Podcasts about anheuser

Welcome to the Power Hour Podcast in todays episode Brian and Jim discuss the following. Portal #anheuserbusch #tesla

Es geht um eine gescheiterte Werbekampagne für Bud Light (Budweiser) von Anheuser-Busch, dem US-belgischen Bierkonzern, zu dem auch Marken wie Beck's, Franziskaner oder Hasseröder gehören. Bud Light war übrigens bisher das meistverkaufte Bier in den USA. Alissa Heinerscheid, Vizepräsidentin für Marketing bei Anheuser, äußerte sich vor dem PR-Desaster kritisch über das zu männliche Image der Marke Bud Light. Sie engagierte die Transperson Dylan Mulvaney für einen Clip über 49 Sekunden und damit nahm der Wahnsinn seinen Lauf.

“But the NFL recovered from it.” Don't be fooled by that nonsense. Steve Sipress, entrepreneur, marketing, advertising, sales, tips, ideas, help, strategy, small business owner, direct response, tactics, success, profits, growth, results, marketing consultant, woke, broke, Budweiser, Bud, Light, Target, Northface, Disney, NFL, Anheuser, Busch, InBev, football, Blackrock, investors, market, share,

The entire InBev/Anheuser-Busch company is suffering. Steve Sipress, entrepreneur, marketing, sales, tips, ideas, help, strategy, small business owner, direct response, tactics, success, profits, growth, results, marketing consultant, Bud, Light, Budweiser, ad, advertising, woke, broke, InBev, Anheuser, Busch,

MONDAY KETCHUP: Comcast's NBCUniversal CEO steps down, BBY goes bankrupt, Zuckerberg Andi Owens's his employees, Goldman's DJ DSol problem, and Anheuser blames the woman

MONDAY KETCHUP: Comcast's NBCUniversal CEO steps down, BBY goes bankrupt, Zuckerberg Andi Owens's his employees, Goldman's DJ DSol problem, and Anheuser blames the woman

Bud Light PANICKING As Boycott GOT WORSE, Trump Jr Says END BOYCOTT Despite NO APOLOGY From Anheuser Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfOnfs54SnM Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Anheuser-Bush CEO breaks his silence! Addresses Dyan Mulvaney Bud Light BACKLASH! Offers no APOLOGY! New To The Channel? Hit the Subscribe Button and Check out Our Website For Exclusive Content and Livestreams: www.blackandwhitenetwork.com Get your MERCH here: https://teespring.com/stores/blackandwhitesports Use Promo Code "USAFIRST" for 25% Off! All Of Our Audio Is Available on Podcast on Apple, Google, Spotify, Castbox, etc: https://anchor.fm/blackandwhitenetwork --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/blackandwhitenetwork/support

Welcome to another riveting episode of The Adams Archive with your host, Austin Adams! In today's episode, we'll be delving deep into the recent controversy surrounding Anheuser-Busch's VP of Marketing, who openly admitted to hiring employees based on sex and political ideology. We'll examine the implications of these hiring practices and discuss whether they align with the company's values. Furthermore, we'll engage in a thought-provoking debate with ChatGPT on the merits and drawbacks of affirmative action, exploring its impact on society and the workplace. We'll also discuss Alex Soros' frequent visits to the White House, drawing comparisons with Bill Clinton's connection to Jeffrey Epstein, and dive into NPR's dramatic exit from Twitter after being labeled as state-affiliated media. What does this say about the state of journalism and social media today? Lastly, we'll explore the explosive leak of top-secret documents that revealed alleged U.S. spying on allies, the implications for international relations, and the insights gained on the U.S. perspective regarding the war in Ukraine and potential support for Russia from neutral countries. Join us for an engaging and insightful episode as we dissect these controversial topics and much more. Don't miss out on this week's edition of The Adams Archive! All the links: https://linktr.ee/theaustinjadams Anti-Elite Club Apparel: https://antielite.club    Full Transcription:    Hello, you beautiful people and welcome. To the Adams Archive. My name is Austin Adams, and thank you so much for listening. Today on the agenda, we are going to be discussing all about the recent marketing misstep, to say the least, by Anheuser Bush's VP of Marketing, who we will be listening to even further digging herself in a hole, uh, by talking about what seems to be, to me at least, slightly illegal hiring practices, leaning, uh, obviously towards her woke agenda that she has since shown her hand. So we will talk about that. We will also talk about some recent photos that were released by hers after speaking out against, uh, the so-called frat culture that she was so against. There has since been photos leaked of Bud Light's, VP of Marketing, where she seemingly participated in these said frat. Type events. So we'll look at that. Now. We will also discuss George Soros. Son, Alex Soros visited the White House under Biden's administration 14 times. Now, to put that in perspective, that is only three less times than Bill Clinton having Jeffrey Epstein. So, quite astonishing. Something that we will discuss at length now.  