Replicants

The other day I graded oral presentations given by accounting majors here at the midwestern university where I work. (This is part of my "moonlighting" job; my primary job at the moment is teaching two introductory literature courses.) The students had to create a "Balance Sheet Scorecard" for some company of their choosing, and present this to the class. I learned a few things:

First, one group presented on Aldi Foods, a midwestern discount grocer that keeps its prices low by carrying no name-brand goods, by keeping goods in boxes rather than arranging them nicely on shelves, by forgoing coupons, glossy advertisements, and all those damned stickers all over the shelves in most grocery stores. In short, Aldi is a grocery store that's geared to serve the working poor, primarily. Now, it was interesting to me that these Accounting students would choose to study this company, since it's rather unlikely that any of them come from the kind of income bracket that would shop at Aldi. Be that as it may, the group claimed that Aldi differentiated itself from its competitors by offering "the highest quality goods at the lowest possible prices." This is what stumped the class. How can Aldi claim to have the highest quality goods when it doesn't carry any name brands? they wanted to know. Why would people choose to shop at a place like Aldi when they could just go to County Market instead? I kid you not; the class honestly seemed stumped. My takeaway: These accounting students have zero knowledge of or interest in the class and wealth disparities in America. These people believe they are all middle class, and everything not "middle class" is invisible to them—like it doesn't exist.

Second, another group presented on Cadillac. Significantly, this group consisted of five men and one woman. They kicked off with a sort of mock commercial (complete with soundtrack) describing Cadillac's new models. One guy was the emcee, energetically extolling all the virtues of the cars, while his "assistant" strutted around the class with matchbox versions of each car; the assistant then posed up front holding the matchbox car aloft at different angles while the emcee finished discussing it. And do you think the "assistant" was one of the other 4 guys? Of course not; the assistant was the only woman in her group. Ok. That should be enough, right? But it gets better (or worse, actually): Each member of the group then spoke, the woman first. The woman ran her own slides (accounting students are addicted to powerpoint and all things M$), advancing them as she went, while all the men in her group stood back and watched her. Then, as each man was speaking, the woman stood beside him smiling and advancing his slides for him. I could not tell that anyone found this remarkable. I found it offensive.
My takeaway: These accounting students are either blissfully unaware of or consciously perpetuate patriarchal gender stereotypes. (And ok, I know there are some people out there that hear the word "patriarchy" and immediately dismiss whomever is saying it and whatever he/she might be saying, but, well, what other word is there to describe this?)

Overall takeaway for the day: Accounting majors (and Finance majors, in my experience as a teacher of business writing and lit classes) are replicants. At least at this university. They are the most rule-bound, normative, and complacent students I've known or worked with. They are also the most self-righteous about their values and beliefs. They don't just accept the status quo in all things, they embrace and extend it. It's scary and sad, but that's business for you, isn't it? This is exactly what these people are trained to do—establish norms and enforce them vigorously. And that's why it's so scary that the norms they're apparently all too ready to enforce are norms of social injustice, and gender and economic inequality. What's wrong with business in the United States? These are the future Harvey Pitts. And incidentally, my university's accounting program used to be a major feeder for Arthur Anderson Consulting. When I got here three years ago, a large number of my business writing students told me their dream in life was to work for Arthur Anderson, since so many of their predecessors in the program (and their friends) were already working there. But I'm just a grader...

Posted 09:37 AM | general politics

Under Cover of Election

While most of the country, and certainly the media, has largely been preoccupied with the elections, the Bush Administration has quietly been doing its dirty work. That work includes continuing preparations for war [via Two Tears In a Bucket] and pulling together a long action agenda [via E Pluribus Unum] to radically change life as we know it in the U.S. The changes the Republicans plan—and which we will surely see—are radical, but they are also brilliant for being largely incremental advances and intensifications of steps we've already taken down these "conservative" roads, therefore they won't look so radical to the average American. As Joe Conason says:

From drilling in Alaska to regressive taxation to unilateral war, the agenda of the corporate and religious right will shape our future.

