#ethics

#METOO – #ME(N)TOO

E70334F1-62BB-4AC9-ABA8-14F985418F9D.jpeg

Let’s make it absolutely clear – sexual assault is unacceptable. Pretty much every sane person on the planet gets that. Once again we have liberal elites, led by Alyssa Milano, all of a sudden taking to social media to run the #METOO campaign to highlight an issue they could have easily raised years ago. Now they turn on their former paymaster and sexual predator in chief Weinstein they have all of a switched from blissfully unaware to full throttle because they can. Men who do not wish to be seen as unsupportive have launched a counter campaign #IWILL so as to avoid any untoward  shaming. My two questions to Milano are:

1) If you knew that Weinstein was a predator surely you could have run this #METOO campaign from the get go. Since it was an open secret why didn’t you start #METOO at that time or was it you chose to put your career above the issue?

2) on New Year’s Eve in Cologne 2016, the German federal government gagged the police and the media to cover up mass sexual assaults perpetuated against women. Regardless of who the perpetrators were, after the scandal broke where was Milano protesting #METOO for the fact that the Mayor of Cologne recommended German women wear less revealing clothes so as to avoid being harassed or assaulted by their new arrivals? You were absolutely silent.

Lets be very clear. My daughter was the victim of sexual assault on a crowded train in Tokyo at age 13. When I got the message I downed tools at work and went straight to her school to see how she was. I am not sure whether I was more shaken then her. Possibly. I rode on the train every morning for the better part of two months to see if I could get her to identify the attacker. In my mind I had no qualms about exercising street justice on this pig. I was not in the slightest bit worried about the repercussions to me. My daughter’s safety and mental well-being trumped all else. We haven’t caught him.

So to have Milano virtue signaling about all these evil men perhaps she should take a knee to her own cause by knowing the overwhelming majority of men out there absolutely abhor any form of sexual assault and are more likely to defend women’s rights more than she can possibly dream of. This sanctimony must end. The stereotyping must also cease. The #IWILL campaign smacks of this liberal brainwashing which becomes nothing more than an attempt to sound pious over issues they’ve conveniently ignored until they can get some mileage.

Watch Corey Feldman’s interview on pedophilia with Barbara Walters where she criticizes him for “could destroy[ing] an entire industry” rather than face harsh realities.

So Alyssa in all  honestly your campaign seems more about giving your own career a jump start rather than protecting  all those real victims of assault. Your actions to date would suggest that.

Indeed the bigger danger is that innocent men may all of a sudden be forced to defend themselves if allegations from disgruntled former partners or women who willingly consented to sex feel there is an ambulance chasing opportunity. Maybe on the fringe but still a concern. Why is there no mention of female sexual predators and assaults against men? How many cases of female high school teachers having sex with underage boys have surfaced in recent times? I guess that doesn’t fit the narrative of “speaking out”.

Kobe ‘Steal’ – will the market referee wave a red card at what looks a lot like insider trading?

6B872830-46AE-448A-977C-D953E4BEEF66.jpeg

If the referee caught Kobe Steel’s (5406) rugby team up to such foul play it is likely that players would be red carded. While unconfirmed speculation at the moment, it would appear that since September 21st Kobe Steel shares came under heavy selling pressure in what a seasoned market punter might suspect looks like insider trading via aggressive short selling. 7 straight negative candle sticks. Kobe Steel spilled the ball on its data manipulation on October 8th.

This would not be the first time that a broker conspired with a fund to short sell a stock ahead of a negative release on insider information where several weeks later news broke and sent the shares collapsing. This is the current action of Kobe Steel shares.

3913F6FB-F096-4E8A-BBD6-5CA21DB375B2.jpeg

So excluding borrowing costs or any leverage, if one had managed to short sell Kobe Steel at 1350 (on Sep 21) and brought back at today’s prices a quick fire 53% return would be gained.

The important question is whether the regulator will investigate any potential foul play when looking at the video replay. I will be asking this question directly to the Financial Services Agency (FSA) as I have been invited the regulator to give a speech on ways to improve Japanese corporate governance in a few weeks time.

This won’t be just a beat up of Japan’s corporate governance as foreign corporates have made countless scandals post the introduction of Sarbanes Oxley in 2002.  However it will aim to be a realistic overview of tolerating what seems to be endless preventable insider trading scams with paltry penalties of $500 and a slap on the wrists with a feather duster.

