The Frustrated CFO

"I Built This Prison" Memoir: Teaser #5: The Life's Meat Grinder

"The fact that I took it so personally day in and day out my whole life is a testimony of how severely self-absorbed I was. The prolonged nurturing of the scars caused by casual indignities was a very special pet in my menagerie of craziness. But even I would never claim that the pedestrian oppression of hierarchic systems was my exclusive prerogative.  

To be mistreated by those who outrank you (a boss or a critic) - this is just how life is.  If you try to make something of yourself in this harsh and merciless reality, no matter what it is, you must be ready to endure scores and scores of hardships.  You will have your self-esteem wrung, torn into pieces, thrown on the ground and stamped all over – hundreds of times. There is nothing new, special, or personal about it. You cannot be “out there” without experiencing a continuous inflow of sufferings.  The key is to be able to manage it without being traumatized and damaged. Which is quite a tall order.

  Generally speaking, as a species, we should’ve evolved to deal with all that shit.  How else are we surviving? There are a few rare individuals who, for better or worse, found ways of preserving themselves, of staying away from the garden-variety degradation of the spirit.  The rest of us, however, willingly and even strategically - with precision, rhythm and deliberation - stomp our feet straight into the meatgrinder.  And it fucking hurts.  Being chewed by the metal teeth of the machine (no matter what it may be – business, science, entertainment, arts, anything at all) is painful to everyone – lazy and hardworking, mediocre and geniuses, laid-back and ambitious.     

I’ve observed people and their involuntary reflexes in the workplace for thirty years - listening to their complaints, concerns, and rueful ramblings. It is my firm belief that even those who are pre-conditioned for the delusional complacency - perfectly tenderized and well-shaped for the feeder – are unable to remain indifferent to the hierarchic cruelty."

"I Built This Prison", Part I: Etiology of Crime, Chapter 4: Buckets of Tears... and Blood

 p. 51 - 52

"I Built This Prison" Memoir: Teaser #3: I Just Can't Stand the Process of Job Hunting

Lucky Cab Ride

Let's face it, NYC cab rides are not what they used be.  And it's not about credit card processing and the built-in monitors - those were inevitable.  And it's not about the signature-yellow black-checkered SUV's and vans either (though, only God knows how many pairs of pantyhose I've ruined getting into them).  The main difference are the drivers.  

Back in the day your taxi driver talked to you; whether you wanted him to or not.  They were the ones who invited the conversation.  I mean, hairdressers and cabbies were people's confidants.  A cabby is even better than the hairdresser - most likely you will never see him again.  Nowadays, however...  Let me put it this way - Taxicab Confessions (1995) would not happen today.

Of course, just 15 years ago, when the medallions were around $250K, cab-driving was still a viable self-employment option for enterprising individual drivers.  And a taxi owner-operator cared for the success of his business-on-wheels.  Moreover, he felt at home there, ready to chat with his paying customer about this and that.  But as soon as the medallions' prices went over $500K (hitting $1 mil landmark in 2011), the ownership shifted to investment groups, who lease the cabs to drivers  known as "hacks."  This resulted in a fundamental attitude transformation.  To draw a parallel, it's like the difference between the treatment you get from some outsourced customer service representative and the care displayed by a business owner whose livelihood depends on the customer's satisfaction.

Generally speaking, we now get into a cab with an indifferent and dissatisfied employee at the wheel.  And most of the time we actually want him to stop talking, because he is blabbering non-stop and not with you - he's got his earpiece in and he is doing his share of "connecting" to his friends and families at full volume in the language you most likely don't understand.  Sometimes you are not even sure that he heard your destination; and you have to be really insistent if you want him to pay attention to your route instructions.

And me personally?  At this point I am simply weary of cab drivers wanting to talk to me and actually prefer when they are preoccupied with their own telecommunications or whatever.  I don't know whether this is because weirdos feel comfortable with me or there are just more weirdos everywhere now, but recently I've been having some uncanny cab experiences: Scientology propaganda session; sex proposals (this actually happens regularly, which is unbelievable for many reasons I will not discuss on this blog); self-righteous preaching (also pretty common); pushy sales pitching of the driver's childishly executed art; a reverse taxicab confession of a middle-aged driver stunning me with graphic details of his affair with a 78-year-old woman (sorry, people, but it's the honest truth), etc., etc.  So, trust me, a quiet ride is fine by me.

But I guess there is indeed a reward through suffering, because sometimes you get lucky!

I was in a cab a few days ago.  The driver had an old-Brooklyn accent and was middle-aged.  The cab wasn't new either, but most remarkably it was already lacking the bulletproof divider (TLC announced in April that it can be removed).  This is actually very important, because, even though he had the radio on at a low volume, without the glass barrier I could hear it very well (I have no idea what channel it was).  

The topic of some political broadcast was the GOP's opposition to their own likely nominee, Donald J. Trump.  One of the guests was commenting on how silly it was and questioning the possibility of some last-moment aspirant's attempting to steal the nomination in Cleveland from a candidate who won the most Republican primary votes in history - 13.4 million.  And both the driver and I laughed out loud at the same time.  

For the next 15 minutes I enjoyed the most amicable and satisfying political exchange with a person outside of my very close and very immediate circle, a complete stranger for that matter.  And I would like my readers to share some of that experience.  So, here you go, ladies and gentlemen, from my cab driver's mouth to your ears (or rather eyes) - a few bits of pure common sense:

 

"...He [The Donald] may not say it right, but he says the right things."

"...Professional politicians didn't work as the country's leaders.  We've got to try something new.  If he fails, we will not vote for him [The Donald] again."

"...Trump is the only one who has full intention to do what he says and actually take care of things."

"...I may not like Trump as a person and don't what to be his friend, but he is the only one right now I trust to be my President."

