« January 2013 | Main | March 2013 »
Posted in Quotes | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Like many other people exposed to human congestion and the environmental deterioration of big cities, I got hit by a terrible flu. So, for quite some time I could only summon enough strength to drag my ass to work (THAT show, of course, must always go on). Hence, as reactions to the Golden Globes broadcast go, this post is definitely outdated. On the other hand, my sentiments are unlikely to change, so it's just as well...
Nearly every time I go abroad, I am exposed to various degrees of anti-American attitudes. Last time I was entering London's National Gallery, I had to watch American flags being set on fire on Trafalgar Square. In most European countries, economic and social difficulties are openly blamed on the US by both official and popular opinion-makers. People shamelessly gloat every time we have a natural disaster and entertain themselves with predictions of our imminent economic and moral destruction. Even in Amsterdam's coffeeshops (aka hash bars), where the consumption of various cannabis products is supposed to make customers laid-back and agreeable, the hostility flares up at the sound of an American accent. I'm not going to venture into the anti-US mood swings of many Asian, African, and Latin American Nations - it would require a separate series of posts.
Individuals and nations alike have a need to absolve themselves and blame someone else for their troubles. The wealthiest country in the world full of fucked up crap (as a true patriot I never deny problems) makes for an easy target. But why don't they first stop going to McDonalds, watching our movies, googling, and tabulating in Excel? And, please, stop blaming us for Justin Bieber! He is Canadian, for crying out loud!
The truth is that there is only a small contingent of people in the world who are capable of forming their own opinions even about matters close to their own homes, leave alone those far removed. The majority, like a flock of sheep, rely on judgments presented by someone else through various media outlets. Make no mistake: foreigners are just as susceptible to the brainwashing powers of newspapers, magazines, and TV as our domestic masses.
Prominent journalists and commentators have a tremendous influence on the attitudes of their nations, especially in smaller countries. Moreover, it's a reciprocal relationship: as reading and viewing audiences become more receptive to particular sentiments, the media purveyors cater to their likings in order to retain their own popularity.
Enter Foreign Press... In general terms, any journalist who lives in the United States (the definition applies to any country, actually), but works for a public medium abroad, reporting on our domestic events, is a foreign correspondent. These journalists, most of them expatriates, impact the way people in other countries view America.
They usually conglomerate in major news hubs: New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, etc. In fact, I believe that New York Foreign Press Association, formed in 1918, is one of the oldest of such organizations. Yet, not too many people know about it.
However, many people around the world know about Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), even though it counts as its members only 93 journalists. Or, at the very least, people know about the awards they have been granting since 1944 for achievements in film and television - the Golden Globes. These reporters write on the subject that is most likely to attract the largest audiences - the United States entertainment industry. They represent 55 countries in Europe, Asia, Australia, and Central and South America. Wikipedia estimates their combined readership around 250 million (!). And, boy, do they have an agenda!
I can probably write another dissertation breaking down the clever and camouflaged ways they perpetuate their purposes: why Argo and not Zero Dark Thirty; why Les Miserables and not Silver Lignings Playbook, or Moonrise Kingdom; why Homeland (even though 100% deserving, but also perfectly fitting in their scheme) and not Boardwalk Empire; why Episodes and Smash and not Curb Your Enthusiasm and VEEP. Why on Earth did they completely ignore a 2012 movie that not only celebrated the resilience of human spirit, but also raised a bar of creative filmmaking, while breaking the walls of the Hollywood bastion - Beasts of the Southern Wild?
Of course, I am not planning on writing a thesis. I just want to dwell a little on one question: Why the fuck did HFPA shove two Golden Globes into the grabby hands of Lena Dunham? Obviously, they had their reasons.
If one tries to think logically about this, it seems doubtful that the middle-aged-to-quite-old journalists from Egypt, Philippines, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil would pay any attention to a tiny show about a group of youngish hipsters, especially the one with ratings too low and viewership too small even by cable standards. But our own self-absorbed hipster-driven domestic media, in their unforgivable ignorance and blind confusion of values, served up Dunham as an overbuzzed gift. A handful of people with similar backgrounds proclaimed her to be the "voice of the generation" they really know nothing about. And that's a very dangerous claim.
