of Marketing majors as well. This course, which was designed to delineate the differences in social class and prestige within society, examine its causes, problems, along with possible solutions, was being used by those individuals who wished to have this information in order to sell people stuff.

This, of course, horrified many within the Sociology department, however I find this a particularly revealing distinction regarding the divide between those who wish to “learn” for a living, and those who are thinking within a pragmatic “real world” framework (It need not be said that those different perspective suggest an entirely different political orientation). This type of thing happens again and again; ideas and concepts that were originally meant to be studied as a way of understanding (at least perceived) injustices being used by those who wish to make use of these inequalities.

One of the more amusing/disturbing things that happens in the corporate environment is that occasionally phrases or expressions which come from the academic world are mangled for corporate use.

Here are a couple:

"Paradigm Shift" – this phrase has been mainly associated with twentieth century philosophy of science (see Thomas Kuhn’s, Stucture of Scientific Revolutions). It refers to large changes in ways of thinking about what determines reality. For example, the shift between beliefs between theological origination toward evolution would be an example of a paradigm shift. In the corporate world, however, the phrase has been expanded to include any change of management, or re-organization. It gets bandied around so often that it has lost its original meaning.

“Meritocracy” – this word is a sociological concept about a hierarchical structure of society wherein power and prestige are determined by individual achievements, rather than by such things such as being born into a specific social class. When used in the corporate world, it usually is meant as an explanation for why those in higher ranks make more money or have more power. Conversely, if you do not make much or have no power, it suggests that it is because you do not deserve it, unlike those who are doing much better.

The pervasiveness of this type of contradiction of original meanings and corporate mangling produces in me something akin to cognitive dissonance; humor is a healthy response. Rage... less healthy.

This general approach of creating wordy ways of dealing with abstract (and often meaningless) concepts is fairly pervasive. One clear sign that this might be a problem at a specific company is an excess of "Mission Statements" and/or "Vision Statements." These are designed to create a concise summary to define the goals of a specific division or unit of the organization as it applies to everyone within that sub-area. Not surprisingly, these end up being vapid and with about as much content as a presidential candidate's stump speech.... full of catchphrases, and to paraphrase Shakespeare, like "a tale told by an idiot...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

When I started at this company I found that I had no less than 5 mission statements; one for each level of the organization in which I reside. Once I was asked by a manager to provide (I kid you not), my "personal interpretation of our division's Vision statement."

I replied with something to the effect of "I will endeavor to proactively operationalize my workflow vis-a-vis the utilization of a face-to-face initiative in order to more effectively establish organizational efficiency.." etc.

It was accepted.

Anti-Intellectualism and the Gorn

One thing that seems to characterize the corporate mentality is the utter lack of interest by most people in things that are not directly relevant to work. Anti-intellectualism is quite common; education is seen as a means to an end, with virtually no desire to learn for the sake of learning.

Ironically, despite this, there is a strong emphasis on education. The company where I work generously provides education reimbursement for all sorts of things that are not even necessarily directly related to an employee's profession. One can study to get an advanced degree (or more likely a college degree... many here have not accomplished much more than a semester or two of higher education... yes that sounds odd, but this is a small market with a limited employee pool).

The usual trend for most schools is that in order to award a Bachelor's degree, one must have a well-rounded education. In other words, apart from studying something which is more overtly practical (e.g. Computer Science), the student should also study subjects such as literature, history, biology, sociology, etc. This requirement appears in direct opposition to the interests and mind-frames of many adult students studying to advance their careers.

As a result of this, I get to hear some amusing theories about the "idiocy" of the professors actually trying to teach something to people who only want the degree. As academics tend to be somewhat arrogant in thinking that their approach to knowledge is superior to the untrained gathering of information, similarly those who have not been schooled in a sanctioned method tend to see academics as a bunch of cloistered fools, who understand little of the real world. Though admittedly there is some truth to this (many of those in academia have never held what I would call a real job), there is something to be said about the rigor of learning things which are not necessarily clearly defined by ones clearly specified interests.

For instance, if a person is to engage in a serious argument or discussion, it makes for a much better and valid debate if one understands some of the basic rules of logic, and how to avoid logical fallacies. One should understand the difference between an argument and contradication.

There is one particular individual with whom I work, who shall be known henceforth as the Gorn.

The Gorn has an amusing worldview... a complilation of right-wing rhetoric mixed with fierce independence. Don't get me wrong... he's a very intelligent person at matters which interest him; he understands databases and logic as it applies to business and systems, however beyond that, he has blinders which prevent him from learning something which does not fit in within his tightly held belief-system.

