The Frustrated CFO

"I Built This Prison" Memoir Excerpt: "Ozark" Wendy Byrde Negotiates Her Compensation

"I Built This Prison",  Part I - Etiology of Crime, Chapter 3 - Delusions of Entitlement and Misconfusion of Rewards:

"In the episode 1.6 of Netflix’s original ‘Ozark’, desperate for money Wendy Byrde charges at her boss with an attempt of hostile earnings renegotiation (she is a pushy bird that Wendy Byrde, so it goes with the character). She notes that the sales are up 43% compare to the same month the previous year, while the only business change that took place was her hiring. Hence, she deserves a bonus that would correlate her compensation with her value(‼). Specifically, 50% of the income increase. They haggle and at the end the boss agrees to the bonus that together with Wendy’s salary amounts to one-third of the additional profits.

Fiction, of course. But, if the employers were actually inclined to evaluate and compensate their employees based on their tangible contribution into their businesses, the negotiations like that would be a common place. And maybe they are… somewhere. But I’ve never really witnessed anything like that. Well, something of the kind - once, fifteen years ago. But that was it.  

Of course, these are not exactly “negotiations” either. Wendy gives her boss an ultimatum because she has an upper hand - there is no comparable supply of labor in that God forsaken bumblefuck locale. There is like literally no one to do the same job – not on a half-ass, or quarter-ass, or even one-hundredth of an ass level. And so, her boss is not rewarding her for her contribution, he yields under the pressure of unfavorable market conditions.

An unimaginable situation for NYC (and I’m sure the same goes for all industrial centers), no matter what your field of expertise is! Here, an employer – even the one that is afraid out of his mind to lose you – deep inside knows that if you walk, he can find at least Somebody to fill the void. You, on the other hand, may drown in the competition searching for another place."

                                                                                                                          p.40

What Is "Class"? - the American Mis-Confusion

Cate Blanchett as Blanche DuBois, BAM 2009

So, somehow I overheard ( which is shocking, believe me, because I don't really expose myself to this kind of news) that a few weeks ago "people" (who are they? some social media trolls?) got upset with Cate Blanchett ("they" always have a tendency of being upset for all the wrong reasons) on account of her calling herself "middle class"... And I thought: Aha! An excellent opportunity to clarify a thing or two!

Let me first confess: I have never been a big fan of Cate Blanchett as an actress... She has a good screen presence, no matter the setting, but that's about it . And I've even seen her on stage a couple of times too... Including in Liv Ullman's production of A Streetcar Named Desire, nearly 15 years ago. The critics and the audience raved about it, of course, but, as far as I was concerned, she lacked the emotional fragility necessary for the portrayal of a woman broken in that specific way of Blanche DuBois. I even got  myself in trouble with my fellow BAM patrons by not restraining my opinionated ass on account of that performance...  

But no matter, no matter - as this is not about her acting. This is about her socio-political statements...

(And that's another thing: Why the hell do people always care so much about what the actors have to say about politics, or social structures, or international relations... Why the fuck the general public bothers itself with listening to  what Barbra Streisand, Bette Midler, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Madonna, or Cate Blanchett have to say about any of that instead of trying to utilize their own analytical capabilities and form their own opinions?)

So, here is how she described herself, while discussing her experiences of "working with refugees" (of some non-specific kind; yet, her Cannes' red-carpet dress speaks volumes with that bright and glossy forest-green inset she kept revealing): "I am white, I am privileged, I am middle class..." And somehow it wasn't the falsely apologetic tone of the whole thing, but the supposed mis-"classification" that got the people upset. Why? "They" explain: the actress's estimated net worth is $95 million. And "they" think that it disqualifies her as the "middle class".

Well, let's see... Even though half-American (on her father's side), Cate Blanchett was born, raised, and educated in Melbourne, Australia, and is encyclopedically considered an Australian actress. And in that country, as in all former and present parts of the British Empire, societal divisions are still very much defined by one's familial origins, the ancestry and the hereditary structures. It really has nothing to do with the size of one's coffers. There are two million millionaires in Australia - the prevailing majority of them are commoners. At the same time a blue-blood aristocrat can be dirt-poor. Therefore, by  these standards Blanchett is absolutely correct, deliberately honest, and entirely un-hypocritical - she is very much a middle-class product: mother's a teacher, father was a US Navy officer turned an ad exec.

Furthermore, the only American billionaire I knew personally (through a theater charity as a matter of fact) also tried to instill in his three children the idea that they were of the "middle class". He understood the hereditary class principles simply because his immense wealth placed him very close to the heart of the issue: he knew that his money didn't make him the upper-class.

And since we're talking about a screen/stage actor, here's an example from another frequently produced classical play - Anton Chekhov's The Cherry Orchard... Keep in mind that Russia had been a monarchy with centuries-old ancestral aristocracy up until just 107 years ago... The play's central psycho-social conflict is focused on the impoverished hereditary landowners unable to hold on to their estates, including the symbolically precious cherry orchards. Meanwhile,  the wealthy merchant Yermolai Lopakhin, with his peasant familial roots, understands only too well that, in spite of his hard work and all his millions, he can raise himself in the old societal class hierarchy only as far as the middle...  Just like the billionaire I've mentioned above... Let me reiterate: the wealth doesn't make one an aristocrat. 

Generally speaking, the monetary approach to defining societal classes is very much the New World's notion, which makes me believe that Cate Blanchett's self-appointed critics are predominantly American. Not surprising at all.