HPFA took notice; rejoiced; said, "Much obliged!" and started parading this embarrassment to the whole world. Look, they say to their 250 million readers in various countries, these characters are what all young Americans are like: navel-gazing, purposeless, severely limited in their abilities and skills, obnoxiously bad-mannered, insincere, unaware, incapable of squeezing out of themselves one true emotion or an original thought. This is the American Future.
By allowing them this opportunity, Dunham did a great service to the foreign entertainment journalists. Therefore, she has totally deserved her two Golden Globes. By letting her climb on stage at the Beverly Hilton Hotel twice, they exposed her as a "new American entertainment and media darling." Look, they say, this is the person hailed as a breakthrough by culture commentators and "intellectuals" (God, forgive me, for calling them that!), talk show hosts, Hollywood producers, the art community and whatnot. They adore her, while in reality she is:
A "creator" without an ability to imagine characters, situations, or plots. She can only transfer to paper and/or screen her own personal existence or the lives of the poor exploited mother-fuckers who got caught into her sticky cobweb. If there is a need to invent something genuine, it's Jenni Konner (the actual coiner of "the voice of a generation" label) or Sarah Heyward to the rescue. On a few occasions Dunham ventures out of her comfort zone of the first-hand experiences, she steps right into the fuzzy cloud of her girly fantasies with an explosion of silliness. I swear, the only time Dunham made me laugh out loud was during the 5th episode of the 2nd season - what buffoonery! Honestly, in comparison, the wetly dreaming Dunham makes Stephenie Meyer look like a real creator.
A " writer," whose first published work will be a self-help book. What? No secret collection of innocent and fragile early poetry? Every respected author has it somewhere in their most private drawer. Of course, it probably wouldn't garner a $3.6 million advance. The real literature never does (see Arts and Entertainment by the Numbers - Books).
An "actress," who couldn't memorize her acceptance speech lines - the only winner of a Golden Globe with a piece of paper in her hand.
A "comedienne," who tries to be funny by reminding her fellow nominees how much younger she is and telling them that they helped her through middle school. Even though, I have to be honest - I cannot complain too much about that, because it gave Tina Fey a chance to write the funniest line of her career to date: "Amy, I know you since you were pregnant with Lena Dunham."
A "director" incapable of overcoming her personal feelings and give some screen time to her other "lead" characters, cutting out their best tidbits (which are just a few to begin with). You are right, Howard Stern, "she hogs the screen," and I have no idea what kind of strings she pulled to make you recant your true opinion of her.
A chameleon, who changes her attitudes depending on her PR management's recommendations. First, her characters were "reflections." Obviously, she was told that they were not very sympathetic. Now she says that the "girls" were exposed as being self-absorbed on purpose. The show gets criticized for being too white. Instead of admitting that she really has no people of color in her life, she throws Donald Glover into her hodgepodge... only to cast him away after two episodes. The PR whispers into her ear that she comes off as too sure of herself in all her interviews and talk-show appearances, and she starts screaming about her "confidence issues" every time she gets a chance. Seriously? I know quite a bit about self-doubt. You don't fool me.
A "nice girl" (as proclaimed by all), who in her conversation with the former It Girl, Miranda July, for Interview magazine openly admitted that she was a complete asshole as a school girl and a college student, and that now she adapted an equally "sweet" disposition towards everyone without any discrimination. Apparently, some people get confused assuming she is their friend.
A conniving manipulator, who undercuts all reasonable critics by calling them haters or qualifying them as shallow: "I'm a real person with a real body and that's why you don't like me."
What can I say? Even if the foreign press was a dark-magic cabal, they couldn't conjure a better poster girl for their purpose of showing the American future in the worst possible way.