"...I used to be a big Clinton supporter, but she is a typical political weasel: talks how it's dangerous to trust Trump with the 'nuclear button,' while 20,000 of her emails with government secrets are about to be publicly released by the Russians."

"...How can she [Hillary Clinton] talk about War on Terrorism, when she is chummy with the Saudis? And how can she claim that she will protect women's interest when she takes millions from the kings of Oman and such."

 

Look, of course I don't know about all of the 13.4 million of Trump supporters - I'm sure, like in any other group of people, there are plenty of bastards and idiots among them.  Yet, every one of those who I met personally, heard talking or read their opinions in various media strikes me as exceptionally reasonable, very informed, logical person, free of fanaticism.  Without any bias, in a true objective spirit I so vehemently cultivate on this blog, I cannot say the same about the followers of either of the still-running Democratic candidates.  And it makes me wonder: maybe, just maybe, it has something to do with the compelling rationality of Donald Trump's presidential platform.   

        

The Struggle Is Real for Employers As Millennials Enter the Workforce with Their Own Value System

Like many hiring execs, I still have an employer account with Monster.com, even though the time when they dominated the job-hunting market has passed.  Nowadays, they are not even at the top of the industry leaders list.  Still, we got used to them in the 17 years they've been around.  And they do try their best to provide the paying clients with value-added bells and whistles beyond the standard ad posting:  resume matching, database searching, description writing, HR Resource Center, and whatnot.  

One of these add-ons is the email service that blasts recruitment articles to all registered users.  I usually ignore these emails, but the last one had an article with an enticing title The Real Reason Millennials are Leaving Your Company.  

The first thing that caught my eye was the singular "Reason."  I thought, "The author was able to identify a single, most fundamental cause of what appears to be a case of chronic pins and needles in the millennial butts?  That's remarkable!"

I got even more curious reading the logline.  It talked about an abundance of options, "a plethora of jobs" that allow millennials to be "super selective" in their career choices.  Moreover, it promised expert advice to employers on how to keep the "valuable millennials" in the work seats.  I was like: This must be one of those sci-fi imagine-if humorous thingies, because these statements, if not drenched in undiluted sarcasm, can only refer to some remote planet in an unknown universe.  Here on Earth, right now, most of the millennials you and I know are either unemployed, or work jobs that have nothing to do with their chosen professions (let alone vocations), or stretch their schooling to avoid facing the bleakness of the job market.  I mean, there are premium cable shows and broadcast sitcoms about it.   

And, "valuable millennials?"  Yes, they exist, in small numbers and tiny clusters, and you ought to be very lucky to have them around.  But generally speaking: the state of our arts and entertainment is a testimony of young people's value and their values.  And when it comes to hiring, you need to go through 800 entry-level resumes to find 3 candidates who can write a coherent sentence, even though (I'm talking to you, senator Sanders!), all of the applicants have college degrees.     

Opening the article immediately dispelled all enthusiasm.  Firstly, no pinnacle reasoning was crystallized.  The piece was divided into subsections addressing different causes for millennials' job mobility.  Since the author is not a Canadian afflicted by the national inability to pluralize words, I can only attribute the use of the single form in the title to writing and editing sloppiness.  And, of course, there was not a single whiff of alien or any other humor.

In fact, the self-branded Talent Maximizer® Roberta Matuson, who wrote the article, takes herself and her "advisory" role very seriously.  In complete solemnity she lists the following as the reasons why the millennials don't want to hold on to their jobs (with my commentaries):

• Millennials want to work for companies that help to improve society.  Ms. Matuson suggests that those employers who want to retain Millennial workers should "take a closer look at the organizational purpose," assess how the company's mission impacts society, and redefine its purpose.

To paraphrase Woody Allen, "What's wrong with this?  Everything!" 

First of all, what does the lame formula "improved society" mean?  What's a "better society" for one person, is hell for another.  The massive support of Bernie Sanders by young voters clearly shows that they want to live in a welfare state.  I, on the other hand, have been preaching no government interference and market economy my whole life.  I would understand if the focus was more specific - let's say on environmental issues.  If employees of different ages boycotted the fracking industry, for example, our society would seriously benefit in the long run.  But I doubt we are talking about future impact here.  I'm pretty sure that if the fracking industry started providing free daily lunches to local people, the millennials would think of them as employers with a positive mission!  Never mind the explosions and the fiery faucets.

And what happened to the old-fashioned purpose of being profitable, staying in business, and continuously providing jobs?  It's not good enough?  Do all millennials want to work for non-profits spending grants, or public companies depleting investors' pension and college funds?

• Millennials need constant external motivation: nurture, praise, repeat.  A shout-out here, a lunch with a boss there, or an invite to an off-site event, Ms. Matuson suggests, will help to demonstrate that the employers care.  Otherwise, the millennials will leave, because "the recession is over."  

Well, this is not the first time I am confronted with the suggestion that what I call "hugging motivation" is more important to younger people than fairness, objectivity, professional growth, adequate compensation, etc.  Don't get me wrong, the acknowledgement of one's achievement is incredibly important, but only if it's deserved.   Constantly patting on the back some unimpressive, low-value jackass out of fear that they will leave - that would be a betrayal of my work ethics and a violation of my fiduciary duty as a CFO.  Merit-based rewards, people!  That's what made America great in the first place and that's what will bring the greatness back! 

And here she goes again with the sci-fi twist: the recession is over!  Where?  In Alpha Centauri?  Oh, wait - on the front page of The Wall Street Journal and in government reports.   In real life, we are in the permanently recessive stage of economic decline with no prospects for upward turn.  This slow sliding may feel to the uninitiated as a flat plateau, but just you wait - we are bound to experience some dramatic crashes as well.

• (Brace yourself for this one, cause contrary to the previous statement:) Compensation is important to millennials, especially if they have student loans.  "If you don't pay the millennial whatever he or she thinks they are worth," they will leave.

