Newsweek has a great article about how the down economy is actually helping change the culture of corporate America, by encouraging more flexible workdays:

Now, one in five Americans works mostly nonstandard hours—nights, weekends, or rotating shifts. Experts believe that statistic will balloon in coming years as the Great Recession accelerates a cultural shift in the corporate world, allowing more employees to tailor their work schedules to preference, position, and personal life.

One explanation for this shift has to do with changes in industry, as the economy becomes “less reliant on manufacturing and more dependent on so-called knowledge-based industries,” that don’t require rigid shift schedules.

But another explanation – not mentioned directly in the article – but discussed by Katty Kay and Claire Shipman in their book Womenomics is that more “employers are introducing alternative work schedules, furloughs, unpaid vacation time, and reduced schedules specifically in response to the economic situation.  These firms see flexibility as a way to keep up morale and avoid mass layoffs.”

The fact is employees value time and flexibility, often as much as money.

Certainly, professionals often have more choices – and more flexibility – than other workers.  That’s why men and women benefit when we allow employers and employees to enter freely into contracts that suit both parties’ needs.

Too often we’re eager to regulate the workplace to make it more “fair.” But in reality anti-discrimination legislation and other burdensome regulations actually end up making the cost of employment higher and reducing flexibility.  And that’s enough to drive you crazy if you let it…

Now, mid-June, Gallup finds that the President’s job approval rating is 46 percent. Just two days after the President’s Oval Office address, Rasmussen Reports found 61 percent of voters “view the president’s handling of the oil leak crisis as poor.”

Near double-digit unemployment, robust opposition to the health care overhaul, an unrelenting war in Afghanistan, and now the BP oil spill has generated consistent bad press for the president. More and more, his critics claim he is ineffectual.

The president is in trouble, and many wonder whether he can escape from what seems to be political quicksand. No matter the speech he gives, pundits and political elites just keep repeating that he is sinking — and quickly.

In the bible of public-opinion research, The Nature and Origin of Mass Opinion, John Zaller demonstrates that periodically the “flow of political communication really is…heavily one-sided.” By examining shifts in public opinion after the flow of political communication becomes two-sided, he demonstrates that public opinion is the product of information flowing from elites to the masses.

Over the course of the past few months, elite discourse has almost unanimously declared that President Obama is faltering. And critics on both sides have hit the president. Free-marketers have lambasted Obama for the stimulus package, the new health care law, and his decision to stop off-shore drilling in the wake of the oil spill.  But criticism is not limited to the right. The MSNBC chastisement following the president’s address on Tuesday night certainly did not go unnoticed.  In effect, there has been a one-sided, decidedly negative, flow of information to the American public.

One problem Obama is learning is that campaign rhetoric can’t carry a presidency.   As Greg Sargent explains in the Washington Post yesterday, the public doesn’t care that Obama hasn’t shown more emotion or anger over the Gulf oil spill. Rather, they’re “concerned about the substance of the response.”

If the president wants to interrupt the conversation, in which an elite consensus has emerged around the “belief” that Obama is faltering because of his inability to act effectively, he needs to demonstrate his leadership – strongly and consistently. This is the only way he’ll generate a two-sided flow of information and change the conversation.  If he does that, the White House can expect a clear, decisive upswing in the public’s approval of the president.

Japan is in a bit of financial trouble these days.  The country holds one of the largest government debt loads in the world, yet Japanese households are buying fewer government bonds than in the past.

That’s why the government is trying to appeal to young, single men and encourage them to buy bonds because, as they promise in one of their ads, “men who hold JGBs are popular with women!”

Another ad flaunts a young woman asserting, “I want my future husband to be diligent about money…Playboys are no good.”

It’s hard to know if their ad campaign will get them out of the red, but it sure is good communications!

A new movement to reinvent the modern American cemetery is making its way across the country.  According to news reports, burial grounds are tired of their teary-eyed reputation, so they’re shedding this forbidding face for something a little, well, livelier.

When it comes down to it, it’s all a matter of perspective.  As one Colorado cemetery manager told a local reporter, “People come to cemeteries, and they are always looking down.”  But if they looked up, they might notice the century old history, plant life and culture that infuse the graveyard.

The trend is not simply to offer tours, like the ones you can arrange at cemeteries like Père Lachaise in Paris or Arlington National Cemetery outside Washington, DC. Instead it’s to turn the focus away from death and toward – for lack of a better word – life.

Fireworks, jazz concerts, and art exhibits are some of the kinds of social events cemeteries are planning to help draw in visitors.  Friends will be encouraged to take pleasure in the historic trees and rose gardens that flank many burial grounds. And many cemeteries are hoping to be a place where communities can gather in times of joy, rather than sorrow.

In Washington, we might call it spin. But cemeteries are refashioning themselves in a new light – hoping they can be a place of solemnity, as well as inspiration.

While this argument holds across many different policy debates, it is particularly apparent when it comes to the issue of global warming.  New numbers released by Rasmussen Reports this week found that 40 percent of respondents blame global warming on human activity, while 44 percent blame long-term planetary trends.

At first glance it appears the public is becoming less sympathetic to the man-made global warming claim.  But when you look closer at the numbers, that’s not quite the case. While respondents remain skeptical about the man-made effects of climate change, there has actually been a seven-point increase in the number of respondents who “feel human activity is causing global warming.” And while 44 percent blame long-term trends for climate change, this is actually the lowest level measured since June of last year.