Now, let's see. Do Girls' characters actually represent any portion of the 43 million Americans ages 20-29? Yes, they do - 800,000 hipsters residing in the big cities on the East and West Coast, who faithfully watch the show (the other 3 millions of viewers consist of the hipsters' parents, the media, and the cultural pundits). That's less than 2%!
Does Lena Dunham, who takes her voice (plus, face and body) of the generation role very seriously, actually represent anybody at all? Yes, she does - a handful of privileged kids, who were empowered by their well-connected parents to do whatever they wanted and were handed undeserving opportunities by the mafia of Nepotism.
And the saddest part is that dear Lena is not going anywhere. Nowadays, award-winning shows scattered all over the place: broadcast networks, FX, Showtime, etc. To keep the statuettes' numbers up, HBO will continue pouring money into products that attract foreign and domestic media attention, whatever the reason. They just picked up Dunham's new show idea for development. In return, she will keep upholding her family tradition by shoving her crap into everyone's face.
Look at that photo! This is what she does: like a fucking hamster on stilts she wobbles on the red carpets and in the back rooms, trying to imprint herself on as many "players" as she can, making the foreign press and their readers very happy.
Posted in Movies, Entertainment & Media, Nepotism, Social & Political Issues, Travel | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: 2013 Golden Globes, HBO Girls, Hollywood Foreign Press Association, Lena Dunham
The other day one young woman was telling me about her dinner with Mr. X. The man was not in a good place: he was being down on himself, feeling gloomy, dissatisfied, depressed.
I know a thing or two about Mr. X and even met him a few times. By conventional standards, he is, to put it mildly, a very accomplished and impressive guy. A self-made man, he has spent the last three decades propelling himself into a progressively narrower sector of the income-distribution pie. Forgoing leisure, he devoted most of his waking hours to his work: hundreds of companies successfully bought, restructured, guided to success, sold - efforts resulting in considerable wealth shared by him and his partners. Now, in his middle age, he is at the point, where the proverbial 1% seems to him like a large group of people with meager resources. Not only that he warranted the best opportunities for the future generations of his offspring, but he has the luxury to be generous to other individuals, and very charitable to organizations of important cultural value.
So, what could possibly make this strong, smart, and powerful person with a long list of achievements hate on himself? The destruction of the planet? The intellectual downfall of humanity? Maybe he feels inadequate as a parent? Those are universal equalizers that should make us all feel agitated. Should, but not necessarily do. As it turns out, it's his professional self-assessment: he feels that he could've done better for the partnership; that he didn't achieve his best results. He gives his performance a moderate grade of B+.
How curious... I constantly feel like a career failure as well. Only my reasons are sort of the opposite of Mr. X's. I know that I've given 110% to every job. From a purely academic standpoint, my professional efforts deserve nothing less than an A+. But, due to a huge entanglement of reasons, including my gender, I have never received matching rewards, was forced to accept comparatively inadequate compensation and insufficient recognition.
On the other hand, maybe my marks are always A+ because my undertakings are a tad below my true capacity. What if there were no obstacles and I would have opportunities to embark on Herculean tasks - the business pursuits of much larger magnitude? How would I do then? Would I still be able to impress? How would I feel about myself and my results?
Maybe the real reason we both feel so shitty about ourselves lies in the betrayal of our true destinies (or, at least, what we think they should've been). As a student, Mr. X was deeply affected by the brilliance of Marcel Marceau and was a part of a street-performing innovative circus troupe. And all I wanted to do since I was 15 years old was to write cultural critique - absorb, decipher, and opine on various art forms. Instead, both of us made a choice of going the practical route: killed the dreams and embarked on money-making pursuits (different amounts, same principle) in order to support our families. In his new book Missing Out, psychoanalyst Adam Phillips argues that we care about the lives we failed to live more than the ones we actually endure. Adam Phillips, dude, I feel ya!
Then again, let's say both Mr. X and I did have a chance to realize our wildest creative fantasies... but the only grades we could achieve were C's and D's. Or what if we received A's from others for doing what we loved, but inside our neurotic heads still felt that we had not risen above F's? What then?