So, no matter how much you praise them, and hug them, and take them to lunch, the old-school paycheck still matters! Except there is nothing old-school about it either.  Back in the day, wages were determined by clear and tangible factors: the sophistication of the job, the level of expertise, the scarcity of QUALIFIED professionals on the market.  But apparently it doesn't work like that with the generation of people who were born after The Breakfast Club and Back to the Future came out.  The key to their adequate compensation is their own self-worth.  We must pay them whatever they think we must pay them.  And don't forget, the employers need to account for the student loans!  Essentially the implication is that we have to pay them what they NEED and not what they earn.  "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" maybe sounds right to Sanders's supporters, but it is not the principle that lies in the American foundation.  You know whose principle that is?  Marxists-communists!

• Millennials require work-life balance.  

Just the millennials?  Is that what the article's author actually believes?  That millennials should be treated preferentially when it comes to working hours, paid time-off, etc.?  That there should be two different HR policies in every company, one for millennials and another for the rest of us chickens?  That's age-based discrimination, isn't it?   

I've always believed in the importance of work-life balance and regularly wrestle with the owners to ensure that every employee has access to the same set of benefits and perks.  And what my experience shows is that the millennials take the full advantage of these packages like no one else; sometimes to the point of abuse.  90% run out of the office the minute the clock strikes the official end time, no matter what's happening with the work.  Many don't even spare a few seconds to shut down their computers (yet all of them fancy themselves "environmentalists").  Just last year, I had a millennial employee who was out for 15 working days in the 5 months I tolerated her bullshit.  I've never had to deal with that kind of attitude before the millennials entered the workforce.         

The truth is that you don't need to be an HR expert to formulate your ideas about the reasons behind the millennials' prevalent job discontent.  Any experienced manager with a keen eye and some human insight can draw up a comprehensive list.  And here is mine (in no particular order):

1.  Many millennials, especially liberal arts majors, have a hard time defining their purpose and developing a sense of belonging at a job.  This is primarily because they go to college to learn... nothing.  I'm not even talking about slacking and partying.  There are so many narrow-niche bullshit "liberal arts" degrees out there, most bachelor graduates acquire no practical knowledge.  And it makes thinking of a career path very difficult.
2. Much scarier, they are not equipped with any basic learning skills.  They can neither study on their own, nor operate with minimal supervision.  Not able to absorb new knowledge, they feel like failures and will eventually leave for an "easier" job.
3. Turns out that the damned phone is a millennial Achilles heel.  The millennials are so used to texting, tweeting, and posting, 85% of them are afraid of talking on the phone.  When confronted with a job that entails constant voice-to-voice interactions, which are a plenty,  they opt to quit.
4. Aside from athletes and health freaks, young people nowadays live incredibly passive lives.  Some people say that the abundance of streaming content is to blame, but we all know that way before YouTube (2005) and  Netflix's streaming (2008), young people were already glued to their computers and game consoles.  Thus, they suffer terribly on the jobs that require them to be out of the office most of the time - selling, pitching, servicing, etc.  According to some HR professionals, this is one of the millennials' biggest complains.    
5. The bulk of this generation grew up with no discipline or structure, both at home and at school.  While being a non-conformist is an invaluable quality when it comes to independent thinking and artistic expression, in a survival-driven business environment the lack of self-control, inability to follow rules of conduct, and disregard for subordination can make one's life pretty unbearable. 
6. They want to be hugged and cuddled all the time.  Many of them crumble under pressure and cannot deal with reprimands.
7. I know it sounds like a cliche at this point, but it is true - they do want trophies just for showing up, because that's what they are used to.  As a result, they develop a clinical deficiency of self-motivation for achieving merit-based recognition.  They shy away from competitive environments where hard work and achievement translates into tangible rewards of raises, bonuses, and promotions.
8. Celebrity-saturated social media made the majority of millennials into unsettled zombies who are preoccupied with fantasies of becoming instantaneously rich and famous.  I guarantee that the star-struck ones will continue moving from one job to another, feeling extremely discontent.   
9. The majority of the millennials are not prepared to be self-reliant.  The livelihood of many a chronic quitter usually doesn't depend on their own paychecks; they expect to be continuously supported by their parents.  
10. And some young people, just like in every generation before them, are restless because they want to be adventurers; they are afraid that Life will pass them by.  The boring job can wait; while they pursue their dreams.  And, of course, sadly, most of them are confused, and don't know what they want, and don't have any ideas, or talents, or clues.  But let me tell you: that is the only good reason to quit your job (assuming you can afford it).  All the others are just weaknesses and incompetence.           

 

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.  

A Little Study in Overcompensating

The book I am reading right now is written from inside of its female protagonist's head. Not in a floody stream-of-consciousness sort of way and not in a first-person POV either, but rather something in the middle - a third-person narrative that's interested only in what this woman sees and how exactly she feels about it.  Everything and everybody else is sketchy.   She is an interesting woman, though - an ad exec with a disturbing past and an uncertain future, severely unhappy and alone, and I am fascinated by the nuanced way the book's author (a man) depicts her impulses, reactions, and emotions.  Her feelings, if not her character, are quite relatable.   

About one-third into the book, there is this scene:  The protagonist just spent several hours on a sailboat with a man she met only a few weeks ago.  This outing was their first date and it went quite well in all expected and unexpected ways.  She is sure that the wonderful day will smoothly roll into a fantastic evening. (We are in her head, remember?  So, we are following various promising scenarios she envisions.)  They are walking along the dock towards her car and she feels incredibly elated.

Now, without changing his stride and still holding her hand, the guy tells her that cleaning the boat after the trip is a big job and he'd better get on it right away.  Basically, he is dismissing her and, as far as she is concerned, for no good reason.  Internally she is dismayed, but she keeps her cool - still holds his hand and says calmly, "I understand perfectly.  I've work to do myself."