Until serious punishments for flagrant market manipulation are thrust front and centre in front of bewildered and annoyed (foreign) investors, the cynicism will remain that Japan is not a safe place to invest. Remember insider trading is effectively fraud. Perhaps your pension fund owns Kobe Steel in a global portfolio meaning that some shady investor has stolen your retirement to feather his or her nest.

Perhaps I should thank Kobe Steel for getting dirty in the ruck area to help the final presentation draft.

7C59A579-E1A8-42A6-8A44-07DF955D5B01.jpeg

No Oscars for honesty. Plenty for hypocrisy

As the dirty laundry of Hollywood gets aired how many celebrities forgot that the internet has a half life of infinity and that there are trolls that will go to the ends of the earth to dig up things actors did in the past. Whether it be Jimmy Kimmel asking young girls to fondle his crotch to see if they could tell what the bulge was or Ben Affleck grabbing a handful of reporters’ breasts one thing is for sure, the public have such a low opinion of celebrities that one wonders why the Democrats want these liberal elites championing their causes. This video at election time last year spoofing the previous one done by Hollywood actors (who by the way made jokes about Mark Ruffalo ‘showing his dick’ if they registered – I mean how funny is that!?!? NOT.) was perhaps one of the best send ups which summarises why they should just stick to film making and shut up about everything else.

Listen to this Golden Globes speech by Meryl Streep and put all of her words she made about the President in the context of the then untouchable Weinstein as she said,

when the powerful use their position to bully others we all lose”

We need the principled press to hold them to account..”

”I only ask that the famously well heeled foreign Hollywood press and all of us…to supporting the committee to protect journalists…to protect them going forward…we’re going to need them…and they’ll need us too…to safeguard the truth…”

Isn’t it a privilege to be an actor?…yes it is and we have to remind ourselves of the privilege and responsibility of the act of empathy

How prophetic those words are given the denial of the real culture of Hollywood. That as vulgar as the man she accused in her speech isn’t it ironic that her privileges were in part granted by safeguarding people from the truth by protecting the very journalists who turned a blind eye to the bullies so they wouldn’t be held to account. Which part is the act of empathy? Not even sympathy.

National Felon League (NFL)

It changes the moral high ground on the debate on the NFL when dragging it down into the statistics of the players themselves. Perhaps some players are taking a knee to stop themselves being held accountable by the very laws they break. 713 different players between 2000-2014 have been arrested, Shocking list of charges – rape, murders, shootings, animal cruelty, prostitution rings, assault, robbery, illegal gun possession, DUI, resisting arrest and so forth. So ask yourself why fans might get turned off being lectured to by these social justice footballers? Great role models.

Makes the NRL in Australia look like a bunch of choir boys.

With pay TV viewership and game attendance continuing to fall (according to Nielsen) we are seeing some team owners like the Steelers begging fans to accept it’s just a misunderstanding and sponsors like Nike sticking up for the NFL because they want to make sure their investment sustains a return. Budweiser will be the big swing factor on the NFL. It proudly promotes it has 11,000 veterans working for it. Pepsi, Budweiser’s Anheuser-Busch InBev paid $1.4 billion to sponsor the NFL out to 2022. When AB InBev first inked this deal in 2011 (to last through the 2017 Super Bowl) it paid $1.2 billion. Not small pennies. DirecTV has announced they will give full refunds to customers who want to cancel their NFL channel. Of course DirecTV will be asking the NFL to cover the costs of that.

No matter what one’s views are, the NFL will live and die by their actions. As mentioned yesterday, taking a knee is now so commonplace it is actually no longer seen as the protest it was originally done for. Then again, all the NFL is bringing on itself is the double standards of many of its players.

Take me out to (just) the ball game

DBE21564-76BA-4733-B340-0A9075502831.jpeg

Isn’t the sole reason to buy tickets to a ball game is so that you can relax and forget about stresses at work or home? It is a distraction. Family time. A way to unwind. Paying to see elite athletes do what they do best. What fans don’t pay to see is a game which is dressed in politics. Once again the President has smacked more people eager to disrespect the nation. While hardly presidential, he none-the-less made a very good point – “fire those sons of bitches” referring to those grossly overpaid players who make political gestures such as taking a knee when the national anthem is being played. When this whole ‘kneeling’ malarkey kicked off, NFL ratings have been on a slide and the 2017 start has showed a shocking 24% (FOX) and 15% (CBS) drop in the Prime 18-49 viewership stats.