We will also be discussing NPR, quitting Twitter after being labeled as state affiliated media. I saw an article that called it a Rage Quit, which is pretty, pretty fitting. Now the last thing, but one of the most serious things that we will discuss is the documents that were released at well leaked. There was over a hundred pages that were released, , that were leaked, and,  they were doing a highly serious, highly serious very serious investigation in Washington this week. As records were detailing alleged us spying on allies. Insights into American thinking on the war in Ukraine, in at least two neutral countries, mulling plans to support Russia as things move on in this war. So we will discuss all of that and more, but first, you know what to do. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button if it's your first time here. If it's not, or even if it is, go ahead and leave a five star review. Tell me something that you like about the show.  Subject we should talk about. Whatever it is, please from the bottom of my heart, I would appreciate it. Leave a five star review. Go ahead and hit that subscribe button. Head over to the subs Austin Adams dot.com. Uh, and we will be releasing podcast companions with all of the links, articles, all of it directly to your email, which includes the video podcast, short clips, the full podcast, all to your email every single week. And then go ahead over to anti elite.club. Anti elite.club and you can check out the apparel. I've kept it small. In the meantime, there is the Pelosi Capital Insider trading hat, which is beautifully embroidered if I do say myself, say so myself, as well as the Protector children hoodie,  and some other awesomeness like, uh, make love not viruses, hoodies or sweatshirts as well. So go check it out. And speaking of Alex Soros, we actually have a mug that is the George Soros actor, a Crisis Actor's Guild mug. , which I found to be, you know, a little catchy. So check it out.  Lemme know what you think. All right,  now that's all I got for you. Let's go ahead and jump into.     Um, but anyways, $5 billion that they have lost since doing this marketing stunt. Now I'm somewhat familiar with marketing myself. There's probably one of the biggest rules, if not the biggest rule is knowing your target audience. Their target audience for Bud Light is generally not somebody with a trans flag in front of their house. Those people are generally not drinking light American beer. Now, how far Bud Light Marketing has fallen? I remember growing up, they were always witty and funny and, uh, what was it? The, um, one of their campaigns that was great. It was like the, the gosh, I, I have to remember it was like the greatest Man who ever award or some, something like that. But always quick, witty, um, always good sarcasm, right? Always great marketing. And this woman takes over from, you know, obviously coming from Harvard to the Wharton, uh, business school and then at, I don't know what she is, maybe 35 years old, taking over the VP of marketing of one of the largest, uh, beer companies in the world. So maybe Bud Light itself when hiring this woman didn't know its target audience and, or maybe they knew exactly what they were doing, but if they did, this was a horrible, horrible misstep in. Terms of their business success, 5 billion in just like five days, and it's still going down. And I only think we're really gonna see the true implications of this because you have lost so many loyal, long-standing customers as a result of this. Not only that, people aren't going to buy them at the shelves, which means that the liquor stores and, and grocery stores that we're holding these products are not going to buy them either. If people are not buying them. There is a whole supply chain that will be affected as a result of this terrible marketing move. But let's go ahead and read this. This comes from the New York Post. It says, beer Colossus in Heiser Busch saw its value plummet more than 5 billion since the company announced his branding partnership with controversial transgender social media influencer, Dylan Mul. Since March 31st, shares of Bud Light Parent Company have nearly fallen 4%. And as I checked earlier, I believe it was 5%, like 5.2%, knocking down the company's market capitalization from 132 billion to $127 billion. On Wednesday, the stock fizzled more than 1.5%. Uh, on Wednesday, the company is dealing with the fallout from conservatives over its deal with Mulvaney, the 26 year old Wow sh he looks super rough for 26. Transgender influencer with more than 10 million followers on social media. Mulvaney fired back at critics Tuesday accusing them of bullying her because she's an easy target. Oh, are you? She as a guest on the OR Word onward. And Rosie O'Donnell podcast Mulvaney said her Tolles and trolls intentionally twist her words and actions in an effort to blast the transgender community. The reason that I think I am so I'm an easy target is