#inclusion

Was the CIA too white at the time of 9/11?

Central Intelligence Agency

According to the BBC, it was. The UK taxpayer-funded broadcaster is buying into this hypothesis that the CIA may have been too “white” and not diverse enough to spot the terrorist activity around September 11, 2001. Weren’t the whites that founded the agency in 1947 the same thinkers who had the nous to use “diversity” (Navaho Native Americans) to devastating effect to transmit sensitive information during WWII? That was 54 years prior to the 9/11 attacks.

What a spectacular own goal. How could the BBC be so careless? It should be completely down to the CIA’s white supremacist backgrounds that led to an agency completely driven by irrational fear to facilitate any old excuse to bomb the crap out of shithole nations. Does CM need to do the BBC’s work for them?

Passing the CIA aptitude tests are bound to be pretty tough in the intelligence areas. The day the CIA starts to prioritise skin tones, sexual proclivity and what is between the legs of candidates as opposed to what is between their ears one should expect even more misses to result. It might be too late – find the CIA Diversity webpage here.

Diversity of thought is all that matters. The BBC would do well to seek introspection. If the CIA had been predominantly staffed by blacks and Hispanics, would this article have ever seen the light of day? Of course not. Good to know BBC practices racism. Or is the journalist gunning for a position on the NY Times editorial board alongside the sweet #cancelwhitepeople Sarah Jeong?

Why Gerry Harvey’s comments on diversity obsessed companies speak more about our superannuation fund managers

Harvey Norman is currently valued at over $5.1bn, which is c.4x the combined value of Myer and David Jones. Good on Gerry Harvey for getting stuck into the stupidity of diversity quota obsessed boards. He is right. Why are certain funds requesting Harvey Norman hit these soft and irrelevant targets adopted by David Jones & Myer so they can invest under their self imposed ESG guidelines? Surely any company’s performance (assuming they aren’t illegally exploiting child labour) should be all that matters to shareholders? If it works without this gender balance nonsense why fight to change a winning formula?

If anyone is ever fortunate enough to meet Gerry Harvey’s wife, Katie Page (the CEO), it isn’t hard to work out that her gender wasn’t a selection criteria. Fistfuls of competence were. She gets it and not for one fleeting second could anyone ever get the idea that she plays up to the gender card. An utterly pleasant, generous and intelligent individual.

If Gerry Harvey & Katie Page thought Harvey Norman shareholders’ best interests were served by an all female board it would done so based on skill and ability to add value. The gender wouldn’t even be a factor.

Have you noticed why Harvey Norman hasn’t followed the group think pervading all the other companies who pulled their adverts off the Alan Jones Breakfast Show? Because Harvey Norman doesn’t pretend to judge the personal political beliefs of its customers. They only wish to provide the best possible goods that meet market demand, not chase imaginary pixies in the quest to morally preen. However it perfectly describes the decision making processes inside less competent boards when they blindly follow the herd rather than independently validate scenarios based on data, relevance and common sense. We now know over 40 companies didn’t.

The only diversity required is that of thought – not gender, race, sexual preference or religion. However don’t be surprised to see locals run Harvey Norman’s overseas businesses – driven by the fact they understand local conditions better than a helicoptered expat.

Maybe it is high time these superannuation funds actually decide to do some homework on the companies they invest in. To drop this focus on nanny-state driven diversity targets and actually look at the companies themselves as “businesses”.

CM guarantees that the companies that focus on this socially constructed diversity balance nonsense will severely underperform when tough times approach. Because decisive leadership in a crisis can be found with leaders like Katie Page, not with those companies that put everything else but ability as the key selection criteria.

The bigger concern down the line will be that these CSR/ESG and equality obsessed fund managers will have parked so much money in the wrong names that the retirements of millions of Aussies will be severely crimped by this muck. Let there be no mistake – super holders will not thank these woke investors for chasing irrelevant internal constructs over viable businesses when reality dawns that they have much less than they anticipated for retirement. Maybe that is what CM should have said to the ATO when he set up his SMSF.

Zero points

Coles has joined the list of corporates which believe their customers actually give a damn what Alan Jones said two weeks ago. CM is rather dismayed at the absolute lack of creativity put into woke press releases. Do they just Google a standard DIY template? What do they hope to achieve other than inadvertently out themselves as easily bullied?

Coles said,

Coles values diversity, respect and actively promotes the rights of all of our team members and our customers.”

Did Coles get a flood of actual customers complaining to store managers as opposed to caving in to the faceless left wing activist groups like Sleeping Giants or Mad Fucking Witches? Maybe customers ONLY care about a wide variety of quality produce at decent prices. Just a thought. CM, like most shoppers, have never ventured into a Coles store praying that diversity is being observed.

These are the unimaginative press releases on Alan Jones from other companies,

Anytime Fitness,

The comments made last week by Alan Jones regarding Jacinda Ardern do not represent our view or values,

ME Bank,

We removed all our advertising this morning after the situation as we take this very seriously and these types of comments don’t reflect our values

Snooze,

We take the comment made by Alan Jones on the 15th of August about Jacinda Ardern very seriously. These comments do not reflect the values of Snooze

Bing Lee

The comments made earlier this week on the 2GB breakfast show do not reflect our values...