09362026-88F3-4C45-87EC-1A0449117402

Now the facts are simple. 30 of the 32 NFL teams are owned by whites. The other two by Americans of Asian decent. The idea that Colin Kaepernick was fired because of racism is plain dumb. 70% of the players in the NFL are black. These players are paid huge salaries  and to all intents and purposes are employees of the club. Therefore the boss contracts players to behave in ways that not only win ballgames but respect their customers (i.e. fans) who ultimately fund their salaries. Kaepernick was on $12mn per year. Hardly skimping by because of his supposedly racist bosses. Yet in his quest to protest police brutality he decided to shove his politics into fans’ faces. While they just wish to enjoy a game he wants to sour the experience.

Ah yes, he has a right to free speech. Indeed he does. However when he is on the ‘company clock’ he is still required to follow the boss’ instructions. That is part of the contract of employer/employee. In a sense what Kaepernick was doing was dissent. If he wants to protest such matters why doesn’t he do it off the field. In fact his actions have spawned copycats in kid’s sports. What values are we teaching these kids? Instead of looking at ways to sensibly heal rifts, coaches are trying to brainwash innocent kids to doing their protests for them.

The AFL is also guilty of this political posturing over same sex marriage (SSM). The AFL has not been the poster child for best in class ethics (e.g. bosses having affairs with junior female staff) yet feel they should put “yes” on the footballs and their HQ logo. All fans want to do is watch the game and escape all the ills in society. They don’t pay to have it served up to them. It doesn’t matter if these fans support SSM it’s a question of why are corporates or sports teams campaigning on what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It is irrelevant.

The argument we often hear is that corporations should use their profiles to promote social issues. Corporations are nothing but buildings with desks, chairs some pot plants and desktop PCs. They aren’t people. Sure people work inside them but to think that “the corporation speaks for us” is nonsense. In most cases it’s a small committee forcing their sense of political will on staff about how they should behave. Sure basic standards in the office are fair but since when did political views, gender or sexual orientation become such a fertile ground for companies to push on staff. Surely the only true goal of the staff is to work as a team to produce results efficiently in the interests of their customers. Not seek to rebrand their logos and shopfronts to promote political causes.

If companies feel so strong about such issues perhaps they should chisel those principles under the other core goals respelendent in the office foyer. Yet it is different. Corporates are becoming so scared of lawsuits and reputational damage that they embark on social crusades to chalk up a track record to deny they discriminate in the workplace hence all these social targets. So while some staff see the corporate actions as virtuous many don’t realize the public point scoring element to the cheerleading

Ultimately consumers have choices. When it comes to sport people want to relax and enjoy the game, not absorb political posturing. When it comes to drinking coffee they don’t want Starbucks explaining their rationale as to why the removal of Christmas cups was done.

Here is an idea. If the NFL or AFL IR anymother business for that matter wish to push political causes offer fans/customers a choice. Half price tickets/services/goods with a political pamphlet handed out or a full priced ticket/service/good with none. That way the fan/customer can choose. I’d only suggest to put a recycling bin right by the ticket booth/register so you can see how many fans/customers  actually care what you have to say on political matters! You’ll soon realize the majority don’t care and your revenues will have halved. Best stop the politics and charge full prices.

Why haven’t climate scientists been jailed for fraud?

IMG_0637.JPG

Evil banksters have been burnt at the stake over the last 30 years. Some would argue that not enough of these swindlers saw the inside of a jail cell. Maybe. Still many have faced multi million dollar fines, two decade prison terms and barred from ever operating again in the financial industry. Yet time and again climate scientists who receive millions in funding to scare us with fraudulent reports never face any repercussions. In fact many end up suing for libel believing their reputations have been tarnished by exposutenof the truth.

In a sense the taxpayer money used to bailout the financial system is not much different from the billions being plowed recklessly into energy policy based on wonky research. Even government sponsored climate organizations (NOAA, NASA, BoM, UNIPCC) have fallen for the sins of huge grants and recycling updated bogus studies by fiddling previous data to keep their Ponzi scheme going. Junket travel has been a big feature in the recent exposures of NASA and BOM. Can’t be seen missing the conference in the Maldives!