Again, I say, the people who will suffer most from this agenda are the proverbial "least among us," who are not even on the Bush radar screen. (See today's "The Boondocks" to see what I mean. Sorry, I can't find a permalink, so just look for the strip from 11/6/02.)

Update: I recommend Jason Rylander and Jeff Cooper for more good links and commentary on the election.

Posted 02:11 PM | general politics

Black Tuesday

It's hard to imagine how Republicans could be much happier about the outcome of yesterday's elections, or how Democrats could be more disappointed. But there should be no disappointment among Democrats; yesterday's ugly defeat should come as no surprise. They have reaped what they've sown. They've shown no leadership, and garnered few followers. Last week William Greider called for a change in Democratic leadership, and that would seem necessary, except in order for Democrats to change leaders, they'd need to have a few in the first place. I tried to convince people to vote, but honestly it was difficult to find concrete reasons and examples from recent history of why anyone should support the Democratic party. Except for a few notable rebels (such as the few who voted against the resolution authorizing unilateral force against Iraq), Democrats have acted in the last two years as if they don't have a single thought in their heads or principle in their hearts. And since they've voted according to what do the polls say, I can only assume that for the next two years we'll not only have a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, but we'll also have a me-too/what-they-said Democratic minority constantly playing catch-up.

Meanwhile, as I listen to this morning's news reports, I hear snippets of victory speeches from Republicans like Jeb Bush and Elizabeth Dole, and what's most striking is that they sound like I'd expect Democrats to sound, saying things like "we're going to help working families, and reduce domestic violence and make sure mothers can get good child support and we're going to take care of the minors and nurses and custodians, etc." Those used to be Democratic lines; now they come from Republican mouths because the Republicans have learned that campaign rhetoric need not have any correspondence to political reality once they're elected. So we can look for more military spending, more "wars" on god knows what or whom [1], more attacks on the rights of women to control their lives and bodies, and more handouts and giveaways to corporations—especially oil and energy corporations. And if you think any of this is going to help women and poor working families (or make Americans or the world safer or more secure in any sense of that word), I've got a whole bunch of bridges to sell you.

In a comment to my last post (below), Muraii explains that he didn't vote because he didn't have time to keep up with issues and candidates:

I think this is a significant factor in the apparently decreasing voter turnout year in and year out. Americans, at least, are working longer hours than ever before to achieve our standards of living. Families are especially hit logistically, I think, because there are all sorts of issues (child care, education, etc.) which affect them more directly, and this only makes the task of becoming an informed citizen that much more daunting.

Muraii is correct: Working people often simply don't have time to stay informed, and the partial and inaccurate information found in the mainstream press doesn' t make that any easier. But the fact that people work harder and longer to maintain their standard of living is no accident of history, instead, it's a direct result of tax cuts and increased corporate spending, both of which decrease public spending, the kind of spending that might provide child care and/or health care for those working Americans, so perhaps they wouldn't have to work so damned hard to make ends meet.

One more reason Americans either don't vote or don't vote in an informed way is that, simply put, keeping up with politics and world developments is bloody depressing. (Negative television ads only exacerbate this problem.) Compared to some people, I only half keep up and today, thinking about the implications of these elections and the possible future we face at the hands of a completely Republican Congress—frankly I'm terrified and probably about as despondent about life in general as I've ever been. And I know that if I just tune it all out and concentrate on books and television and movies and work and all the other nice distractions of our contemporary world, I won't have to feel so depressed anymore. My life will go on, even if lots of Iraqi lives don't. So it's no wonder average Americans remain uninformed; it's difficult and dirty work trying to be otherwise, and what's the payoff? (Of course, if everyone committed to do this work, in time things might get better and the work would neither be so arduous or dirty, but....)