Koala Mattress,

Koala has cut ties with Alan Jones. We’re a significant buyer in the medium, and it’s something we should have done earlier. Climate change is real, violence against women starts with words and the bloke has had too many chances. @2GB873 time to wake up.

Was “wake up” an unintended oxymoron for the bedding company? Of course Koala is only too happy to endorse the likes of Clementine Ford whose slander makes Jones look like a choir boy.

CM is sure that when recession really starts to bite and revenue dollars are actually even harder to come by than now, these zero value add marketing departments will realize their moral code has absolutely no positive impact on business.

It isn’t just Alan Jones. Israel Folau lit up similar stupidity.

Rugby Australia wrote,

As a sport that is proud of the values of inclusion, passion, integrity, discipline, respect and teamwork that underpin our game globally and our Code of Conduct, we will defend those values and the right for all people to feel safe and welcome in our game regardless of their gender, race, background, religion or sexuality.

ANZ Bank

We do not support the views of Silver Fern Maria Folau and have made our views known to her employer Netball NZ.”

ASICS

We believe sport is for everyone and we champion inclusivity and diversity…While Israel Folau is entitled to his personal views, some of those expressed in recent social media posts are not aligned with those of ASICS.”

These corporates need to understand that no one cares what values these corporates have. They can decide for themselves without being lectured to like school kids on detention.

2/3rds of Rugby Australia cash would disappear

Folau.png

Rugby Australia’s (RA) CEO Raelene Castle says that the franchise can weather paying out Izzy Folau’s $10m claim. Although CM is not sure that paying out $10m + costs which would wipe out almost 2/3rds of the $18mn in cash on the balance sheet is something a CEO would think is worth boasting. What she needs to focus on is the declining operating performance.

Hopefully, Chairman Clyne will get his CEO to focus on NZ Rugby (NZR) as a benchmark.

RA took in approximately A$30m in licensing and sponsorship last year. NZR raked in A$65m. More than double for a country with one-fifth the population. Think about it. The advertising base is smaller yet the sponsors must see the returns as superior to do so.

Total revenues for RA sum to around A$110m. NZR takes in A$182m in 2018.

Matchday revenue for RA reached A$20m last year. NZR collected A$28m.

Total assets for RA sum to A$69m. NZR total assets are A$183m. Total equity for RA is A$27m vs NZR at $99m.

Perhaps understanding why the Wallabies franchise saw a 20% fall in revenues in 2018 is a bigger issue. Expenses fell 15% mainly due to slashing Super Rugby team costs in half and player costs by 33%. Without that, the company would have sunk deep in the red.

RA needs to focus on growth not cut itself into oblivion. When it prioritizes its customer base rather than put precious resources into virtue signaling and diversity programs the board wouldn’t need to park 2/3rds of the cash to cover up their catastrophic lack of judgment.

Nonetheless good to know Castle sleeps easy at the thought of losing such magnitudes.

How dare you stand by your man

If CM had a dime every time another person or corporate talked about “diversity and inclusion” he’d be a millionaire. That one has to claim the bleeding obvious is nothing more than sanctimonious virtue signaling. It is nauseating. It’s like asserting one stands against Nazis. Really? How woke!

To have people question Israel Folau’s wife supporting her husband beggars belief. What does one expect? That she might publicly shame him on her Twitter account? Is anyone surprised she retweeted his GoFundMe appeal? Perhaps former Aussie netballer Liz Ellis can advise Maria Folau in the art of throwing her beloved under the bus.

She tweeted, “How about this: There is no room for homophobia in our game. Anyone who is seen to support or endorse homophobia is not welcome. As much as I love watching @MariaFolau play netball I do not want my sport endorsing the views of her husband.”

Liz, should Netball NZ launch a witch-hunt on Maria? Shall we make an example of her? Perhaps ask Jacinda Ardern’s judiciary to sink its newly sharpened fangs into Maria for retweeting Izzy’s ‘hatred’ and incarcerate her? Perhaps ask Twitter to terminate his account?

ANZ, sponsor of the domestic netball premiership, unsurprisingly came out with a politically correct response. Does ANZ have to prove to the 0.1% of activists who claim faux outrage that it isn’t homophobic? Why not appeal to the 0.000001% of fornicators, adulterers and drunks who might have been upset by Folau? It is amazing to think these institutions hire so many staff to floss the chrome fixtures in the executive bathroom.

Corporations really need to grow a pair. “Diversity and inclusion” are overused more in corporate virtue signaling than Casanova serenading “I love only you” on Valentine’s Day.

If ANZ had a look at the bank account balances of the activists that they fear so much they would soon learn they could easily afford to lose their business.

Quit the moral preening. You aren’t fooling anyone.

Gender pay gap in US soccer?

US Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand railed at the gender pay gap between the US Soccer men’s team and women’s team after the latter thrashed Thailand 13-0.