The fact that here, in the States, the vast majority of people consider personal wealth to be the primal factor of the class distinctions is the testimony to two attributes very particular to our country:

A. The strength of our democratic, equal-opportunity roots. In spite of all sorts of privileges and preferential treatments applicable to various and variably defined through the stages of our history societal groups; and with full acknowledgment of the suffocating nepotism that's been stagnating our progress for decades now - we are still the most democratic country in the world. The state built without castes, aristocratic substructures, and governing rights based on the land ownership. A nation, which believes that a self-made celebrity is equal to the blue-blood royalty. We see nothing especially special in Beyoncé/Jay Z meeting up and chatting with Kate Middleton/Prince William. Hip-pop royalty, sovereign royalty - same difference... 

B. Our preoccupation with money above everything else. And this one is a trait that affects pretty much every single aspect of our nation's existence - socio-economic, political, and intellectual - not just the interpretations of the societal segregation into classes.

Case in point:

"It is without a doubt a reflection of our society’s values that lesser punishments are doled out to those who take away someone’s innocence, or even life, than to those who take someone’s money."  

                                                                            I Built This Prison, Part III, p. 344

But let's assume for a second that everyone around the world adopted the American way of thinking and dismissed the old-world traditions of the class division entirely... For the moment, let's just focus exclusively on the money factor...

Does general public really think that all those doctors at struggling hospitals and private practices, faceless partners in large law firms, CFO's of the companies barely breaking even - that they are the middle class?! Why? Because they  make lower, or even mid, six-figure salaries? Let me disillusion you about that! In a larger scheme of things, we are all poor - from welfare recipient to an owner of a multi-million-dollar company with a $500K annual salary. Monetarily, we are all the struggling lower class, with just a slight difference in the purchasing powers. None of us can afford to fly everywhere in the first class (let alone the private jets), stay in suites of the 5-star hotels, dine in restaurants with Michelin stars, casually buy designer bags and suits (especially at today's prices)... Unless, of course, these luxuries are paid by some companies or some other persons... Moreover, children of the welfare recipients have better medical care through the states or the cities and broader access to the educational finances than those of the wage-paid parents...

And Cate Blanchett with her who knows how securely kept millions is somewhere in the median sector of the wealth curve... Truly of the middle class, no matter how you define the matter. Because the ones in the upper portion of the plentitude are what I call "the really rich people" - the sort of folks the dreamers insert into their billionaire fairy-tale romance novels.   

 

Disney Shareholders: Why Can't You Be More Like Netflix?

It's not an easy undertaking to make me laugh nowadays. Most of the time I'm just FINE (as in Frustrated [duh!], Insecure, Nervous, and Exhausted); the rest of the time I am severely distraught... And, of course, I meditate and do my best to cheer the fuck up... The vast music library helps; so does the good literature, quality entertainment... But, laughing - that's rare, very rare... Except for the news - some news snippets make me burst out laughing! And incidentally this particular hilarious bit also had to do with Entertainment... Or rather the business of it.

You see, Disney is in trouble... I don't need to regurgitate to you the whole stock-market mumbo-jumbo everyone else and their mothers write about, primarily focusing on the share prices, which are now below the level they were 10 years ago. Because the bottom line is fairly simple: The original Walt Disney Pictures isn't pumping out winners annually as they used to do. All those astronomical investments into hoarding the big-name franchises like Stars Wars (Lucasfilm) and Marvel  - in spite of the high profits per hit, don't really turn themselves into returns fast enough... And - most painfully in terms of the contemporary state of the entertainment marketing - the streaming arm Disney+ is not profitable at all.

Or, as I prefer to define it: Netflix it ain't.

What to do? What to do? In a typical far-removed-from-reality only-in-corporate-boardrooms turn of events, the self-proclaimed "activist" investor billionaire Nelson Peltz (who started his "business-building" career - and this is very important - by inheriting his grandfather wholesale food company and then turning himself into a prominent private-equity mogul by buying and selling such fully-fledged companies as Snapple and Quaker Oats) challenged Disney's BOD to commence the corrective actions by dismissing the company's current CEO Bob (Why Bob, god dammit?! The man is 71! Time to grow up into your full name!) Iger (not a businessman at all - a career media executive, aka glorified mountain-top administrator with an outrageous compensation package of nearly $30 mil per year). In his haste for coup d'état, Peltz forgot to do his homework - he came into the fight empty-handed: no constructive plan, no corrective suggestions, no panoramic view of Disney's new and improved future... Just the hope that, without Iger in the picture and with him on the board, things will get better... How? By Disney Magic? (If you didn't hear: Peltz's coup failed and Iger is still up there - on Disney's very top, I mean).        

You get why this is so funny to me, don't you?

The very idea of two people with no entrepreneurial experience in their respective portfolios fighting over who's better fit to shake up the conglomerated mastodon (in case you forgot your primary-school lessons: mastodons were prehistoric, extinct cousins of the contemporary elephants - very large creatures) and expediently reshape it into an agile operational gazelle able to conquer the most difficult, most contemporary, most innovative trails - it seems inconceivable to me. Moreover, it's so desperately naive to believe (assuming, of course, that anyone actually believes it) that changing one (or ten! or all!) person sitting on the head of the mastodon - very far away from its vital organs and moving limbs - would trigger the company's rejuvenation. 

Do you think that the OG business-builders Walt and Roy Disney, if faced with a similar situation, would be concerning themselves with the BOD changes? I don't think so. They would dig deep into the causes of the business's slowdown, think outside of all boxes, and try to come up with absolutely new, never-explored-before solutions. Because they were the trailblazers and truly good fathers to their corporate child.  The current executive foster parents, on the other hand, are the worst: all they do is measure their child's failures against their peers' successes.        