So I'm wondering if the silver lining here is that the Republicans will now have enough rope to hang themselves by 2004. With majorities in both houses, perhaps their irresponsible economic plans and their cowboy foreign policy will mess up our economy and our world to such an extreme degree that the American People^TM will finally get angry and demand change. [2] The trouble with that as a "silver lining" is that it suggests the world is going to get a great deal more ugly before it gets better. I hope I'm wrong.

And finally I wonder: Is it time for that third party yet? The Greens, perhaps?

Footnotes:
[1] Now we kill by remote control. Note how differently this is being covered by the Glasgow Herald (UK) and USA Today, then ask yourself how so many Americans could vote for the party of war while the rest of the world is appalled by U.S. military actions. The different coverage of issues like this helps explain, at least to me, a lot of that disparity. Americans who rely on the mainstream press for their news are simply not getting an unbiased or anywhere near complete story, and we all know politicians are liars, so people simply don't have the information necessary to make good decisions about voting.

[2] The fact that people aren't angry is shocking and significant, and is obviously working in favor of Republicans. Perhaps voters don't want to blame anyone because, post 9-11, simple cause-effect connections seem harder to make. There's certainly something to that (hello postmodern world), but it doesn't help that no one is pointing fingers at Republicans (which is what the Democrats should have been doing for a long time now, polls be damned).

Posted 07:54 AM | Comments (2) | general politics

Vote for Peace

Here's a good idea from my email box:

Damu Smith, of Black Voices For Peace, has sent out a call to action to influence tomorrow's elections. Mr. Smith believes voting is an essential part of the American political system, and that people must vote as one way to affect change. To this end, he is mobilizing a Peace At The Polls action, encouraging people to go to the polls and vote for candidates in support of peace.

"Black Voices For Peace urges all people of conscience to go the polls tomorrow and cast a vote for Peace with Justice at home and abroad," says Mr. Smith. "That means, vote for candidates who are against war and who are for education, health care, jobs and human needs at home. Last week, thousands of us marched in the streets in scores of cities around this country, making known our opposition to war; now in the thousands, we need to march to the polls and make our voices heard for peace and justice. In the streets and in the voting booth, we have make our voices heard.

"Black Voices For Peace urges everyone to vote for those Senators and Congress Members who did not support Bush's latest war resolution. This will send a message to all that we support those who support peace and justice."

The email goes on to quote Michael Moore saying "the choice is no longer between the lesser of two evils, but the evil of two lessers." Funny, but also sadly true. Still, I don't see how not voting will improve the situation. Politics is usually a game of inches, not miles. If one candidate is just a hair's width better than the other, it seems to me the better candidate should get your vote. If we wait until we get a chance to vote for people we admire and trust and who we can support unconditionally, we'll be waiting a lot longer than we'll have the right to vote. So I encourage you to take Mr. Smith's advice (above) and Vote for Peace. As Jesse Jackson says, "We can go a better way." I hope you'll all do your part to see that we do.

Posted 09:07 PM | Comments (1) | general politics

While I Was Sleeping

I spent a bit of time today catching up on blogs I haven't read in weeks, and in some respects it feels like I missed a lot—discussion of Senator Wellstone's tragic death, lots of thoughts on upcoming elections, the Microsoft anti-trust indecision, etc.—in other respects, not so much. The more things change...

Really, it looks like some of the biggest news in "blawgdom" recently has been "girls club." Check out Alice's thoughts, as well as her link to this great summary of the first episode of the show. Even Professor Cooper is somewhat sad to see the show has been cancelled, since it provided good fodder for teaching.

On a more sobering subject, Cooper links to Dahlia Lithwick's recent column in Slate, "Free the Baby Lawyers!". While it's good to be reminded of why I don't ever want to work for a firm (even though I realize I may have to, maybe, for a little while), it's scary and sad to get this inside look at big-firm life. According to Lithwick, after associates at Clifford Chance were asked for suggestions on how to improve their lives at the firm, all they could come up with was a lame "more perks and toys" response. Lithwick writes:

Associates in law firms knowingly sign away their health, leisure time, and relationships for a monstrous salary and hefty bonuses. This is not news. What is news is that the associates at Clifford Chance ask for both too much and too little. They want law firm life to be about more than just the commodification of their time, even when it is. And yet faced with an opportunity to reclaim their lives, they are willing to settle for a "hi" in the hallways and a better-appointed cage.