These conflicting numbers reinforce Converse’s thesis, showing just how disorderly the public’s thinking is when it comes to the issue of climate change. On one hand, global warming activism has clearly had an effect on mass opinion. Yet polls suggest voter’s belief systems remain malleable.

At the White House Writers Group we realize sometimes breaking through the political noise and understanding complicated policy prescriptions requires a little help. But by determining the best message, using the appropriate tools, and reaching the right audience, we can help you move public opinion in your direction.

Respect for the holiday doesn’t appear to be correlated with views toward the military.  In fact, 74 percent of respondents claim to have a favorable opinion of the U.S. military, and 40 percent say they have a relative or close friend who lost their life serving the nation.

But what other holidays might trump Memorial Day? July 4th, perhaps. Thanksgiving, a good possibility.  But Labor Day? Columbus Day? Doubtful.

Perhaps the modest support for Memorial Day has less to do with the meaning of the holiday and more to do with the loss of meaning.  54 percent of adults told Rasmussen they plan to do something special to celebrate the holiday.  I was certainly one of those people who took advantage of the long weekend to attend a BBQ and spend time splashing in the water with my children.

But with weak numbers like these, I think next year our family is going to do a little more memorializing and a little less celebrating.

There are lots of ways for individuals to communicate their opinions – write an op-ed or a letter-to-the-editor, donate money to political parties or candidates, and vote. But I told listeners one of the best ways for citizens to make their voices heard is by engaging in political conversation.

It made me think about a book I read by Katherine Cramer Walsh, an Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin, Talking About Politics: Informal Groups and Social Identity in American Life.

According to Walsh, small groups can influence individual’s understanding of politics.  Contrary to many in the political science literature who claim opinion is a top-down phenomenon, in which messages are directed by elites, Walsh presents a different picture.  While elite media frames might help the average citizen make sense of an otherwise complicated policy, Walsh argues that people do not necessarily blindly accept these interpretations.  Rather, the act of communicating with friends and family has a significant impact on public opinion.

Communication comes in many different forms. But sometimes sitting around and shootin’ the breeze is the best way to make an impact.

According to the survey, 64 percent of Americans view being a mother as “the most important role for a woman to fill in today’s world.” Perhaps not surprising, “women are more likely than men to think being a mother is their most fulfilling role.” Yet, opinion does not differ between those who have and don’t have children living at home.

These findings come on the heels of another interesting survey conducted by the Pew Research Center that revealed some striking changes in the demography of motherhood in the United States over the past two decades.

Compared to mothers of newborns in 1990, mothers today are older and more educated.  Today there appears to be a lower rate of teen pregnancy than in 1990, and an increase in mothers over the age of 35 – and that’s across all race and ethnic groups.

One of the most striking findings in the Pew study was that today 41 percent of mothers are unmarried. When this number is broken down, non-marital births are highest among Black women (72%), then Hispanics (53%), Whites (29%) and Asians (17%). Interestingly, however, the increase has been greatest among whites, whose out-of-wedlock births grew by 69%.

As a native of a Los Angeles suburb, I’m deeply familiar with the sign that punctuates the Chapparral Hollywood hillsides.   It’s certainly not a work of art; but it is a landmark.

Not many people probably know that the original sign – ironically an advertisement for a housing development – read Hollywoodland.  Dedicated in July 1923, the first letters were each 30 feet wide, 50 feet tall, and studded with 4000 light bulbs.  The developers only intended for the sign to be temporary, but the rise of American cinema in Los Angeles helped turn this advertisement into an attraction.

It didn’t take long before the sign began to be the source of trouble. Suicides, car accidents, vandalism – HOLLYWOOD had it all.   So in the late 1970s several industry moguls – including rocker Alice Cooper and Playboy publisher Hugh Hefner –replaced the deteriorating sign with something more permanent.

So it’s no surprise that so many movie tycoons rushed to rescue the sign again this week. (Hugh Hefner provided nearly $1 million himself.) In many ways, the HOLLYWOOD sign reflects America’s zeitgeist – both past and present: promise land, hope, opportunity, fame, and wealth.  As it turns out, saving HOLLYWOOD is about a whole lot more than saving a sign.

Compared to the Kennedy-Johnson years, when public trust in government reached nearly 80 percent, today that number has dropped below the 25 percent mark.  Increasingly, Americans claim to want to curtail government growth and limit its power.

While big-picture economic and political explanations abound, one researcher at Claremont Graduate University believes there may be a biological component, as well. Professor Paul Zak recently told NPR that the chemical oxytocin administered by the brain allows us to determine whom to trust.  His research has demonstrated that by increasing the amount of oxytocin an individual receives, the more trusting he or she becomes.

So, as Zak told NPR, he began to wonder, “How much does this scale up?” To what extent could biology – or, oxytocin – affect the public’s trust in government?  As it turns out, people who received more oxytocin did report trusting other people more and those same individuals also claimed to trust their government more.

But, perhaps more telling, is that trust in government usually decreases during periods of economic hardship – that’s when the public is generally exposed to prolonged periods of stress.   And stress, Zak says, is toxic to oxytocin. Stress inhibits the release of oxytocin, which therefore decreases public trust.

So while Republicans and Democrats will both try to explain this recent rebuff of Uncle Sam, perhaps one of the best explanations doesn’t bear any partisan weight at all.