You see, aspiring to someone else's model that happens to work for them for the time being is nothing but a short-term bandaid. The key is in the entrepreneurial intuition, the managerial flexibility and the structural mobility; the integral ability to adapt, to change fast - with every single shift of the market demand and technological leap. And can we expect that from a giant who cannot be anything but rigid and slow simply because its too large for its own good? Pure fantasy, of course (who's going to stop me, though? it's my blog!), but the best thing for Disney's Jenga-tower now would be to disassemble into individual blocks and let them operate as separate business units, without the burden of the astronomical executive packages. Let them compete within their own enterprising markets, against their specific peers - not against the fickle stock-market trends. I wonder what would happen then?   

And since commentators keep bringing it up as a benchmark, let me note this: Netflix Inc., God bless them - in spite of their global presence, publicly trading stock, and nineteen subsidiaries - is still a very much agile, 27-year-old (the most beautiful age) baby. With one of its shrewd co-founders still serving as an Executive Chairman of the board. 

I was a member of Blockbuster when my then pre-teen daughter first told me about Netflix DVD subscription. On my way to work I would drop the red envelopes into the mailbox and get the new ones shipped to us as soon as they were scanned into the USPS system at our local P.O. By the standards of those times: extraordinary expediency and incomparable efficiency of the entertainment-delivery operations. And that is still their main focus. Now, by means of what David Foster Wallace predicted (a few years before Netflix DVD was born, actually) would be the main form of delivering content into people's screens - the dissemination into "teleputers" as he defined it, which we now known as streaming. In between, all of their transitions, developments, enhancements, and additions have been seamless precisely because they keep to their core, pursuing their mission.

And I hope they continue being spry, fluid, and easy to adapt. To whatever the future brings. I don't know about the rest of you, but I owe them so much! No, for real, I have no clue how I would manage without them...   

De-Banking: It's Very Personal to the Frustrated CFO

Sometimes I wonder about the kind of life, in which every single word your utter or mutter would be an instantaneous target of people's analytical parsing, critiquing, and ridiculing... I mean, it's hard enough to present to the public your written words - the ones that you've chosen meticulously, pored over a hundred times, edited, re-edited, and proof-read... (And I know, I know - most online and even in-print writers don't do that anymore: the stupid, grammatically incorrect, unedited, shit you read sometimes even on the syndicated news! Yet, I still work like that.) But the unscripted and unabridged shit that just pops out of our mouths, even when we are debriefed and seemingly ready for anything... Brrr... Danger zone! Why do people want that kind of a life is an absolute mystery to me... But they do. And some of them self-delude and seemingly believe that they expose themselves for the sake of the "greater good", but it's all crap - the damage they cause to the nation, themselves, and their families is far greater than the sum of anything good they could possibly accomplish. It's all fucking pride, and vanity, and over-confidence, and desire to hear themselves talk, which would be understandable if they were brilliant speakers, but the vast majority of them are far from it.

And so, there goes Mr. Trump - again... Clearly, it's not enough for him to be ranked by many a poll among the three worst presidents of all times. (Those who know (1) my take on the Dumb Blonds and (2) that I spent most of Trump's term in a medium security prison with no access to the mainstream information in any shape or form cannot possibly expect me to express my own opinion about his presidency. And this is not about my opinion. This is about the general public.) He wants another stab at it and he takes to the open mike on a speaking platform once again - in New Hampshire of all places. And, as these people frequently do, he stumbles on his words. He lets his thoughts run faster than his tongue and produces a statement that is not just confusing, it sounds practically unintelligible:

"We are going to place strong protections to stop banks and regulators from trying to de-bank you from your... your political beliefs... What they do. They want to de-bank you. We're going to de-bank... Think of this. They want to take away your country."   

I mean: WHAT???!!! 

The thing is, though, there is a lot of garbled garbage coming out of famous, semi-notable, and random people's mouths all over the place - multiple times a day, every day. And they don't make national news. Yes, pundits react to it and political bloggers write about it, and I have no idea who the fuck reads all that. And believe you me and my personal experience of it: most of it (or everything, really) is written for the audience of one - the writer herself.  And I myself is very selective with what I read beyond serious literature. Thus, I didn't bother to know anything about Trump's mentioning of de-banking until the media's knees started jerking in response to the related SNL's installment into their habitual dressing-down of Trump. In the sea of contemporary ignorance, they stood out with their allusions to Trump's mental incapacity - as if he made up the "de-banking" term all on his own and, therefore, need to take "de-ambulance" and see "de-doctor" about it.   

Look, I personally started growing cold towards SNL ever since Tina Fey became its head writer, which was like 25 years ago, believe it or not. And then stopped watching it entirely after the twists of Fortune gave us an opportunity to appreciate Kristine Wiig's talent elsewhere. So, I'm not really up on the show's current level of quality comedy, but from what I hear and read - mostly from the news - it doesn't seem very high. And that's very disappointing. I mean, the whole point of SNL has always been the wittiness, as in smart, intellectual - not gag - humor. It was the reason why so many of SNL alumni and alumnae have become household names with gigantic careers - Steve Martin, Bill Murray, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, etc, etc, etc. Smart and brilliant, not just funny, they came up with the jokes and created the characters that made them relevant, impactful, and unforgettable. Meanwhile, the latest comedian I remember by name from that show is Andy Samberg - and it's been a dozen years since he departed. And then what? As this Trump incident confirms, all traces of intellectualism are now gone. How else can we explain that not a single person in the entire writing, producing, acting, and supporting staff knew about "de-banking", bothered to check it out (I mean, where were there iPhones?), or understood the seriousness of the matter. And I don't really hold it against Lorne Michaels personally, but maybe - just maybe - at 79, it's time to take an honorary Chairman (or something) position and hire a hands-on herder to manage these poorly qualified, lazy "entertainment" team.   