We don't know. It's unlikely we ever will. Meanwhile, here we are: two very different individuals with incomparable pasts, presents, and futures, but virtually in the same imaginary place - a dingy dinghy with a sad name Gloomy Fool.
Posted in Coping Advice, Respect | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: depression, failure, professional dissatisfaction, self-respect, self-worth, unrealized dreams
"The strength of Siegfried, Parsifal, and similar characters lies in their not knowing the laws that rule the social world... The naive hero has a seemingly reckless and childlike disregard for social conventions. Ignorance of the status quo and so a lack of respect for it, is a great weapon with which to revolutionize the social order."
Gerd Gigerenzer
" Gut Feelings"
p. 221
Posted in Quotes | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
In accounting and auditing, first two months of a fiscal year (for most, January and February) make up a period of Subsequent Events, which are directly related to a company's previous year's Financial Statements. Goods listed as 12/31 inventory are (hopefully) selling; last year receivalbes are being collected; cash being disbursed for unpaid expenses that comprised your year-end payables and accruals. Financial auditors specifically target these post-12/31 sales, receipts, and payments to test the accuracy of the Financial Statements.
Business owners, most of them lacking formal accounting knowledge, are especially confused about the expenses: they see payments being made now for the last year's interests, services, and commissions, and it worries them that somehow the current period's profitability will be affected. Never mind that every year you explain to them that these items have been already recognized as expenses in the previous fiscal period through payables and accruals, and, therefore, impact only current cash flow, not the operational performance. Even the ones who don't ignore your explanations and, furthermore, remember some of the terminology you've used, can't help but be a little disconcerted.
So, let's say last week (a week of 02/11) you have approved a $75K commission payment due to a procurement agent for the fourth quarter of 2012. It requires a second signature - your boss's. Now, she sees the check and your approval. She knows your qualifications and what you've done for her company. Before meeting you, she didn't know anything about accounting and finance at all, but she has learned a great deal from you. Yet, she is a Business Owner - someone who is not capable of making an effort to overcome her impulses. The strength of the "I-pay-you" sentiment in her subconsciousness is empowering.
So, she comes to your office, announces the topic ("This commission check") and tries to formulate the question. First, she mumbles something about "the last year's income," and then the light bulb comes on in her head and she asks, "Was the expense accrued?"
Your mind is very fast and in a fraction of a second a swarm of neurotic, childish thoughts storms through your head: "Are you fucking joking me? This is from someone who had no concept of revenue and costs recognition? From someone who like a fucking bookie recorded everything when cash exchanged hands? You, bitch, didn't have proper records, reports, financial statements! Your tax returns were made up! Did you forget that the bank demanded you hire a CFO before they gave you the credit line? Now, everyone gets weekly, monthly, quarterly, annual reports and statements, thanks to ME! I pass audits and bank exams without anybody finding a single error or omission! How dare you!!!"
But you have two post-graduate degrees, 20 years of business experience, a book on CFO's functionality, 10 years of age, and a lifetime of hard knocks over this privileged pixie financed by her husband. So, you look her straight in the eyes and calmly, almost jokingly, say, "Are you checking on my work? Accruals and prepaids is what I do. This was a 2012 expense and, in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, it was recognized as such."
Look, the truth is you should not get upset at your bosses for who they are. "...Forgive them, for they know not what they do," and all that. I always say, they are like spoiled and unruly children, who cannot control themselves. And as long as you need the salary, you have to continue swallowing their shit pills.
I wish I could stop taking incidents like that personally. People with my intellect, background, knowledge, and experience - professional, psychological, cultural - should just brush it off. Yet again, if I was able to do it, I wouldn't have had this blog.
Posted in Bosses, Business, CFO Folklore, Dealing with People, Nature of the Job, Respect | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)
Tags: accruals, audits, financial statements, ignorant bosses, insulting bosses, keeping your cool with bosses, prepaids, subsequent accounting events