As I said, I am sympathetic to this character.  Plus, situations like that, when reality totally clashes with your expectations and you have to find the best way out in a matter of seconds - they are not specific to intimate relationships; they are universal and I encounter them practically daily.  So, my ears got pricked up by the behavioral subtlety of the moment and I mentally congratulated the heroine on not falling into a socially awkward disaster and handling it well, without showing her actual emotions.  I'm hoping here that she gets into her car, smiles goodbye, doesn't say a word, and drives off. 

Bzzzzzzzzz! My compliments were premature!  Right in the next paragraph, she let's go of the man's hand, starts walking faster to pull ahead of him and says over her shoulder, "I probably shouldn't have come at all." 

Oh my God, overcompensation to the nth degree!  By trying to be excessively cool in order to cover her embarrassment, she made it only too obvious.  (I must state here that, from the literary standpoint and for the sake of the character's true nature, this faux pas was the only possible action and it foreshadowed the novel's resolution.  But let's get back to the overcompensating issue.)        

Whether in intimate encounters like this one or in any other interactions with our partners, coworkers, bosses, subordinates, clients, casual acquaintances, and accidental contacts (e.g. a coffee shop's barista or a waiter), the true damage of overcompensating in social situations is the fact that it produces an effect exactly opposite to what you are trying to achieve.  Instead of concealing your weaknesses and insecurities, you blow your cover and display your anxiety in its full nakedness to the very person whom you are trying to impress with your strength, power, independence, composure, superiority, or whatever.

This manifestation of one's social anxiety is incredibly hard to control.  For self-aware people it's like the mortal battle between the consciousness and the subliminal impulses.  And because the latter work faster, there is frequently not enough time to bite your tongue or correct your attitude.  You say to yourself, "When you see her, smile sweetly as if everything is fine.  She doesn't need to know that you feel tortured."  But then you actually see her, and the pain comes all over your face without you even registering it.

It doesn't matter how cocky and confident you appear most of the time.  If from time to time your tendency to overcompensate gets out of control, everyone exposed will know that you have weaknesses and buttons that can be pushed.  In fact, the worst cases of overcompensating I ever observed were presented by individuals who are generally perceived as self-assured and even arrogant (yours truly is included).  

I don't know whether people like me, who are really afflicted with the propensity to overcompensate, should be giving any advices on the matter.  Still, I would like to share my thoughts. 

When I analyze the situations, in which I managed to have a full grip on my compensatory urges, I find that not saying anything at all works the best - just staring without letting your eyes show any emotions at all, not uttering a word.  For me personally, it turns out to be even better than coming up with a seemingly appropriate response, because what appears witty and so fucking right at the moment, may seem dull, stupid, inappropriate, and powerless after the retrospective self-analysis that will, no doubt, come sooner or later.  And it doesn't matter if what you said actually worked on the other person.  Insecurity is incredibly self-centered.  For us, it is not about what actually happened, it's about how it makes Us feel.

So, silentium est aurum.  In fact, I have various short and long "Stop Talking" notes to myself placed in strategic locations everywhere - a note in my iPhone, an enveloped card in my pocketbook, a letter in my office diary, an earmarked entry in my desktop notebook at home, a sticky in my pencil drawer, etc., etc.  Do they help?  95% of the time in professional situations; 50% with strangers; almost never with those who cause me personal pain - that's where we are the weakest.

Quote of the Week: "Orange Is the New Black" Checks Off Nepotism on Its List of Life's Wrongs

 

Joe Caputo (Litchfield Penitentiary's Assistant to the Warden):  The fish stinks from the head.  And I'm not the head!  I am actually down by the gills somewhere.  So, once I call the police and US Marshals; and the DOC investigators start sniffing around, it's going to look a lot worse for the 'Director of Human Activity' here at Litchfield!

Danny Pearson (MCC appointed Director of Human Activity):  Whoa!

Caputo:(ironically) Whoa!

Pearson:  Whoa!

Caputo:  Whoa!

Pearson:  Whoa! Yeah...

Caputo:  Whoa, whoa, whoa! Yeah!

Pearson:  Slow down!  Why do we have to involve all those people?

Caputo:  We have an escaped convict!!!

Pearson:  Let's just go get her back!

Caputo:  Who?

Pearson: You and me.  Where did they take her?

Caputo:  The bus station in Utica.

Pearson:  Let's just get into a car.  We'll go get her, bring her back. Yeah!  Nobody has to know.

Caputo:  So, you're saying, the two of us should go and apprehend an escaped convict?  This is not The Fucking Bloodhound Gang!  Okay?

Pearson:  Well, I don't know what to do!  I honestly don't know what the fuck to do!  Do you know how I got this job?  My Dad is one of the SVP's at MCC.

Caputo:  (smirks and nods his head in full comprehension and disgust)

Pearson:  Yeah...  This is going to be worse than when I got kicked out of Ohio University...  I have no idea what I'm doing..

Caputo:  Fine.  I'll go.  On my own.

The Frustrated CFO's Comment:Most shows experience some sort of a slump in the third season - the story exhausts itself, the characters become too familiar, writers run out of surprising ideas.  Not this show, though!  This 3rd season!  It's so good, some critics and viewers rate it higher than the fist two!  There is so much excellent, nuanced stuff!  And this Caputo guy, who got promoted by the producers into a main character - I painfully relate to his plight of never-ending bad decisions.  There are always insults added to his injuries: not only that he gets a new boss, but it's somebody's useless offspring on top of it.  You just know, there is no happy ending for Caputo - he'll never get out of prison.

 

Musings Over People's Deficiencies, or the Division of Labor Extreme

A few weeks ago, this young artist I know went to a party - a sort of a mingling of, let's say (trying to be as vague as possible), people in creative fields.  Afterwards, I asked her how it went and the first thing that I got back was actually a rhetorical question: "Why do people suck so bad at organizing things?"