When the news of this skit finally rolled to me, I firstly got really insulted by the fact that the majority of the responders have dismissed this faux pas as "woke smugness". How is anything about assuming that every "de" in front of a word in English language is a replacement for article "the" - whether in vernacular reality or with a mocking intention- is woke? You know, there are 5868 actively used words in English language that start with "de". Quite a few of them are words we borrowed from Latin (e.g. decide), but in many the prefix "de" carries the notion of separation (e.g. depart), negation (e.g. derange), descent (e.g. degrading), or reversal (e.g. detract). So, what are these people telling me that using these words constitute "cultural appropriation"? My answer to that is that such notion is degrading and these commentators are deranged, and the world around us would be better if they decided to first detract their statements and then depart, as in go away.

Naturally, far more reasonable conjectures have been made about the impulses behind Trump's de-banking outburst. It all came down to one quite obscure piece of information that seemingly democratic internet-grown financial institutions like PayPal, its subsidiary Venmo, GoFundMe, and such got into habit of kicking out, i.e. de-banking, some far-right activists due to their political standing... In fact, it's so obscure that some commentators wrote: that this de-banking thing "must've completely flown under the radar of those people who are not glued to the internet..."

Well, it's true - I had no idea that the online entrepreneurship of payment-processing persuasion got so misconfused about the foundation of equality that they started acting on the reactionary principles of "you want to infringe, we'll infringe you back". However, I have always known of the de-banking policies implemented in the majority of our financial institutions. And, while this is the first time I heard of it being used as a tool of pure discrimination on political grounds, I knew very well that banks have been throwing people out on account of what they perceive to be risks factor - financial, legal, but mainly to their reputation - like forever.

And guess what? I PERSONALLY GOT DE-BANKED by Chase while I was out on bail during my court proceedings (all depicted in great detail in my "I Built This Prison"). After 28 years of me faithfully depositing with them all my earnings; giving them all of my savings, retirement, auto-financing, and commercial business; referring to them my parents, my daughter, my son-in-law, both of their businesses - all it took is one request from the office of Manhattan DA for statements of my - not even personal, but business - account for the preceding sixty months. Next thing I knew I've got a letter from them that they were closing all of my accounts with them. And five days after the stated date, I've received cashiers checks - one for every account I held there, including all IRA's and SEP's. I was months away from pleading or being found guilty of my crime. But as far as Chase was concerned - they didn't want to have anything to do with me. And there is nothing you can do about it. Let me tell you, even on the background of the ongoing criminal and civil lawsuits, it was an incredibly distressing event.     

But wait! That's not the end of it. Forward to April of 2023: I was watching the season 3 finale of The Mandalorian on Disney+ - elated by the the prevailing of all that's good (Spoilers Alert!!! [but seriously - if you haven't watched it by now, ten months later, it means nothing to you]): the distraction of the Darksaber and (!) Gideon, the heart-melting adoption, and the sunny adorableness of the new dwellings - when I was presented with a post-credits ad, offering to apply for Chase Disney Card. Which I would totally ignore because I didn't really need another credit credit card, except that one of the "personalized" fronts of the possible cards you can get was that one - the one pictured above. Who can possibly resist the very idea of having a credit card with baby Yoda in his pod? I couldn't. But it's Chase! I don't want to have anything to do with them anymore. Well, I can overcome that for Grogu. Do they want to have anything to do with me, though? I mean, by then nearly six years have passed since my de-banking. I've served my time and all that... Let the power be with me... Takes about two minutes - I was instantly approved for a $6K line. Ten days later the pleasingly adorable card was in my hands....

Two months later it stopped working... No warnings. No courtesy letters or emails. I looked it up online - it said that the account was closed. I called... Well, now you know: (A) It takes 60 days for the underwriting bank to run all of their checks and establish that, even though your credit is good, you remain undesirable to the bank for the reasons they never disclosed to you in the first place. (B) Six years is not enough time for a financial institution such as Chase to forgive you for... doing nothing wrong with respect to their operations per se, as far as I know. Once de-banked, you stay de-banked.

And, as it frequently happens with such entities, they just have to add an insult to the injury: sporadically they still send me an email informing me that "my" Disney credit card account's statement is ready, balance zero, payment due zero... So heartless... And then a week ago, I received an envelope with Chase logo in the mail. Eight months after shutting down my Grogu account they were informing me that I was due points I managed to earn through the couple of times I did use the card. They've enclosed a cashier's check for $1.65...

That did it. My heart bled for the the paper, the ink, the diesel fuel, etc. that went into production and delivery of that glob mucus into my face. And what else can I do but to write about it?  

Off the Cutting Room Floor of "I Built This Prison" Memoir: Clip #1: Authorship Under Employment

  "It's not just your basic human rights that get clipped. You know the inherent copyright rule that everything you create is yours? Not if you created it within your employment framework. As hired help, we lose any and all forms of authorship. Whatever we develop, design, formulate, innovate, write in a normal course of our paid work responsibilities belongs to the compensator. The re-using or duplicating your own prior achievements in any other business can be subject to litigations, which, at best, is throwing money into the wind and, at worst, will ruin your life.

    Here's a classic pop-culture example that can make it clear for everyone. In 1982, Tim Burton, then employed by Walt Disney Feature Animation (a subsidiary of Walt Disney Studios), wrote a poem titled The Nightmare Before Christmas. Being who he is - I mean, an incredibly talented visual storyteller - he considered various possibilities of translating it into images: a TV special, a children book... He created the concept art, the storyboards, and even got Rick Heinrichs (a production designer on many subsequent Tim Burton's projects, as well as both Ghostbusters, all Pirates of the Caribbeans, etc.) to sculpt the character models... But Disney of the time (CEO E. Cardon Walker) deemed the project too "weird" and stalled it... Then, in his two-year stint as Disney's CEO (1983-1984), Ron Miller was more interested in creating the Touchstone, which allowed Disney to develop "grown-up" movies, than in Tim Burton's beautifully morbid ideas - he fired the auteur in 1984.