because I'm so new to this. Mulvaney said, I think going after a trans person, it says woman, but I refuse to call this person. A woman that's been doing this for like 20 years is a lot more difficult. I think maybe they think that there's some sort of chance with me, but what's their goal now? It is down 4.9% as of the closing bell today. Um, so almost 5% more than the original 5 billion that they even just talked about there. That's an incredible loss for any company, $5 billion in market cap. Um, these people, they don't understand anything about me that I do or say. I don't really care about her opinion on this. Mulvaney had posted videos and photos on social media promoting her sponsorship deal with Bud Light, which pro produced specifically made cans with Mulvey's likeness to commemorate the partnership. And, and in this video with this man, He's sitting there going, um, I guess there's some sort of March madness going on right now. Um, I don't really know what that is. I guess it has to do with sports. I don't know about sports. I'm just a dumb woman. Like really? Cuz women don't know what March Madness is. Like. What? What a horrific, the, the, the biggest problem besides the fact, like, and again, I've talked about this before. I don't care what you do as an individual, you can identify as a fricking fork if you want to. And I you do you, now, I'm not gonna call you a fork if you think you're a fork, but you're actually a human. Okay? I'm not participating in your mental illness, but you can identify as whatever you want. I don't care. I'm not gonna rip you apart for your, uh, mental anguish and your self-consciousness and your difficulty. I, you know, and disassociation from your own body. I'm not gonna do that for you. I don't think that you deserve that. I think that in this case, This man is doing this for clout, so maybe deserves it more than most who are dealing with this. I don't think it's actually a real case of gender dysphoria that's being manifested through surgical, uh, attempts at correcting it, which never seems to help in any which way. Um, but I, I do think that there's a better way of going about that, which to me, the most insulting thing that this man does is pretending like every woman is a fricking caricature, a caricature of what it means to be a woman, right? Frolicking in high heels. Um, you know, like all of the videos that this man does are like the most insulting, caricature depiction of what a woman actually acts like, like Valley Girl, 2004, mean girl's, high school woman in a sitcom. Like just the most silly depiction of a woman that there can possibly be. And so that to me is insulting. I'm not even a woman and I'm insulted by it. So it says, um, it goes on to say that the backlash even prompted a local Missouri distributor to cancel an appearance by the famous Budweiser Clyde's Dale Horse due to fears for the safety of staffers. Industry experts told the post on Tuesday that the controversy appears to have staying power and could lead to a full-blown boycott of Anheuser-Busch products. I believe so. I don't think there's any coming back from this. I think their general target market is going to absolutely, there's the only reason that you were drinking Bud Light for any reason at all, was just out of f sheer habit. It wasn't because it tasted good. We know that for sure. There's so many other beers out there that you can go drink that still taste like shit and are still cheap that don't promote this type of ideology. So yes, this is absolutely going to have staying power Anheuser bushes. If you are in the stock market, you should absolutely be shorting. Budweisers, uh, it's, it's, uh, the, the dollar symbol and then bud is the symbol for them on the stock exchange. So you should absolutely short Anheuser-Busch. I am not a financial advisor, so don't listen to anything that I say, but it seems like a pretty good bet that this is just gonna continue to keep going down. Um, now let's go ahead and watch this video. Let's talk about the actual VP of marketing, because, you know, actually let's, let's touch on this. There it bring, it comes up here with, um, you know, let's, let's talk about this Kid Rock, who I love for this. Um, went on and did a video where he actually shot his, uh, full auto rifle, um, at a bunch of Bud Light, uh, uh, boxes of beer. And there's this awesome picture in front of me of them just all exploding, uh, with a MAGA hat on, which is just amazing. So love that for Kid Rock. Uh, now the reason that I don't think Nike is having such backlash because they did the same exact thing. Nike did the same thing as Bud Light did. Same exact thing, but Nike's target market is not the same target market as Bud Lights. That's what you have to understand. And that's the reason that Bud Light is going to have a tremendous loss of market cap, a tremendous loss of its stock value. And Nike has improved its stock value over the last couple days. There has not been any calls for boycotts. It has not been in the