One day, the Gorn and I started "discussing" politics. Now though I tend to be somewhat left-leaning (partially due to my academic background, the way I was raised, and basic sense), I would much rather engage an intelligent person in discussion who strongly disagrees with my position than a person with whom I agree, but has no clear understanding of why they hold their views. I do not remember the exact issue that we were discussing but I do know that the level of this "discussion" was not on a particularly high level... the responses I was getting from the Gorn mostly tended to suffer from the ad homimem fallacy.

I got frustrated, as I wanted him to make a better argument for his point (I knew there had to be a better one than along the lines of "well you are reading the New York Times, of course you'd believe that liberal junk," or in response to a Paul Krugman article, a reply with something from Ann Coulter or the Drudge Report).

Hoping that I could at least get this discussion to the point where the arguments would meet each on some common ground, I stated, "You know there's a difference between a good argument and a bad argument."

To this, he replied, as if it was the most basic truth, "That's your opinion."

At this point my head nearly exploded, as I realized that a serious discussion with this individual was impossible.

So... stuck working with this person (who I actually like as a human being), I decided to keep a collection of some of the most amusing things he has said... here's a partial list of wisdom I have learned from the Gorn:

• "If you don't have talent or intelligence, that is your fault"
• After describing the story of Mellville's Bartelby the Scrivener, he simply replied: "he should have just been fired."
• DiHydrogen Monoxide is both a serious problem and not water.
• "We found WMDs in Iraq!"
• Also, apparently true wisdom does NOT consist of acknowledgment that we know nothing; it is knowing that you know the truth.
• And my favorite (uttered just the other day): “If a cop pulls a gun on me, I have the right to pull one on him!” (all I could do was laugh and say, "you go right ahead.")

Now of course, this is an extreme example... most people are not quite this absurd or adamant in their beliefs... they'd rather not even talk about that "boring intellectual stuff," however this particular person is highly regarded by this company, and quite likely to go far if he sticks around.

As one with 23 years of schooling, this kind of thing can be quite frustrating to experience on a daily basis. However, as this amount of education has led me to the same place as most of these other people with little more than a high school diploma, maybe I am the one who is the fool.

Working too Hard

What is it with the American obsession with work? Why is it that we feel we need to work night and day to have some sense of self-worth?

Look at this comparison with other countries:

Average annual vacation days per year:

Italy 42
Brazil 34
So. Korea 25
France 37
Britain 28
Japan 25
Germany 35
Canada 26
USA 13

Interestingly enough, not only do Americans have the least number of vacation days per year in the developed world, many Americans do not even use the time that is allotted them.

The other day I was working late because of a project that needed to be completed. Normally I do not enjoy taking overtime; I'd much rather be spending my time at home with various other activities which make me much happier, but this was necessary on this day. While there I noticed this one woman who happened to be staying at her desk fighting with a spreadsheet. In an attempt to be friendly, I engaged her in conversation...

"I hope you're remembering to log the overtime," I said, her best interests in mind.

"Oh, I promised the client that I would take care of this, so no," she said with a forced "sweet" smile.

It was as if she felt she was being a "better person" by working late. She also was not intending on telling the client. She has no personal relationship to this client. She just felt that giving up her freedom for several hours was the right thing to do, regardless of the fact that the client is in business and would very likely charge any of their clients for extra time spent.

Yes, she is a nice person, but to me this is ridiculous. There was no benefit for her in staying late without charging for the time; she would not get a promotion, raise, or anything of the sort for this type of behavior. She just felt that she was being nice, regardless of the fact that none of it would be appreciated. Also, this meant that she was keeping her family waiting for her at home.

Why do people do this? Is it masochism? Is it lack of imagination? Is it fear of the empty void that stares at us when we have a gap in our activies?

Even on our days off, most people seem to need to be doing something very much like work; working on their lawns, painting their houses, rearranging their furniture, building a new garage, re-siding the dog...

This is not healthy. It is likely to shorten our lives... it increases the chances of various serious health problems, from ulcers, to heart attacks to strokes. Americans are not alone in this. The Japanese (who incidentally take a good deal more vacation time than we do... see above chart). Have a word... Karoshi, which means "death from overwork."

We obsess over money, forgetting what it is for in the first place. We try to find higher paying jobs, that take up more of our time, and reduce the quality of life. We keep striving for some unacheivable ideal of success. In fact, if pressed, most people probably could not come up with a clear definition of what "success" actually is... we wouldn't know it if we got there. There would always be some new task that must be accomplished.

It seems to me (just my opinion, but many might agree) that maybe we ought to take advantage of the short time we actually have and try to find things we actually like doing... but I dont have time as I need to get back to work now.