Turns out the party was arranged by a couple of guys who were "minglers" themselves and volunteered to spearhead the process; apparently, with an unsatisfactory result.  I can hear some of my readers saying with all-knowing intonations, "This is why you outsource to professional event-planners or employ support staffers with event-organizing responsibilities."

And they are correct.  I rarely go to parties myself, but the last two I attended were a huge Gala (over 700 people) and a small Gala (250 people).  The former was put together by a "big-name" event-planning firm and the latter by the event chairman's personal assistant.  Well, those were pretty large affairs with complicated programs and minor celebrities in attendance.  But a regular cocktail and/or dinner party? 

To tell you the truth, every time people start calling expensive coordinators to manage some itty-bitty occasion I have the same mental image: Steve Martin's remade father of the bride questioning his wife (Diane Keaton) on why two people who successfully run independent businesses need any help in putting together a wedding; let alone help of some guy with an unidentifiable accent (Martin Short) and his smug assistant (BD Wong, which is uncanny, cause he was one of the celebrity guests at that big gala I mentioned above).  

You probably think, "Why don't you try it yourself?"  So, let me assure you that I do have experience of rolling up my sleeves and stepping into party-planning when nobody else around is up to the task; most recently for a celebratory corporate festivity for my company with 80 guests.  And, yes, I am a control freak (at least I admit it) and sometimes it is a contributing factor into my taking charge of things, but honestly it was either doing it myself or wasting thousands of dollars on outsourcing. 

Let me remind you that I am a career CFO with multiple interests - I don't do parties, professionally or as a hobby.  Yet, 18 months later people are still talking about it.  And I promise you I didn't do anything out of the ordinary - I simply approached the problem in a logical and systematic way.  That was the very reason the project fell into my lap in the first place - people always rely on my common sense.

But that's a rare commodity nowadays, common sense, isn't it?  And the lack of it causes the trend of ultra-narrow specialization we observe today.  I am not surprised at all that those artistic types couldn't organize a decent party.  Haven't you noticed?  The majority of people around you are good primarily at one thing (if they are good at anything at all): performing their paying jobs, or looking pretty, or being social, or shopping, or cooking.  A person who is "good with people," usually sucks with numbers.  The hard-working breadwinners are mostly useless in their households.  Overwhelming number of people don't even have hobbies these days.  And those with fun-and-leisure faves are too preoccupied to do well at work.

And don't even get me started on the narrow professional specialization cultivated by headhunters and HR specialists too limited to comprehend the concept of adaptable competence!  They perverted the idea of "transferable skills" into exact matches of specific employment in a specific type of company of a specific industry.  Instead of assessing whether an applicant is capable of applying his expertise to ANY business situation they go through a checklist of specialized tasks.  You may be the strongest professional they've ever met, but if you don't collect enough check marks on the roster of narrowly defined projects, you will not be considered.  

How can we be surprised then that people are losing their capacity for systematic thinking both at work and life when they are stuck doing the same shit over and over again?  I'll tell you a secret: I never hire anybody whose resume shows 20 or even 10 years of static employment, no matter how "prestigious" it is.  Adaptability is one of my top 10 key factors of the value assessment.  I like my Renaissance people!             

The scary level of targeted specialization we have reached at this point is not evolutionary or revolutionary; and it's not economically beneficial and "progressive."  This is the aftermath of the intellectual (and physical) laziness that spreads into larger and larger segments of the general population like a pandemic.  The spoiled brats from all kinds of walks of life don't want to do elementary things themselves; they demand to be served, and, the shrinking minority of  enterprising people take the opportunity to supply such services - the natural laws of supply and demand are still struggling against nothingness.

On the opposite side from the utmost lethargy, but causing exactly the same regressively narrow results, is the other extreme - that glorified "focus" on your job and the job only.  Well, mental health specialists define the intense preoccupation with a narrow subject or activity as one of the main characteristics of Asperger syndrome.  And that's a mental disorder! 

Evolutionary speaking, we were never supposed to be this labor-differentiated, because  diverting the responsibilities for all your needs to others humans undercuts your personal chance for survival.  I am not talking pro-level pilotage in every task of life, of course, but there is basic shit you should be able to do yourself! 

And yes, that includes coordinating a simple gathering of people to everyone's satisfaction if the need arises.  I am not saying "Met Gala" with spectacular celebrities, but an ordinary function for 100 regular schmucks should be pretty manageable.

The same goes, as another example, for vacation planning.  One should be capable of tailoring his own decent vacation without paying for some generic package thrown together by an absent-minded leisure-industry professional who knows nothing about you and your companions.

And you should be able to make your place of residence livable without paying $300K fees to a "professional decorator" who will additionally charge you $50K for each made-in-China table lamp that you can buy at Lamp Warehouse in Brooklyn for $3K.  I am not saying Architectural Digest spreads, just a tasteful arrangement of furniture and some tchotchkes that make you feel at home.

And there is no need to call a handyman for bulb-changing, or picture-hanging, or installing a new toilet seat.  Unless, of course, it's a multifunctional state-of-the-art accessory that you've got yourself from Japan via Amazon.  I am not talking about using dangerous power tools to carve a brand-new lock into your door either - such types of amateur endeavors are reserved for very special people, but at least buy yourself a screwdriver.

And I am sorry, mathematically challenged people, but it is not funny anymore that you cannot (and don't want to) balance your checkbooks.  In the age of electronic payments, smart-phone deposits, massive hacking attacks, and readily available devices that can remotely override the security of every plastic item in your wallet, it is really dangerous not to reconcile your cash ins and outs with the bank records.  It's not a goddamned Newton's binomial theorem either!  Just pure arithmetic!  