news. There's been no, you know, burn your Nike's campaign that's going on. Although maybe there should be, and I won't be buying Nike from here on out. But, um, but this comes back to how, how do we change culture, right? Because right now, the, the theistic corporations that are out there, even not, maybe not even capitalistic because they're all owned by generally the same. BlackRock. Um, but these corporatism type corporations that are out there, that are promoting these things, are doing so because they think it's going to win them favor, not even win them favor from the people that they are having as their target market. They think it's going to win them favor in the eyes of the elitist who own them from the World Economic Forums, from the Black Rocks and the Vanguards and the, the, the elites who own those companies who are pushing those ideologies like Alex Soros and George Soros, who were gonna talk about a little bit later. That's who they're gaining the favor of. Here. I did see something that there was some sort of talk about a, I think it was a c e I score, which is like your woke score basically for companies that they're getting favor over, where they'll like pull some sort of association if these companies don't have a high enough score of wokeness. And so maybe that's what's going on here, but here's how you fight back. 5 billion of market loss is a huge loss for Ann Heiser Busch. Huge loss you. That's, that's so much money. 5% of your value in five days, 1% per day. If that keeps up for 50 days, and I don't, I 100% think that that's just the beginning. I, I think it's gonna be 20%, 25%. Again, I'm just shooting from the hip here. Don't listen to me. But, but I absolutely think that there is going to be a tremendous loss. And this is just the beginning because we're not even seeing, seeing the outcomes. We're seeing the people who are pulling their stocks out of this. We're seeing people who are starting to short the stock as a result, but we're not seeing quarterly earnings statements. We're not seeing that yet. And when we see that it will be a blood bath, when we see the quarterly earnings for h Anheuser-Busch, a blood bath, bath, when we see it, and this is just the beginning, 5% is nothing compared to what it's gonna turn out to once we actually see the numbers. Right. What we're seeing right now is a vanity reaction, but there will be a corporate there, there, there will be figures that come out. There will be, uh, quarterly earning statements that show when 50 40% of people who drink Bud Light, stop drinking it, stop buying it, which means the liquor stores who are sourcing it and the grocery stores that have it will stop purchasing it as well. This is how you fight back from woke. This is how you fight back against the corporations who are shoving this ideology down you and your child's throat. 100% how we we fight back against this us. All right, so let's go ahead and listen to this. This is the interview with the VP of Marketing from Busch. Her name is Alyssa Heiner Scheid, uh, she's a Harvard graduate. Imagine that, who then went to the Wharton School of Business? Um, I believe she had like some sort of like, Language and English degree from Harvard, which I don't know why the hell you go to Harvard. Harvard for an English degree to go into marketing. All right. By the way, I'm drinking a real beer. This is a founder's, uh, Centennial ipa, which is quite delicious and doesn't taste like shit. And they have yet to shove their trans ideology down my throat if they have any belief in it, which I doubt they do. Okay, so drink real beer folks. All right. Um, maybe I'll start doing a, a beer review like, uh, you know, uh, bar stool, uh, Dave Portnoy does for pizzas. If I, if I had to do a beer review on this founder's Centennial ipa. Let's see, how well does this go? It's an, an IPA featuring Centennial Hops. Huh, let's read it. Get ready to bask in the glory of this frothy heads floral bouquet relish the citrus accents from the abundance of dry hops. This one's sweet, yet balanced multi undertones. Shake hands with the hop character for a finish that never turns too bitter delicious. All right, one sip. Everybody knows rules. Centennial IPA By Founders Initial reaction, I would give it a 7.3. I've had better IPAs, but it's pretty good. All right. And again, no, no woke trans ideology being shoved in my throat, which gives it multiple, multiple brownie points. All right, so here's the vp, Alicia Alyssa Heiner Scheid, and she is going to speak on here, right? One thing that she talks about initially is evolving the Bud Light Brand. Now this is the clip that everybody was talking about, right? She talks about why she did this and why she's trying to shove this ideology down their throats and, and all of this stuff. So let's listen to that first, and then we will listen to her talking about her hiring practices, which I think is a little bit even more egregious and probably downright illegal if you really dive into it. Um, so let's go