The Corporate-Style Government

Not surprisingly, today President Bush approved John Bolton to be Ambassador to the United Nations via recess appointment, despite much criticism and concerns about his suitability for the post.

Partisan politics aside, why do I say this is no surprise?

In most large corporations, decisions are generally made via clear hierarchical control from the top down. Opinions from below might be considered, but rarely do they have much clout. Those that disagree publicly are either removed from their jobs or shunted off into dead-end positions with no further chance of advancement.

This administration is designed more like a corporate structure than any we have seen in our lifetimes. Decisions in this administration are made in a top-down fashion, without much concern for public opinion. Decisions are made much in the way that they are in a large corporation; in fact, George W. Bush is the first president with an MBA.

Since Bush took office, the White house has been described to be much more efficent and orderly than under Clinton; dissent is not tolerated... in fact it is outright punished. Questioning the decisions of superiors is generally responded to with a pink slip. For examples, see Paul O'Neill, former secretary of the treasury who criticized Bush's economic policy, or Colin Powell, who though he sacrificed his own political career for the sake of obeying the hierarchical government structure, found himself forced out of the Secretary of State position due to disagreements with the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld camp.

One need not be a direct member of the administration to suffer as a result of insubordination. Witness the payback against Joseph Wilson for pointing out inaccuracies in Bush's reasons behind going to war in Iraq- his wife was outed as a CIA agent.

This is also the case in congress; those not in league with the president or the leadership in the Republican party become rapidly "out of the loop" in decision making. Despite misgivings by Democrats and even a few influential Republicans about Bolton's qualifications, his appointment is pushed across simply because "that's what the boss wants."

Other comparisons to the corporate world come to mind. In the corporate world, there really is no such thing as privacy. All communications are subject to examination and control by the employer. This does make some sense, as often it can be considered necessary that employees be doing the work they are paid to do, and also to make sure that the company is not being misrepresented by reckless or dissatisfied individuals.

However, when this is applied to government policy, this can become quite unsettling to those who value the individual freedom which is supposed to be an integral part of what the United States is about. Witness many of the provisions of the PATRIOT act. Under the guise of looking out for terrorists, emails can now be monitored by the FBI. Library records can be searched (without the knowledge of those being investigated). Political dissent is seriously discouraged, and treated as a criminal act (during both Republican and Democratic conventions in the last election, protesters were limited to barbed-wire fenced enclosures out of site of any delegates).

Whether this trend to corporatization is part of a national cultural change remains to be seen. There has been evidence of this pattern for quite a while now... in 1992 Ross Perot got some 19% of the popular vote... he had no experience in government. His qualifications? Successfully running several companies in a top-down fashion.

Even more insidious is that the line between work and leisure is getting thinner. There is an ongoing trend within the corporate environment away from requiring people dress in business suits (tie and suitjacket), and toward "corporate casual." People now dress more like they do when away from work. It also used to be that people spent most of their social activity with people in their neighborhoods; now co-workers are more likely to provide that activity. The lines between work and leisure are getting thinner and thinner. More and more often people bring the office home, being required to cary laptop computers, cell phones and blue-tooth devices.

So when we see our governmental "CEOs" making unilateral decisions which will affect they way we deal with other companies (excuse me, countries), we should not be surprised. It could very well be that this is part of a large cultural change where work and home are no longer distinguishable.

I sure hope I'm wrong.

The Corporate Reality

The surreallistic transition from the study of complex organizations from an academic perspective to actually participating in such structures can take on truly Kafka-esqe proportions.

Max Weber, in his seminal esay, mentioned some of the irony of the way that power is located and exercised within bureacracies. He stated that, by necessity, detail of knowledge is more closely concentrated at the lower levels of the organization.

In other words, people who do the real work have far more knowledge of the subject matter than those who tell them to do it. This gives people some bit of power over the actual functioning of a company. However, this power is extremely limited... managers (in other words, those who simply move the pawns) have control over those who know more than they do. This can create a situation wherein a few individuals at the bottom can hold the organization hostage to their individual whims (at least at the micro-level). The problem is that this power is limited, and in direct contrast over the decisions made by management which often has no clear understanding of how actual work is produced.

In reality this can get in the way of the very efficiency that bureaucratic structures are designed to create. Individuals at the lower levels carefully guard their knowledge, both to maintain some sense of individual power, as well as to maintain some sense of job security. Meanwhile managers are continually finding ways of exercising their power for similar reasons

All of this may be very amusing from the academic perspective, however when caught in the midst of this, it ceases to be so. It can be downright hellish for many people... add in the lucidity of having observed from the outside first, it can feel like something right out of Dante's Inferno.