And green thumb or not, one should be able to plant a seed and tend to it with sufficient care and persistence until it flowers or bears fruit.  Nobody is expecting award-winning roses and pluots here, but carrots, tomatoes, and onions can be managed by a child.

And not being able to cook a simple meal for yourself?  That's just pathetic!  What the hell are you going to do in the absence of the online orders and take-outs?  Chew raw pasta?

Yet, we hear all around us:

"I am totally retarded when it comes to cooking.  I can't even boil an egg!"

Or, "I wouldn't be able to sew a button to save my life!"

That "save my life" turn of phrase is not accidental, by the way.  The day may come when it can have a very literal meaning. 

Anatomy of an Internet Argument

Judging by the number of memes related specifically to the subject of Internet arguments, the vast majority of people online, at one or another point, have gotten themselves involved into this futile and unpleasant exercise.  It's understandable: Connectivity is the Internet's primary purpose - people come together in the virtual space, communicate, discuss topics (frequently controversial)...  And, when was the last time you have witnessed a discussion of a controversial topic without emotions flaring up and things getting personal?  Humans are acting human - what else is new? 

Of course, the Internet makes fighting especially intense.  In absence of the face-to-face confrontation and a possibility of someone throwing a punch, people feel protected by the distance, their own walls, and virtual anonymity.  We used to say that paper can bear anything.  Well, data cables are even more tenacious.  Some opponents get really wild, frequently vicious, and the keyboard gets it.  It's hard to make your adversary to absorb your words in person.  Online?  Fahgettaboudit!  Hence, the universal opinion that one cannot win an Internet argument.  By the same token, people don't lose Internet arguments either - one of the sides just gives up or runs out of free time.    

I personally have enough controversy in my physical existence.  Plus, ever since the beginnings of the Internet, I have realized that it is not a democratic forum where everyone has the right to their own voice.  On the contrary, it is the most oppressive and hostile equalizer.  This is a "place" where someone with no ability to even comprehend your words and not a single shred of civility feels free to call you "a retard" regardless of who you are and of the level of your intellectual prowess.  So, acutely conscious of my own time (and sanity), I simply don't engage.  I just don't.  I don't even reply to the comments on my own posts. 

Except... That Roger Waters' open letter to Dionne Warwick...  God! It was so bluntly anti-Semitic!  It was fed to me by Pink Floyd's page, which I follow and, I have to be honest, it got me upset.  I strongly oppose political correctness and prefer people express their animosities openly, but the fact that this stark example of hatred was masqueraded as a pro-Palestinian stance - that just stunk of hypocrisy.  

Also, in person or otherwise, I usually don't get into the Middle-East arguments.  Not because I have nothing to say, but because my opinions are too unusual; unacceptable to the majority of the debaters on both sides.  I'm not taking any sides.  And I wasn't planning on getting into it this time either.  But antisemitism is not a political opinion - it's a manifestation of millennia-old bigotry.  And I have a right to judge it according to my personal moral code. 

Thus, for the sake of highlighting Roger Waters' thinly veiled true nature, I ignored my self-imposed restrictions on Internet and Middle-East discussions and commented on the open letter.  What transpired was an incredibly typical example of an online "exchange of thoughts."  It couldn't possibly come out more standardized even if I deliberately scripted it.  It's literally a classic case study.

My comment was:  

"Oh, a son of a British communist from Surrey is an anti-Semite?  Why are people surprised?  I expect nothing else.  In fact, the pro-Palestinian stand is a total sham: It's all about hating the Jews.  Roger Waters doesn't care about Palestinians.  Otherwise, he would try to convince them to raise their children in the comfortable houses the Israelis have built instead of burning them down.  But he wouldn't, because he is blinded by hatred.  And how silly for him to call ANYONE ignorant!  This is not the first concept he has been confused about: Remember his total misinterpretation of George Orwell?  Then again, people should stop expecting enlightenment from celebrities.  As humans, most of them are nothing special - just your average schmucks touched by God's gifts; the channeling instruments.  And I always said that one should separate an artist from the art."

I didn't criticize pro-Palestinians or pro-Israelis in general - just expressed my reaction specifically to Roger Waters' letter.  Yet, of course, it didn't matter what I actually wrote.  People don't take time to comprehend the message- like bulls they only see the red flags, in this case "anti-Semite."  I got almost an immediate reply from "Agus Alexander", who, judging by his latest photo, is about 20 and appears to be a student.  He is originally from Ireland, spent some time in Argentina (probably as an exchange student), and now lives in Nova Scotia.  (This is actually very important, because that Canadian province is heavily populated by immigrants from Arabic countries.  Personal experience shows that Nova Scotian youth interacts far more frequently with Arabs than with Jews). 

He wrote:        

"So pro-Palestine is equal to anti-Semite .... Nice one I almost bought it but I'm not that dumb. You see what you are saying is either or you buy the whole pro Israel package or you are a fucking holocausting anti-Semite... Check how much deaths from each side have been through this years in this war and then refrain of your beliefs"

Note, that young Mr. Agus completely overlooked the fact that I explicitly expressed my doubts about Roger Waters' pro-Palestinian position.  Moreover, nothing in my comment suggested that I consider everyone who is not pro-Israel an anti-Semite.  And while I was taken aback by the suggestion that a primitive death count would change any of my beliefs (none of which I expressed, by the way), I decided to underscore my focus one more time:    

"Pro-Palestinian who is not an anti-Semite (and I mean deep in the heart of hearts, not PC bullshit)?  I personally have not met one, but theoretically, sure, it's possible.  However, if you actually read Mr. Waters' open letter, you know that he doesn't qualify as one.  And as I said, he doesn't qualify as pro-Palestinian either - just an anti-Semite."