ahead and listen to her. We do not attract. Young drinkers to come and drink this brand. There will be no future for Bud Light. So I had around, in your own perspective and your own values, you know the person you are at Home Impacts and has a ripple effect on the Bud Light brand. Tell me about that a little bit. Yeah, I, I think number one, you know, I'm a businesswoman. Mm-hmm. I had a really clear job to do when I took over Bud Light and it was, this brand is in decline. It's been in decline for a really long time. And if we do not attract young drinkers to come and drink this brand, there will be no future for Bud Light. So I had this, the brand was in decline only once you decided to promote trans ideology to your generally conservative target market. Let's be clear about this here. If we go back and look at the last, I don't know, let's, let's look at the last five years of Bud Light. Let's see if there's been a single decline. Five years. A single decline. That was 5% in five days. Oh, this is a screenshot. So it's not gonna give me exactly what I'm looking for here, but I highly doubt it. The brand started to be in decline once you started to make these types of decisions, right? Super clear mandate. It's, we need to evolve and elevate this incredibly iconic brand. And my, what I brought to that was a belief in I was looking for real men of genius. You remember that ad? That's good marketing, right? Real men of genius. Let's watch that shit once this is over. But real men of genius is what I was thinking of earlier. I don't know what I said. Like great men or whatever the hell. No real men of genius, great marketing, Dylan Mulvaney, horrible marketing. Okay. What is, what do, what does evolve and elevate mean? It means inclusivity. It means shifting the tone. It means having a campaign that's truly inclusive and feels lighter and brighter and different, and appeals to women and to men. Mm-hmm. And representation. Is it sort of the heart of evolution? You've gotta see people who reflect you in the work. And we had this hangover. I mean, bud Light had been kind of a brand of fratty, kind of out of touch humor, and it was really important that we had another approach. So, long story short, super Bowl spot. Fast forward, I cast an incredible female choreographer who just brought incredibly positive, amazing energy to the spot. We cast Miles Teller and his wife Kelly Teller. But it was really crucial to me that if you see that spot, Kelly is. Kelly is the heartbeat of that spot. You're seeing this whole experience through Kelly. She's the beating heart. She, I would sort of argue with sort of what propels you through that experience and, and that was intentional. Um, and then we had another really fun spot. First spot out of the gate was the first time ever we'd had a female protagonist in this. Really cool, she was sort of cool as hell, bobbin and weaving through a bar. But anyway, listen, I'm not gonna pretend that there isn't so much more work to do from a business results perspective and of course from a representation perspective, but I feel like you, you have to put your money where your mouth is when you're trying to evolve a brand and elevate it and bring in new consumers. So that's been incredibly important to me. Mm-hmm. Bet she didn't expect a 5% stock loss in five days. Now you hear her talking about that, uh, the frat brand. Right. Let's, let's, we'll take a little dive back in time. A little dive back in time for the VP of Marketing at Anheuser-Busch when she's calling out her own target market. The people who purchased her products for being out of touch frat boys. Little did she know somebody was gonna go to her Facebook profile, scroll a few years back and see photos of her Dr. Like filling up condom balloons, shotgunning beers, and doing everything that appears to. And looks to be her fraty passed. This says leaked photos have revealed that Bud Light's, vice President of Marketing, Alyssa Heiner, pardoned it up while attending Harvard University exhibiting behavior that one might expect to see at a frat house. The images which are nearly 20 years old, would have remained buried in Hein, Hershey's Facebook albums. Had the beer executive not recently suggested that the brand she now represents should distance itself from its Friday past. The images, which are now attained from the daily caller from a source who discovered them on Hein Che's now protected Facebook page were from a 2006 event called the ISIS Senior Reversed Initiation Scavenger Hunt, um, which was. To provide in 2000 to provide a positive environment in social network for women to flourish an article in the university's newspaper around the same time that the photos of Heide were taken. However, describe the scene of the club's gatherings as a haven for inebriated dit sea. In the photos, Heiner Scheide can be seen drinking beer, blowing up condoms, as if they were balloons and exhibiting other behaviors typically associated with intoxication. 