    Thank God for that, because in the next eight years, Tim Burton went on creating Pee Wee's Big Adventure, Beetlejuice, Batman (all for WB), and Edward Scissorhands (for 20th Century Fox). Yet, the quasi-autobiographical turmoil and conflict between the strangeness of character and the desire to fit into the spirit of a "happy holiday" (never mind that it's Halloween) that he conceptualize for Jack Skellington have never really left Burton's creative horizons. Around 1990 he checked... And guess what? Disney still owned it. And by then it was already a Michael Eisner and Jeffrey Katzenberg's domain with the turf fertile for producing a full-feature Nightmare.

    Oh, of course, they gave Tim Burton the creative credit - as the story and characters' developer. And they listed him as a producer... Why wouldn't they? His movies were already commercial and critical successes - the instant cult classics that, nevertheless, generated box office numbers in multiples of their budgets. Who wouldn't want to smack Tim Burton's name on a billboard? But it's not like he could take this child he conceived and labored to birth - his creation, and take it away to some place where he could nurture it. No... It was fostered now by people with no blood relations. They even didn't want to wait until the birth parent was free to play with it (he was committed now to Batman Returns at WB).... They hired their own nannies from within - a screen writer (Caroline Thompson) and a director (Henry Selick)...  

    Don't get me wrong: I love The Nightmare Before Christmas the way it ended up to be - the stop-motion animated musical with genius music and voice of Danny Elfman. Still, for 30 years now, I've been wondering: What it might've been if Tim Burton's parental rights were not terminated by the fact that he was paid a salary by Disney at the time of the authorship...

    And as I said, the same rules apply to all achievements attained by a paid employee under the constriction of employment. Whether it's a product - either creative or physical, a formula, a solution, a process, a recipe, a construct, a logarithm, a program, an optimization matrix, an analytical macro, or a KPI dashboard - it does not belong to you just because you created it. It's in the possession of the people who paid you your wages. They are the ones who get to use and reuse it, whether you are still attached or separated from them."

                                                                                            Deleted from Chapter 4 - Bucket of Tears... and Blood    

Quote of the Week: Another Twist to Old Aphorism

"Money doesn't buy happiness.  But happiness isn't everything."

                                                    Jean Seberg

                                                    1938 - 1979

On the Other Hand, There is John Oliver

The same gracious people who introduced me to Diamond & Silk also approached me with a suggestion that I watch the so called "Trump episode" of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.  Knowing my time constraints and quality standards, they weren't very insistent.  They said, "We think you may want to watch this one episode."  But I didn't need much convincing anyway.  After all, I liked John Oliver's Britishly offbeat, overly serious persona as a Senior British Correspondent on The Daily Show.  I was excited when he got his own HBO program and even watched the premier on its first airing.  It was quite good, but not stimulating enough to get on my must-watch list.  Plus, I was somewhat creeped out by the overly excited John Oliver.  So, that first episode was also my last.  But if people I respect singled out another one for me, why not?  

So, I watched it.  Twice.  And what I want to tell you is that John Oliver is a brave man.

Granted his audience is small - it averages 0.9 million viewers per episode.  Still, to go in front of 900,000 people and advertise yourself as a complete nincompoop, desperately ignorant of the most elemental insights every political commentator simply must have - that requires some seriously engorged balls.  How he isn't dead from embarrassment is difficult to understand for someone like me.  I mean, whatever subject he touched: public relations, social responsibility, campaign finance, corporate vs. individual contributions, wealth management, commercial lending, real estate, subprime mortgage industry, licensing - to put it mildly, he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about.    

Well, I understand that John Oliver is "just a comedian" and encyclopedic standards should not be applied.  But the power of political satire has always been in the full grasp of the subject matter.  That's what gives laughter substance and makes it an effective weapon.  Of course, I know better than to expect such quality here; still, he's got some gall talking out of his ass like that.  Why discuss intangible assets with such authority, for instance?  Trust me, it takes some heavy-duty modeling to evaluate those.  My best guess is that Mr. Oliver is completely unaware how uninformed he comes off.  Who's going to tell him?  He is probably surrounded entirely by like-minded folk.        

But forget the intellectualism; the most shocking element of the program for me was Mr. Oliver's conspicuous hatred toward Mr.  Trump.  The level of outrage, the voltage of disdain!  You would think that Donald Trump's political agenda included cancelling the Bill of Rights and setting up labor camps!  (Wait, that's the candidate on the other side, isn't it?)  John Oliver was literally exploding with venom!  At certain point he reached the state that can only be described as explosively deranged.  

This spitting of lies and saliva at your opponents are, of course, the gold standard of yellow journalism.  This is exactly how it's done: stretching some tweeted scheduling inaccuracies of a man, whose appointment book is fatter than John Oliver's head, into political lies; or reducing one of the most critically acclaimed musicians of the 21st century (albeit a controversial personality), who smashed hip-hop standards and garnered high praises from the likes of Paul McCartney and Lou Reed, to a "sociopath with a finger-free anus." I guess, that's the brand of programming HBO was expecting when they gave John Oliver what he describes as "creative freedom." 