The incomplete idea

So, you ask, what was it specifically about the "thesis" that was causing me so much trouble? Let me see if I can recreate the basic concept (bear with me... this was 7 years ago).

Essentially, the major focus was an analysis of the social construction of American political attitudes towards unemployment, and how it should be dealt with from a policy perspective. The basic theoretical framework from which I was operating was a critique of the American culture of individualism.

Essentially, the idea was that the very idea which drives the "American Dream," that a person who works hard enough should be able to become successful ends up with some nasty side effects. If one assumes that hard work produces success, conversely one could easily come to the conclusion that someone who is not successful must therefore suffer from some form of inadequacy.

This is the case from both "conservative" and "liberal" sides of the American political spectrum. While the conservative assumes that failure is the result of some moral turpitude (i.e. laziness), the liberal assumes it has to do with the lack of adequate skills or training. Neither side acknowledges that that there may be structural problems which may prevent success (for instance, international economic competition which would provide cheaper labor than is available in the US could lead to increases in unemployment). Though both sides may give lip service to larger macroeconomic issues, essentially, due to our cultural framework, the assumption is that whether a person is able to work is more dependent on the individual.

Sure, it may be tough to find a job, but you just have to "try harder" or "get more education." Essentially all policy discussion must reside within a framework between these two perspectives. (For more information on this concept, see The Culture of Inequality by Michael Lewis.)

This, by the way, was in stark contrast to many European cultures that basically see individuals as members of a social class which was problematic in itself, as for many years it was difficult to move between different social strata (but this is a different point, so I will not digress at this time).

As for the thesis itself, the basic source was the congressional record. I was looking at discussions of a two major pieces of legislation which had to do with unemployment policy (The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act of 1986 and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which though mostly known for its limitations of the power of labor unions, affected unemployment policy as well). This is extremely dense stuff, and reading the masked political statements of various political blowhards became increasingly depressing.

However, regardless of all the evidence I was finding confirming my basic point, it was doing a number on my own sense of identity. See... I have never been what one would call a "joiner." I've never really been either a follower or a leader, but more of a friendly outsider watching from the sidelines. I've never felt very comfortable in groups, neither accepting the group-think mentality nor feeling particularly accepted by these groups either.

It was specifically the tenets of individualism that enabled me to get by from day to day. As I found myself critizing individualism, I found myself eliminating the only identity-space where I actually found comfortable. As a result, I found myself unable to continue from this perspective. Though halfway through this thesis and with the near-ability to have at least something to show from all these years of school, I found myself unable to continue...

so I ventured off on my own... more about this later.

How it Happened

Okay, I guess by way of introduction, I should probably explain how I ended up in this situation. To begin with, I will, following the standard grad-student habit of spending an immense amount of time writing a preface... well, preface myself.

Twenty-three plus years of schooling should have prepared me better for dealing with the real world, right?

you laugh... "silly academic," you say... "of course the hallowed halls of learning barely prepare one for the dog-eat-dog world of trying to make a living... most people do not progress much further than the standard required or recommended years of schooling. Why should they let those they generally disliked, those bookworms, those teacher's pets, those A-students... those people who made them look bad actually define the world?"

... and of course you'd be right.

The arrogance of those with (what some might call) too much education ill-equips them for the regular rat-race. Most of those are smart or clever enough to find themselves a nice comfortable little niche within the ivy-covered walls, where they are able to read, write, discuss and argue amongst each other about immensely important concepts and ideals which appeal to none except themselves.

However... for those of us who never quite "fit in," or lacked the confidence to continue, or who left those halls for whatever reason (anger, disillusionment, failure, etc) are then doomed to exist in a world where we are both over-educated and under-socialized for jobs which fail to challenge, around those who see us as nerdy, irrelevant, out-of-touch pests.

Okay, okay... enough of pretending that I speak for others... this is about my own journey.

Hope I don't bore you... as of course there is more prefacing to come.

Basically what you will see here is anything that follows from the above premise... this includes social and political observation, rants about work, and anything else that flows from my incomplete mind.

... some time ago, after some four years of floundering around attempting an entry into the academic field of sociology, I discovered that I no longer agreed with the basic tenets of my thesis. Though the foundations of the theory seemed solid, I found that I could no longer incorporate these views with my own identity... as a result I exited the world of academia and foolishly attempted to brave the "real world"... these are the results.

As I attempt to navigate through my own confusion and alienation within the under-paying, humiliating, and ultimately baffling corporate world, I will be using this space to keep track of the various thoughts, rants, fantasies and other insane musings that populate my so-called reality.

stay tuned...