17 years later, Heiner side is now calling on beer companies to cater to more than just the frat house crowd. I am a businesswoman. She says during a March 23rd appearance on the Make Yourself a Home Podcast, I had a really clear job to do, which is all basically just what we listened to. She went on to explain. The representation is sort of the heart of evolution, and Bud Light has for too long been a brand of Fraty kind of out of touch humor since Henesey made those comments. The brand is partnered with Trans TikTok, influencer Dylan Mulvaney, A move that has been widely criticized and in some cases even led to boycotts, in some cases, very many at this point now. What I find to be interesting is if you go a little bit even more back, because that's like, just punchy, good headlines, right? Oh, she called 'em frat boys and you know, maybe she's also fratty with her, you know, she's being a hypocrite obviously, and some of these photos are kind of funny. Um, but maybe, maybe don't make fun of your target market if you were your target market. Uh, so let's go back and see what I find to be even more egregious than the, the, what she's doing as far as the promotion of trans ideology through a brand that is primarily conservative target markets, or even being a hypocrite by calling people fraty and then blowing up condom balloons and getting extremely intoxicated on pictures of Facebook. Um, which you might be able to find, if you don't mind if I had one. Um, but, uh, let's go back and see what she talks about with hiring practices. Okay. She talks about her hiring practices and spills the tea a little bit further than she probably would've liked by talking about how she leans her hiring practices more towards hiring women and more towards hiring people who associate with her same ideology. Almost word for word says this and that, my friends is illegal. If you choose to hire somebody specifically based on their representation of their sex so that you can have more people of that sex in your business, that is sexist, discriminatory, hiring practices not that hard to do. One plus one equals two, that's discrimination, and there is anti-discrimination laws. So let's go ahead and listen to her boast about how she hires more women than men purposefully, again, discriminating as well as people who identify at the same beliefs as her. A k a woke. Here we go. Um, and I try to bring that honestly and how I wanna operate in the world. Mm-hmm. And I would say the most important thing about this job is that you, I have to prioritize bringing other people along the way, community and women. I mean, it's just, it doesn't mean anything unless I am positively impacting other people. And so that's been just incredibly important to me. My decisions with teams, I mean, I, I try to build teams of people who maybe nobody else has taken a chance on them. I try to bet on people who haven't had the opportunity, bet on people with similar values as me, who are hungry and wanna do great things. I try to bet on people. I hire people, aka I hire people who have similar values to me. I hire people who are primarily, I try to hire women. I, that, that is discriminatory, discriminatory practices. And I even tried to like argue this back and forth with G P T four, um, the other day. So I, I'll see if I can even pull that up. Um, but I, I had it kind of argue against me and, and gimme the reason that this should be acceptable and how this is not racist or sexist, right? In nature, how is this not against anti-discrimination laws? Um, because to me it seems very, very clear and evident that this should be considered absolutely considered, um, discriminatory hiring practices. Um, so here is what it had to say about that. Now, this was actually G P T 3.5. No. Did I do it with four? Let's see. So I've, I've found interesting ways to go about this with, with having G P T kind of. Converse back and forth with me. So what I said to it is, is hiring someone of a specific racer sex purposefully for the intention of growing the number of employees of that racer sex illegal. It's said, I am not a lawyer, but I can offer some general information about employment Discrim. Oh my ears. That is horrible. Speechify, what are you doing to me? We need our man. Let's go with I like Harry. I like Harry. Let's go with Harry. Harry here. I'm astute. To share a better way to read. Perfect. Harry, here. Perfect. Perfect. I'm astute. To share a better way to read. Give 'em a little bit of sped up and we're off to the races. So this is the conversation that I had with G P T yesterday when I was trying to, I was trying to work this through in my head. I was actually trying to figure out whether or not this is illegal or not. So I said, is hiring someone of a specific race or sex purposefully for the intention of growing the number of employees of that race racer sex illegal? And here's what it responded. I am not a lawyer, but I can offer some general information about employment discrimination laws in the United States Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is