And making fun of immigrant's names?!!! That's just unseemly.  It's nice for Mr. Oliver that his name originates in such deep WASP annals that it's unlikely to be misspelled here in America.  But many Americans had there original names changed for the sake of assimilation (including Clinton and Sanders) or, even more frequently, misspelled upon entry by immigration clerks.  My mother is a Cohen.  There is like a hundred variations - Coen, Cohn, Kahn, Kohn, Koyen, Kagan, Kogan, Kogon, Kogen.  Ask you friend John Leibowitz (a.k.a. Stewart), Mr. Oliver, and he will explain to you that these are all the same names.   And my own names, both first and last?  I can fill a volume larger than John Oliver's Earth book with misspellings.  I am unequivocally in support of everyone's right to declare their political views; and, like Voltaire said, I will die for their freedom to do so; but that name bit has nothing to do with politics and it felt like a personal affront to me.   

This whole tasteless attitude directed specifically towards one presidential candidate has all the makings of media bullying.  And it sort of feels like HBO's mandate, doesn't it?  First, Oliver's outrageous escapade.  And now Ms. Lena Dunham, another HBO alumna with an even tinnier audience (700,000 viewers per episode average) but a larger bag of scandalous tricks, "threatens" the world with a promise to move to Canada if Donald J. Trump wins.  Wow, some people!  Not only their feminism but even their patriotism is skin-deep.  "I don't like the executive part of my government, so bye-bye America!"  I would expect a bit more gratitude to this country from someone with pilgrims on one side and Jewish immigrants on the other side of the family.  But way to put yourself back in the news with this political barbarism!

Don't even get me started on the improbability and the emptiness of this threat!  Moving to a "lovely place in Vancouver" and getting her "work done from there" only makes a person a short-term visitor to Canada.  It's just silly!  Trump still will be her President, she still will be paying federal taxes, and without a proper visa she will be asked to leave fairly soon.  Giving up US citizenship and actually immigrating to Canada - that would be a serious step.  And it's also a seriously difficult process.  Unless she already has a Canadian family, gets a job in the oil industry, claims a political refugee status (no, Trump's presidency will not qualify),  goes to school in Canada (a temporary solution anyway), marries a Canadian (maybe Taylor Swift can hook her up with Justin Bieber), or deposits $7.5 million with the Canadian government as an immigrant investor (with the supposed net worth of $12 mil and the only alive project going into the last season - I don't think so), she will have no chance to become a Canadian.  But let's say her celebrity status gets her there somehow.  I can only imagine her shock when she sees the tax bill and the diminished consumer basket she will be able to afford with the remainder of her earnings.  And all those gynecological issues she habitually bares for the general public - they will be subjected to the state-run Canadian medical industry; very different from the wonderful care she receives in one of the best hospitals in the world here in New York.           

Yet, apparently more celebrities are joining this unpatriotic trend of "moving to Canada" threats.  Well, it just shows you how politically unsubstantial, unjustifiably empowered, uninformed, and removed from reality these people are.   Ignorance is a bitch.  If I were on Hillary's campaign I would've recommended her to immediately separate herself from this anti-American movement.  

I cannot help but wonder whether these self-righteous entertainers with overblown egos (as well as their HBO bosses) understand that at the end of the day they are nothing more than tiny bolts in a humongous, stock-market fueled, corporate machine,  i.e the Time Warner Inc. conglomerate, whose CEO makes $35 million annual salary.  And come to think of it, considering the content-driven business model of a premium cable network such as HBO, this could be just a ploy of exploiting Trump's trailblazing persona for the sake of  maximizing the big corporate daddy's profits and public stock values.  I mean, the media is flooded with Lena Dunham's face like never before; and, according to HBO's statement, John Oliver's Trump episode broke the network's social media viewership record with 23 million YouTube and 62 million Facebook views.  Isn't it amazing how Donald J. Trump's Midas touch works?  He even turns the shit thrown at him into gold.     

But you know what the scariest thing is?  It's how fascist the supporters of both the democratic candidates are!  They don't leave room for others' right to speak freely at all.  These people are militant.  One has to be really brave to declare her opposition to Hillary or Bernie in the liberal circles of New York and Hollywood.  I guarantee you, these liberals wouldn't even think twice before secretly blacklisting  such a daredevil.  And heroism is dead (okay, almost dead). And so, with the exception of a few, people hide their true beliefs and yield under the oppression of these bullshit-spewing fanatics.  

Photo Quote of the Week: Even Geniuses Need Experts

Quote of the Week: A Tall Order for Minorities Everywhere

Rowan (Eli) Pope:  How many times did I tell you?!  You have to be what?!

Olivia Pope:  Twice as good as them to get a half of what they have.

                                                                 Scandal, Season 3, Episode 1

The Frustrated CFO's Comment: 

I'm not placing this excerpt into quotation marks.  First of all, it's not an exact citation - on screen it gets all broken up, because the characters interrupt each other with anger, frustration, exasperation, and all other similar feelings; Eli is yelling, and Liv is sort of shudders and attempts to shy away - all those over-the-top dramatics and stuff.  More importantly, though, it's not an original phrase.  Shonda Rhimes, who actually penned this episode herself, is brilliantly entertaining, but she didn't come up with this maxim.  Many African-American journalists, bloggers, and celebrities commented on its wide-spread popularity in their families and communities.  Some even tried to date it - 70s, 50s...

The truth is, however, this concept doesn't belong exclusively to black people of the United States.  In fact, everywhere around the world similar formulas are spoken in different languages to bright and promising children who will have to spend their lives jumping over the barriers raised in front of them for no other reason than their minority status: Kurds in Turkey, Chinese in Indonesia, Hui in China, Indians in Uganda, Rohingyas in Burma, Jews and Gypsies wherever they are, etc., etc., etc.   