It turns out that while I was writing those few lines, another reply to my original comment was posted.  This one by Beto Gabriel - a male facebooker in his mid-30s, who occupies himself by investing his money through ShareBuilder - CapitalOne's alternative to day-trading.  Remarkably (you will see in a moment!) he is an incessant quoter of snippets from Humanity Healing (a "spiritual activism" network).  Here it goes (all caps are original):    

"You stupid IDIOT... Palestinians dont want handouts, THEY WANT THEIR HOMELAND BACK. Yes they do hate, but its a JUST HATE. Their homeland was taken away and they became refugees in their own land... JUST IMAGINE THE MEXICANS OCCUPYING THE STATES AND TAKING YOUR HOUSE AND FORCING U OUT INTO A DESIGNATED AREA..."

As soon as I read the words "stupid IDIOT," I was out of this exchange.  It was over for me.  Not because I'm known to back out, but because bullies are better handled in a face-to-face confrontations.  They are not really as brave in person and the arguments end much faster.  My timing constraints are not a match to the luxurious freedom of a day-trader.  Plus, one cannot encourage further bad-mannered insolence. 

I even ignored the delicious morsels of bait such as "homeland" and "Just Hate." (Is that what they teach at Humanity Healing?  How to justify hate?)  How did Beto Gabriel concluded that I am an intellectually disabled person with a complete lack of reason from that one comment of mine and what qualifies him as an expert in human intellectuality?  We will never know that.  As I said, I was out.

For the sake of completeness of the arguments' dissection, let me note that while I was staring at Beto Gabriel's berserk outburst, Agus Alexander opened up about his true confusion a little bit more:             

"I strongly encourage you Marina to think.. Outside the tv box and the popular opinion. Yes there are lots of people who consider what Israel is doing what it really is a holocaust... But they are afraid to speak because they will instantly labeled as antisemites, I have nothing against Israel  except for their actions. But I respect all religions what does that make me?"

Wow!  What a mess of thoughts!  Plus, the little boy invites me a.) to think period (implying that I don't) and b.) to think outside of "the TV box and the popular opinion."  Hilarious!!!  But, of course, he has no idea who I am.  And I cannot take it seriously - these people have no flexibility of mind; they learn three-four formulaic phrases, which become their slogans du jour, and they throw them around regardless of the substance of the actual discussion.     

Of course, I could've replied to Beto Gabriel that if I were a nomad in, let's say, Nevada desert with no roof over my head, living hand-to-mouth, and my daughter was running around barefoot (this American boy I know, who served in Israeli Army, told me how sad those barefoot Palestine children made him), I would've welcomed any type of shelter with plumbing provided by Mexicans or whoever, let alone high-quality private housing.  Motherhood carries far more important responsibilities than political stands devised by vicious males.  And by they way, that Nevada desert, together with 7 giant states (1 million square miles - 117 times more than the entire State of Israel) was taken by the US from Mexico only 100 years before the formation of Israel.       

And to Agus Alexander's question with regards to what his supposed respect for all religions makes him I could've answered that it makes him a very poorly informed young man who cannot expand his mind beyond his immediate surroundings.  Antisemitism has very little to do with religion.  My maternal great-grandparents were not religious.  Yet, it didn't stop the Nazis from burying them alive in the field near their hometown together with all other Jews that lived there.  The majority of the 6 million Jews killed in WWII and of those killed in pogroms before and after the war were secular.  Hitler/Himmler's the Ultimate Solution documents stated in writing that ALL ethnic Jews were to be wiped out from the face of this planet; religion was explicitly disregarded.  That what Holocaust means.  Look it up!

I could've made a list of the times through my life I was called a dirty Jew to my face.  And I could've shared how I felt listening to my parents talking about the Munich Massacre in 1972.  And I might've described how terrified I was flying from Rome to New York with my little daughter at the peak of Palestinian hijackings in the late 80s.   

But I didn't reply with any of that to either of the men, because they lost me at "stupid IDIOT."  At the end of the day, this is what you get for breaking your own rules twice. 

In all these Middle-Eastern debates, one thing perplexes me, though:  Why nobody ever throws stones at the entities that initiated this mess in the first place?  Don't people remember that Palestine was a British colony until 1948 and that it was United Nations' 1947 decision that implemented FDR's "visions" of giving Palestine freedom from the protectorate and creating the State of Israel at the same time?  I guess 70 years back is way too much history for them.    

Our Fluid Morality, or What Makes "The Blacklist" So Seductive

Not the most watched TV show in America (somehow it's impossible for any series to compete with everyone's guilty pleasure aka the NCIS franchise), The Blacklist, nevertheless, draws respectable numbers of viewers:  Between those who must watch every episode when it first airs (out of fear that they will be assaulted by the spoilers at the water coolers, no doubt) and those who are grateful for the opportunity to do things on their own schedule (i.e. DVRists and On-Demandists), about 16 million people watch every episode of the show within 3 days from its original airing (if you prefer accumulating new episodes and then watch them 6 at a time or you just binged on the entire first season on Netflix, you don't count).  The episode that aired after the Super Bowl had a record of 30 million viewers.

Impressive!  Of course, the show's creators keep hooking and reeling in the audience with secrets and vague hints about the main characters' pasts, futures, connections and disconnects, the overall story arch, and the possible endgame.  Plus, it's an action thriller, so there are plenty of twists and turns, car chases, shootings, tortures, and "suspenseful" misadventures in every case.  Except that we can get all that through so many other media outlets, don't we?

There is no doubt in my mind that the main draw of the show is its chief protagonist - the former Navy officer ("he was groomed for admiral"), now one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives, Raymond "Red" Reddington.  We know it and so are the designers of all printed-media ads.  And, some part of it may be attributed to James Spader's offbeat charm and subtlety, that almost shy smirk in the corners of his mouth, that hidden trauma deep inside his eyes (or to our memory of the charm and subtlety, the smirk, and the trauma as he finessed them as Graham Dalton).  But the real truth is that, James Spader or not, we LOVE the hard-core criminal, the ruthless, the calculating, the self-righteous, the snobbish know-it-all, the flawed, the mysterious hero that is Red Reddington.