generally legal for employers to discriminate against individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin includes hiring practices. However, there are some exceptions to this rule when employers are trying to increase diversity within their workforce or remedy past discrimination. Affirmative action programs, for example, may allow employers to consider race or sex as one factor in their hiring decisions, but only under certain circumstances. Programs must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, such as remedying, past discrimination, or promoting diversity. They also cannot impose an undue burden on other groups or create rigid quotas. It's may differ depending on the country or jurisdiction. So it is important to consult with legal counsel or seek advice from a local expert for specific guidance. All right, so there was was a, it's initial response. So I said what allow, like what laws allow for the exception to anti discriminatory hiring practices, because to me, when you tell me that there are some exceptions for this rule, when employers are trying to increase diversity, what does increasing diversity mean? How is affirmative action not actually racist? When you are trying to increase diversity, that means you are intentionally hiring one person who would normally not be hired. Based on qualifications over somebody who is not based on their sex race or their national origin. That is R sexist, that is racist, that is discrimination. So how can you justify that? Right? Some people refer to it as reverse racism, reverse discrim discrimination, which is still discrimination if you are actively pursuing the idea that you need to have more women in your business. So let's just put it like this. I want more white men at my business. That is my goal. I hire more white conservative men at my business. If somebody came out, if the VP of marketing at a company said, I want to hire more white men who are conservative at my business, they would be ripped to shreds. The company would be folded overnight. But the VP of marketing at Bud Light and Anheuser-Busch does this and people try to celebrate it, hiring based off of sex. And political ideology is discrimination and against the law. Okay? So again, I tried to tease this out. I was legitimately curious in trying to figure out how can you actually legally do this and how is this not a lawsuit from somebody who went to, and maybe it will be now if we can get enough eyes on this, but a lawsuit from people who have gone and been interviewed for positions under this woman and not been hired because they're a man with different ideology than her. So is it not just reverse racism then if you can hire based on race, but only for races that are approved, right? Who gets to decide whether they're approved or not? So, Then I asked it here, here's what it responded to that, but then I asked it to steelman it's argument, which really an incredible, uh, epiphany for me with using G P T was trying to teach it to argue against itself. Because if I sit here and argue back and forth with chat g p t, it's going to logically be far more equipped than me because it has the infinite intelligence of the universe. Although I'm very convincing in my arguments, it might be difficult for me to do it against the, the, the God of information here. Um, so I asked it to argue against hisself, right? It's gonna be able to formulate better arguments than me logically speaking with infinite access to all of the information of the world. Although I do think I'm pretty good at creating compelling arguments, maybe not as good as the God of information. So let's go ahead and hear what it has to say about my response. So I said to it, is that just not reverse racism then if you can hire based on race, but only for races that are approved. This is what it said. And then it steel mans my argument after that. The term reverse racism is often used to describe situations in which members of historically advantaged groups feel that they're being discriminated against in favor of members of historically disadvantaged groups, such as through affirmative action programs. Important to understand that the goal of affirmative action is to address historical and systemic discrimination and underrepresentation of certain groups in areas such as education, employment, and government contracting. Brass are designed to create a level playing field for individuals from all backgrounds and promote diversity and inclusion in the United States. The Supreme Court has held that race conscious policies such as affirmative action can be legally permissible under certain circumstances, but they must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. Like promoting diversity or remedying past discrimination has also made it clear that rigid quotas and undue burdens on other groups are not allowed. Affirmative action programs are not about giving preference to one race over another for the sake of preference, but rather