So again, why haven’t any scientists “busted” for manipulating data been charged for fraud? If it is ok to send bankers to jail for white collar crimes, why not scientists? Because they can wrap their malfeasance inside models that are sold as well intentioned studies to saving the planet! Who can prove their did predictions might not come to pass?

WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years based on nine counts of conspiracy, securities fraud and false regulatory filings to the tune of $11bn. Enron’s former CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted on 35 counts of fraud, insider trading and other crimes related to Enron and sentenced to 24 years prison and fined $45 million. Madoff got 150 years, Stanford got 110 years jail time.

Will whistleblower scalps found guilty of fraud be charged, fined and jailed? It is highly unlikely. They’ll claim anomalies in data and forecasting is indeed difficult.

In any event if there was a Climate Science watchdog that monitored fraud (not to mention massive conflicts of interest which are mentioned in previous pieces) like the SEC how much fraud would scientists try to get away with? Why not have a body which mandates funding sources to check for potential conflicts of interest? That way dishonest scientists would be restricted in their movements and those with legitimate findings wouldn’t see their work drowned out by the rogue elements,

Interestingly most of the court related activities in the scientific fields have been exposed scientists looking to sue for libel after emails proving the fraud were leaked.

Yet scientists don’t have to worry. The media has little interest in chasing something that might ruin their narrative. Even worse they’ll cite scientists (Australia’s former climate commissioner Tim Flannery comes to mind) who have made countless dud predictions (in many cases the complete opposite has occurred ) and act as though it’s gospel.

Once again climate science is a religion. No wonder it’s got so much protection. Hence the vows of silence in the halls of the scientific church. They’re untouchable. However that by deduction makes me a heretic.

Blowing the whistle on NASA over climate data

IMG_0884

Jo Nova has an excellent piece exposing the scams inside NASA with regards to their climate models and allegations of misappropriated taxpayer funds. She notes whistleblower Dr Duane Thresher who worked seven years at NASA GISS “describes a culture of self serving rent-seekers, mismanagement and incompetence. These are the top experts in the climate science field that we are supposed to accept without questioning. Those who say they are working to “save the planet” care more about their junckets than they do about the data or their “best” model…NASA GISS’s most advanced climate model is run from the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC). Thresher recounts a story from someone on the inside:“NASA GISS’s climate model — named Model E, an intentional play on the word “muddle” — is called the “jungle” because it is so badly coded.” I know this to be true from my own extensive experience programming it (I tried to fix as much as I could…)…”

Of course I can hear the alarmists cry  that Thresher is a ‘discredited’ scientist as they do for anyone who disagrees,. Much in the spirit of the Harvard piece I put out last week, venerable organizations like NASA (which has put humans into space) carry almost untouchable status. This is the problem. Do we just suck up aything we are told by these organizations or do we need to add an extra layer of skepticism because of the ‘reputation’?

It is truly hard to imagine that the brain’s trust that makes up an organization that can launch rockets and space shuttles can be guilty of such sloppiness. Such whistleblowing will  lead to a congressional testimony which will bring many things to light. It wasn’t long ago that NOAA was subpoenaed after a whistleblower said the group had rushed a report ahead of the Paris climate summit with obviously fiddled data that fit a narrative. NOAA refused to hand over the emails for months on the grounds of privacy  when the head of House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith explained the reality that they worked for the government and had no choice.

Smith noted, “According to Dr. John Bates, the recently retired principal scientist at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, the Karl study was used “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy…I thank Dr. John Bates for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion. In the summer of 2015, whistleblowers alerted the Committee that the Karl study was rushed to publication before underlying data issues were resolved to help influence public debate about the so-called Clean Power Plan and upcoming Paris climate conference. Since then, the Committee has attempted to obtain information that would shed further light on these allegations, but was obstructed at every turn by the previous administration’s officials. I repeatedly asked, ‘What does NOAA have to hide?’

Once again whenever people try to use the ‘credibility’ argument to sway debate, there is a treasure trove of evidence to show in this case that it is politics not science. With billions if not trillions at stake, such fraud has not resulted in any of these climate scientists being fined, deregistered or jailed for the very things that have happened to people in the financial sector. What is the difference I wonder? Maybe because the government has been in on the act…

Even Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology has been recently exposed for divisive behaviour in temperature measurement. Putting hard floors on cold temperatures with no such restrictions on warm weather. We’re supposed to trust these bodies? More on that tomorrow.

Well as the old adage goes, “there are lies, more lies and then there are statistics”