Look, we live in bizarre, degenerative times of perpetual futility and failure, with dubious future prospects and shifting moral standards.  Everybody (and I mean, EVERYBODY) does illicit things, lies, steals, cheats, covets.

And I'm not even talking about big-time thieves (like corporate moguls) and liars (like politicians), arms and drug dealers, rapists and  molesters, or even that CFO who stole $7 million from his employer.  

I'm sure you, my reader, consider yourself a fairly decent person.  So, I invite you to examine just one day in your life and I guarantee you will find something that, strictly speaking, is not moral. 

Start small and "innocent": half the time when you take a sick day off your aren't sick at all, right?  Of course.  And what's wrong with that?  As far as you know, everyone does it.  A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do... to survive: resumes, interviews, taxes, drugs, office supplies you bring home from your place of work, your expense account, that last drink you took before you got into the car, that little tryst with a hotty from marketing, 99% of the bullshit that comes out of your own and everyone else's mouth, etc., etc. - just the basics of an average person's somewhat moral existence. 

All that matters is how slick and seamless you are when you do it and whether you can get away with it.  As long as you don't get caught, fired, kicked out of your house, or sued, you will continue doing what "everyone else does." 

When we see wrongdoings we don't speak up because we are afraid of the consequences; and we don't express our opinions because we don't want to be ostracized; we hide our own sins and look away from those of others.

But most of us are not sociopaths: while on the surface this behavior goes unpunished, our buried in bullshit subconscious is nevertheless secretly troubled.  As a result, we suffer from unexplainable fears, anxiety, and anger. 

Yep, we are very-very angry; you may even say wrathful  - pretty much at everyone and everything: our governments, generations of people who destroyed our planet and those fucks who still do, overpopulating nations and individual families, domestic animal abusers and wildlife killers, the dwindling quality and escalating prices, our bosses and subordinates, parents and children, spouses, boyfriends, girlfriends, exes, neighbors, customer services and customers, people who don't think like us; every single motherfucker who takes advantage of us; everyone who we blame for who we are, including ourselves; our own cowardice and impotence. 

We are livid watching the worst sinners reaping life's rewards and those untalented idiots who, by some fluke of fate or flourishing nepotism, are recognized as cultural icons.  Sometimes it overwhelms us to the point when we just want to grab people by their collars, lift them up, and smack them against the wall real hard. 

And in this condition of perpetual moral sacrifices, bewilderment at the state of things, intense disappointment, and the pent-up anger, how can we not be drawn to a morally flawed character, who confirms that the world is fucked and we are not crazy, that we are justified in feeling the way we do? 

Practically in every episode, he exposes every branch and every agency of every government as thoroughly corrupt and incapable.  He confirms that money and the corporations behind them rule the world and us; that a handful of people possess virtually unlimited powers and can destroy fates of nations by raising their hands in some treacherous vote.  And, given a chance, he will try to hurt those devils or at least to interfere with their evil plans. 

He walks into the most dangerous situation with a surety of an invincible superhero.  If it's necessary, he coolly raises his hand with a gun in it and squeezes the trigger with an air of a vermin exterminator.  He will lie, scheme, and  take advantage of every opportunity to reach his goals.  On top of that, he prefers animals to humans!  

Even more impressive is his sober understanding of the faults and weaknesses of those to whom he is personally attached.  Just because he cares about them, it doesn't mean that he has any illusions about who they are. 

We marvel at the way Reddington stands out against the background of powerless and defective schmucks, oh, so similar to us.  Cause (did you notice?), whether they are on the side of the "law" or on the criminal side, there are no good, honest, decent people in the show's vast cast of characters - everyone is ethically deficient and either confused about their selfish motivations or knowingly hide them.  In contrast, Red's immoral clarity is incredibly refreshing. 

To tell you the truth, I don't think that the show's creators had consciously cooked this up as a marketing ploy.  They are not different from us - just as ethically corrupt (maybe even more so) and anxious.  They simply follow their instincts and realize their dreams of justice through their fictional creations.  And by making these apparitions public they allow us to participate in the experience as well.  Such has been the prerogative of writers for over 4000 years.

What I do have to give the creators and producers credit for is the targeting of wide slices of viewing demographics.  First of all, they got the most relevant age groups covered: 20-somethings who like shows with hot FBI/CIA/Mossad chicks and ugly foreign dudes with big guns; 30-somethings still preoccupied with cool jobs, career advancements, and scarred-forever hearts; and middle-agers who fucked up their own lives and those kids' futures to the irreversible point, yet still hope that they can "fix things." 

Then they got the important interests groups: people of both genders who are interested in guns and explosives and those who are into politics; women who put their jobs ahead of everything else and those who still dream the American dream.  And they got nerds with cutting-edge tech stuff and conspiracy theories!  Plus, they keep uncovering domestic and world-wide social boils, thus appealing to people with at least some ability for progressive thinking.

Bravo!  They get them interested and then Red keeps them hooked.  Let's just hope that the show-runners have an actual sense of direction and that they will not let the seductively successful character drown in some muddy bullshit.  Maybe James Spader's new co-executive position that his reps negotiated for him after the first season's success will prevent commonly destructive tendencies.

And look what happened: He just got the executive power and two episodes in the first half of the second season were directed by Andrew McCarthy.  Nepotism, of course, but still, honoring old ties, supporting old friends - it ranks pretty high on our contemporary degraded morality scale. All we need now is a guest appearance by Jon Cryer (now available after 12 seasons of Two and a Half Men) and Molly Ringwald as agent Keen's presumably dead mother.  The Pretty Pinklist, anyone?