Democratic Senator and perennial identity politician Elizabeth Warren also chipped in with her slant on things about how it is high time to address the pay gap!

Former Republican Senator Orrin Hatch asked the U.S. Soccer Federation to “end this two-tiered, gender-based structure that has unfairly discriminated against female athletes.”

Before US senators took to bashing the US Soccer Federation (USSF), a quick look at the Annual Report for 2018 reveals that “expenses” on the national women’s team were higher than the men’s.

By the numbers, women’s expenditure grew 25% to $17.13m in 2018 over the previous year while the men’s slid 35% to $14.63m (down from $22.43m in 2017). While expenditures aren’t completely broken down, one can assume that this adjustment includes paying for performance.

When boiled down, the expenses allocated to the women’s national team came in at 24% of overall expenses in 2018 from 18% in 2017. Men fell from 30% of the total to 20% over the same time period.

Unless multiple men’s team players have been sacked and there are surplus female players the pay gap is probably swinging in favour of the fairer sex. Or could it be that the governing body is exercising good governance?

Whatever it is, even better to see the investment in the youth national team and player development which has risen from $23.2m to $27.4m.

If only female soccer star Megan Rapinoe could casts aside her Trump Derangement Syndrome and sing the national anthem because she’s representing her country.

Not surprising to see own goals kicked by politicians who don’t look at the facts.

Perhaps the US women’s soccer team should address the pay gap between themselves first. Then once that is complete go after the blokes.

Constructive dismissal?

CM’s view on the incompetence of Rugby Australia (RA) is well documented and reconfirmed by Alan Jones in The Australian today. It appears that Israel Folau looks more like a sacrifice to the altar of the sponsor god, Qantas.

Sponsorship money is important to sports teams but it should never get to a point where the sponsored has to make unconscionable decisions to acquiesce their paymasters. It is unethical.

CM has long held issues over Qantas’ flagrant use of shareholder capital to sponsor the CEO’s activism. It is terrible governance.

Remember the acceptance rings ahead of the same sex marriage debate that Qantas pushed so hard on us? The idea was to distribute these acceptance rings (not fully closed) to customers, clients and travellers.

CM supposed if someone were to politely decline to wear one they risked being be branded homophobic, bigoted and summarily ostracized for expressing such views. It might be that they actually support gay marriage but do not wish to express it openly. That is nothing more than a conscious choice, not categorical staunch opposition. Perhaps failure to wear the ring could cause their career takes a turn for the worse all because they don’t comply with group expression i.e. corporate slavery. The team leader who passes them over because they incorrectly assume the employee is a dissenter. That is palpable workplace bullying encouraged by a woke CEO.

What Jones points out is that the ‘wallaby court’ had already decided the outcome before a word was uttered in defence. It appears it was a ‘hearing’ conducted with the deaf.

RA CEO Raelene Castle apparently told Vanessa Hudson, chief customer officer at Qantas,

I updated her on the situation a day after the post and told her that, confidentially, Rugby AU would be working towards a process to terminate Mr Folau’s contract and that Ms Hudson can share that position with Qantas chief executive Mr Alan Joyce. Ms Hudson texted me later that day saying that she had only shared the update with Mr Joyce and he was appreciative of the transparency and he said that a speedy resolution by Rugby AU was paramount.”

This says a lot about Qantas. If it wants to exert control over RA it should acquire it and manage it as a subsidiary.

Yet where was the pushback by RA? It flaked. If it understood the dwindling fan numbers meant it wasn’t connecting to revenue, it might have thought defending Folau might have been its greatest coup and that many non virtue signaling corporates could replace Qantas’ sponsorship.

The culture of RA is self evident. It is not about rugby anymore but a platform for identity politics.No wonder fans are deserting it. CM discusses dwindling fan numbers yesterday, something Jones alluded to. Put simply, the product stinks and that rot permeates from the top. Fans aren’t stupid.

Coach Michael Cheika’s abysmal win/loss record is tolerated because he tows the line of the C-level cabal. So do some of the players who threatened to boycott the team if Folau was allowed to keep playing.What a joke! These virtue signaling players if given the choice to stand by their beliefs or keep their lucrative contracts would choose the latter every time. They sounded just like those Hollywoodcelebrities that threatened to leave America if Trump won the presidency.Hypocrites.

However it only reinforces the reality of the culture within the RA that encourages this type of numb skulled response to pander to the top. If these players wanted to think about faith in context of not selling out core beliefs they could learn muchfrom Israel Folau.

It increasingly looks like the high level breach has been committed by the board in cahoots with Qantas.

As CM mentioned yesterday, perhaps receivership is the best outcome for RA. That way the apparatchiks get cleared out and replaced by people that connect with fans who ultimately pay the keep the lights on at HQ. It isn’t that hard to fix RA’s problems but it will be impossible with a leadership team which seems to support constructive dismissal at the behest of corporates that champion activism rather than principle. Clearly Qantas is the mean “spirit of Australia”

Get woke, go broke.