I see the beginnings of this myopia in my students every day. They seem to have no sense of a life or values outside of work and dollars. Somehow our culture seems to have produced a generation that has never stopped to ask the big metaphysical questions: What is the meaning of life? Why am I here? What is my purpose on this planet? Or if they have asked those questions, all the answers seem to be translated into dollar signs. (The decline in paper delivery boys and girls carrying their own papers must have something to do with this. It's like a cosmic connection, I tell ya.)

The comments following Lithwick's piece are also very enlightening, as "baby lawyers" rant about the hardships of paying for law school and the Faustian bargains they've made with firms to do so. See also this discussion among associates—especially this post from a teacher-turned-lawyer who says the pressure in teaching is greater than he's ever felt as a lawyer; amen to that, brother! And also this inspirational post and the thread that follows it—such comments give me hope that I'm not being completely naive to think I can avoid the young lawyer's Faustian bargain by taking advantage of my school's LRAP.

The discussion on Slate seems to rage on. See, for example, this thread that suggests that, in real terms, NY associates who make $125k/year are really making the equivalent of $42k/year, when you've accounted for all the time they're putting in. Or this advice: Don't go to law school. Hmmm. The replies to that one are more encouraging.

Posted 01:51 PM | Comments (1) | law school

State of the Union

This morning when I was out walking the dog, I saw my neighbor delivering newspapers. This neighbor is probably 11 or 12 years old, and every morning he gets up to roll and throw his papers. But he doesn't get up alone; one of his parents also gets up with him to drive him along his paper route. The family owns a Toyota Corolla, a Ford Explorer, and a restored 1940s Ford pickup. It's usually the dad who drives on the paper route, and he usually drives the Explorer, but sometimes the pickup. The kid sits in the back of whichever vehicle, the vehicle's tailgate up (in the case of the Explorer) or down (in the case of the pickup); the kid's legs dangle outside the vehicle as it moves down the road, so he's always ready to spring out and deliver a paper to the next house when the vehicle stops. But I've never seen him spring. Instead, he waits for the vehicle to stop, then typically reaches slowly for a paper before he saunters up to the door to drop the paper, then return slowly to the vehicle. I see this nearly every day, and I'm reminded that this is what we've come to as a people: We use our least fuel-efficient vehicles to drive our kids around their paper routes so they can make $5-10/day. I wonder: What is this paper boy learning from this experience?

Does this matter? Maybe not. Perhaps it just strikes me as significant because I actually delivered newspapers for nearly 10 years—from age 9 to age 18. During that time I always had at least one morning route, sometimes two; and for a couple of years when I lived in Iowa I had both a morning and an evening route (two different papers—the Des Moines Register was the morning paper, and the local paper, the name of which now escapes me, was an evening paper). And I'll admit that there's no way I could have delivered papers that long without lots of help and encouragement from my family. For many years, in fact, my mom and sister also had paper routes, so we'd all get up together and help each other to get our jobs done. Sometimes my mom would drive me to the start of my route, which was about a mile from my home. My mom also provided vital help with collections and keeping the books for my routes, so I couldn't have done it without her. Still, the only days I accepted a ride around my route were when the temperature was less than 40 degrees below zero (that usually happened a few times per year in Wyoming), or when I was injured and unable to walk or bike the route. So I know I sound like an old goat to be even talking about this, like the cliche of the old man complaining to the younger generation, "When I was a kid we didn't ride busses, we walked to school—uphill both ways! And we liked it!" I don't mean to sound like that. But still, these parents driving a lazy looking kid around his paper route every day just strikes me as a sad waste. I really think the whole Protestant work ethic is overrated, but still....

Posted 12:35 PM | general politics