Furthermore, the applicability of this mandate goes way beyond race and ethnicity.  The same mantra is adapted as a way of life by every marginalized overachiever even in our blessed land we call "Free Country:" women going into "men's" professions; immigrants with strong accents attempting to climb corporate ladders; members of LGBT community trying to get a job outside of the fashion and the entertainment industries; overweight and deformed individuals applying for any position; young talented people without connections trying to break into especially nepotistic fields - the list is long. 

Growing up a Jewish girl in one of the most anti-Semitic of European countries, I was barred from many professional careers and life opportunities.  And in those that were permissible, someone like me had one chance in a thousand.  My personal slogan was even more maximal: I had to be the best just to get in.  Was I able to completely shake off the disenfranchised complex after nearly three decades in America?  Fat chance!  For starters, I'm a woman...                   

10 HR Lessons From Summer-Binging on "The Good Wife" Plus Some Other Stuff

In the TV business, summer traditionally has been considered an off-season.  Primarily because the broadcast networks' prime series go on a 4-month hiatus after completing their 20+ episode seasons.  Nowadays, of course, it's not all that relevant for TV viewers, because...  Well, for multiple reasons, really, but to name a few:  

First of all, if you prefer edgier premium cable series, your TV viewing patterns are driven by  2-3 month seasons scheduled at different times throughout the year: Shameless airs January through March, Game of Thrones and Silicon Valley - April -June, Masters of Sex - July-September, Homeland -  October-December, etc.  Even if you are into blending your TV cocktail out of cable and broadcast ingredients, you most likely use on-demand and DVR options to accommodate your personal schedules and to fill the airing gaps.  Plus, some broadcast networks now have "summer shows" - short-seasoned and "limited" series aired specifically to cover the off-season void: Hannibal, Wayward Pines, Under the Dome, Aquarius, etc.

The most important factor, however, is that we've stopped being restricted by conventional TV ever since Netflix came along.  First, they made the idea of going to video stores and looking for something to watch unnecessary.  We were so grateful for digital searching, online ordering, and USPS drop-ins and drop-offs.  But then even walking to the mailbox became unnecessary, because they made a tremendous volume of content available for IP streaming, including rare and obscure movies, shows, documentaries, anime, etc. from all over the world! 

They didn't stop there either - they got into creating their own original programming.  And then Amazon followed suit!  As a result, we got access to gems that make me feel as if I am living through some sort of an indie renaissance via the Internet: House of Cards, Orange Is the New Black, Peaky Blinders, Grace and Frankie, Sense8 (Netflix originals), Transparent and Mozart in the Jungle (Amazon's originals).  It's fucking incredible!

Moreover, not only that streaming content is available everywhere you can go online, it's available in whole seasons.  There is no waiting for weeks at a time until the next episode; no mid-season separation anxiety; no loss of vital details from previous weeks.  Technically you can watch a 12-episode season in one day.  It is my understanding that some people actually do that. 

Netflix had at their hands the best market-testing sample imaginable - their entire subscription base.  They must've noticed early on that a large percentage of the viewing population doesn't restrict itself to one episode at a time.  They even installed a special probe at the start of the third consecutively watched episode to test whether you are actually binging or have simply fallen asleep on your couch.  Brilliant! 

Yes, binging - as in excessive indulgence, as in manifestation of addictive personality traits.  Not a new thing, really.  TV networks (USA especially) have been scheduling rebroadcasting marathons since the 80s.  By offering this opportunity to audiences with pretty much any kind of preferences, Netflix forever altered the cultural lives of millions of people. 

The phenomenon itself became a marketing tool for Netflix's competitors, who want you to know that you can replicate this experience with them as well:  This summer, Amazon actually used the phrase "binge on your favorite shows for free" in its promotional messages for Premium subscriptions.  HBO, still holding onto their highbrow status, softens it by offering you to "feast" on your past and present favorite shows on HBO GO.

Poor David Foster Wallace warned, way before streaming had become a household concept, that Television is the one and only true American addiction.  He predicted that catering to user demand for content of their choice whenever and wherever they wanted it (remember the "direct dissemination"?) may irrevocably alter us and potentially result in the crumbling of human will.

But who am I to judge?  Yes, my life is too busy for hardcore binging and I refuse to watch an episode of anything on my goddamned iPhone, but I've been taking advantage of on-demand entertainment ever since it was first introduced by American cable providers 15 years ago.  Then came iTunes 6.0 (2005).  Today - Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu Plus, HBO Go, Showtime Anytime - I've got them all, including a Fire Stick to carry them with me wherever I go. 

But that was not the topic of this post, was it? (Too bad you cannot hear me laughing at myself.)  This was meant to be a brief introduction to the shocking fact that, even with all that variety of quality entertainment on hand, at some point in July I found myself with my personal TV time-slot empty.  And let me tell you, that made it hard to ignore the binging and feasting callings of the content pushers.

I browsed the variety of offerings and ended up with The Good Wife on Amazon Prime.  It used to be one of the shows I watched during its active seasons - all the way through the middle of Season 4.  But then, 2013 announced its arrival to Netflix with their first two major originals, plus Top of the Lake, plus The Fall, the first season of Broadchurch, etc., etc.  I'm a busy woman - something had to go.  Now I picked up where I left off.  

I have to admit, assuming you manage not to paralyze your life or degrade your mental and motoric agility, watching multi-season, multi-episode shows without gaps measured in weeks and months has its undeniable benefits.  Complex and intricate storytelling loses some of its power when it's broken up into weekly installments and then gets shelved away for 4 or more months.  Reducing these gaps not only allows for a more detail-oriented viewing, it also gives you an opportunity to assess the show's merits and values in a more coherent way. 

Aside from the most obvious and well acknowledged attributes of The Good Wife - strive for realism; acute attention to the impact of technology on our lives; honest depiction of shifting morality; head-on tackling of race, class, gender, sex, and all other divides - what I like the most about the show is its refusal to label itself as a single genre.  We can definitely identify it as a Drama, but the range of applicable modifiers is quite long - family, political, crime, legal, courtroom.

But what I realized while watching seasons 4 through 6 now, was that in it's wardrobe full of genres, The Good Wife's favorite outfit was the Workplace Drama.  One law firm, another law firm, State's Attorney's office, governor's office, clients' businesses (including a drug-distribution organization), you name it - all of them are depicted as places of employment.  And the human relationships inside these businesses play essential roles in the show's storytelling.  The office politics, alliances, squabbles, hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, peers' competition, subordination, fraternizing, partnerships, resignations, harassment, even telecommuting -  all of them have been used as plot points.

Once I started noticing, I've found so many typical and easily recognizable Human Resources issues,  it was hard to pick the following ten:

1. Any employee, no matter how highly positioned and compensated, is always a disgruntled employee.  It's remarkable how much pent-up gall towards Lockhart & Gardner started spilling out of Alicia and Cary as soon as they left to set up their own firm.  They were never that rude to any other opponents as they were to their former bosses.  What was it that Cary said to Will and Diane? That watching them squirm gives him an immense pleasure?  It's the nature of a subservient position - no matter what, we don't like it.
2. Why don't we like it?  Because there is no such a thing as a fair boss. Every boss believes that you belong to him, yet he doesn't really need you and will do just fine without you.  That's why bosses never bother acknowledging, even to themselves, your full contribution and think that you should be grateful for what you've got.  Aside from always high-in-demand Kalinda, all other major and minor characters have experienced that.
   
3. Recruitment is the most depressing of all managerial responsibilities.  Will and Diane need to hire more attorneys.  They sit down with their headhunter to look at the resumes she already preselected for them.  Barely glancing at them, Will goes, "No, no, no..."  And let me tell you, whether you are an asshole or a saint, this is what you do.  And I know that not everyone sees a life story behind every resume, still it's an incredibly unpleasant exercise for all.
4. An easy interview is rarely a successful one.  Will is interviewed by Geneva Pine and her colleagues in his bid for an outsourcing contract with the State Attorney's office.  It goes great - quick and short; no follow-up questions, no drilling into specifics.  Why? Because it's just a formality - Lockhart & Gardner were never even seriously considered. Whether you are pitching yourself for employment or your company's services for a contract, the interviewing principles are exactly the same.  A short, formal, and overly polite interview means that you are not getting the job.
5. Only full-time employment comes with benefits coverage.  This one is important because many people are still confused.  Kalinda, who has been working for Will for years, is appalled that newly hired Robin has medical coverage.  Except Kalinda cannot possibly qualify for benefits because she is a 1099 contractor with other billable businesses.  This allows her not only to delay paying social security taxes, but also makes a lot of her expenses tax deductible.  In order to receive company benefits one must be a full-time payroll employee with a minimum of a 30-hour workweek.  You cannot have it both ways.
6. All computing and communication devices provided by employers belong to the said employers.  I know that many viewers may feel dismayed when they hear various bosses on the show proposing to hack into their employees' emails.  The truth is, however, that the employers are absolutely within their rights.  All devices paid for by the employer and everything inside of them are the company's property.  Not only is it implicit, but it is explicitly outlined in every single Employee's Handbook.  Yet, so many people treat the company's equipment as their own.  Hillary's personal email debacle is one recent memorable example.  People, don't be cheap and lazy, buy yourself a personal phone, external hard drives, and whatever else you need to keep your private contacts, communications, and files separately.
7. The impervious pregnancy shield.  Governor Florrick's Ethics Czar Marilyn Garbanza is pregnant and the father is 76-year-old!  Can you trust a person like that with any type of government responsibility, let alone the one that requires clarity of reasoning?  Yet,  nobody reassigns her (of course, she cannot be fired - that's a lawsuit right there), because her condition blocks everyone's common sense.  In fact, her looks merited more suitability discussions than the fact that she made a decision to have a child with a septuagenarian.
8. Workplace honesty is a relevant thing.  There is an information leak from Florrick/Agos.  Three key people (two lawyers and one investigator) privy to the information are being questioned.  All three deny any involvement.  Alicia says, "These are the most honest people I know."  Mind you, at different points in time we've seen these characters mislead their clients, lie to their opposition, trap witnesses, steal information and evidence, even betray one another!  Yet, that was all done in the "normal course of business;" to get the job done, i.e. to perform your professional duties.  Nowadays, nobody considers dishonesty on behalf of one's employer amoral.  I've done it and you've done it; everyone does it.  Are we absolved and untainted because we presume there is no direct personal gain?  That's the question.
9. How do you know when someone in the office is sleeping with the boss? Look for the telling signs.  People cannot help themselves - they get emboldened by the perceived closeness to "power."  The person in question will stand too close, laugh too loud, dress inappropriately, pick fights with peers, become insufferable for subordinates and less diligent with their duties.
   
10. One should always be aware of the temporary and unstable nature of any HR structure.  People die, get arrested on obscure charges, move on for higher salaries, or decide to be homemakers.  Companies go through mergers, buy-outs, and hostile takeovers.  And nobody, literally nobody, has a good life - everyone is fucked up and thoroughly unhappy, no matter how hard they try to hide it.  So, there is always a good chance that they may check out - out of job or out of life.  Or do something completely insane, like trying to shift from Law into politics.

But the most valuable life lesson one should take away from The Good Wife is that you should never ever burn all the bridges and cut all the ties, because you never know with whom you may need to partner next.