aim to create opportunities for members of historically underrepresented groups who may have faced obstacles due to systemic discrimination. The intention is to work toward a more equitable and diverse society, not to create new forms of discrimination. That said, affirmative action remains a complex and often contentious issue with proponents and opponents offering different perspectives on its effectiveness and fairness. All right, so I find that to be interesting. It, it seems like a logically flawed argument, which almost happens across don't, very, very many arguments coming from the left, right? The, the left is built on emotion. The right is generally built on logic, and where logic fails, emotion must be applied to self preserve, right? So when, when I asked it to steelman my argument back, right? Steel manning an argument basically means. To give me the most compelling argument back to yourself so that you can then, you know, make, make the argument back to me of my argument so that you can then address the concerns of my argument properly from the perspective that I'm coming from. So I asked it to steal man, it's argument because what you'll find is even if, even if G P T leans more to the left, right? Just, just based on 99% of coders in Silicon Valley being liberal, it's obviously gonna have some skewing, but you can have it argue your point. Now I've found that 3.5 will not do this, four will do this. It's, it's a little bit more nuanced in the way that it, it has discussions with you. So it will steal me in arguments if it, if, if it's programming the 3.5 s programming will not allow it to. I asked, did the steelman an argument for me? It wouldn't do it because it didn't believe in the argument based on its flawed logic. So I asked, did the steelman, the argument that, um, That affirmative action is, in fact potentially racist or, or at least in, in its varied essence, not positive overall. So here, here was, here was the steelman argument by G P T against affirmative action. A steelman argument refers to the practice of restating an opposing argument in its strongest and most compelling form. In this case, the steelman argument against affirmative action would emphasize the following points and meritocracy. Proponents of affirmative action argue that policies should be based solely on merit without considering factors like race, gender, or ethnicity. Believe that giving preference to underrepresented groups can result in less qualified individuals being hired or admitted, which is unfair to other applicants who might be more qualified. First. Discrimination critics argue that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination. Disadvantaging individuals from historically privileged groups who may be more qualified, they say is inherently unfair and goes against the principle of equal opportunity. Perpetuation of stereotypes and divisions. Some argue that affirmative action can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and divisions by focusing on race or gender, rather than on individual qualifications and potential. Believe that this focus can perpetuate the idea that underrepresented groups need special treatment to succeed stigmatization of beneficiaries. Another argument against affirmative action is that it can stigmatize beneficiaries, leading others to question their qualifications and accomplishments can undermine the confidence and self-esteem of individuals from underrepresented groups who may feel that their success is attributed to affirmative action rather than their abilities term effectiveness. Critics also question the long-term effectiveness of affirmative action, arguing that it may not address the root causes of systemic discrimination, and may instead create dependence on such programs. Advocate for alternative solutions such as improving access to quality education and addressing socioeconomic disparities to create more sustainable change. So there is its main points, right? I'll highlight them for you in case it's difficult to listen to our friend Harry.  But it says, basically, equality and meritocracy. Opponents of affirmative action argue that policy should be based solely on merit, right? Not your race, not your skin color. That is the Martin Luther King argument. I have a dream that one day, right? We won't look at people and judge them based on race, gender, or ethnicity. We are specifically judging people based off of race, gender, or ethnicity. Which means if you are proactively helping one group, you are actively, actively preventing another group based on gender, race, or ethnicity. There is always a ne there is always going to be a, a negative outcome to the positive outcome for that one group as a result of, of this affirmative action. I didn't have any slaves. There's no reason that I shouldn't get into a university, I shouldn't get a job that, that I should have any, anything that's judged against me for my skin color. No reason at all. It's literally reverse racism if that term holds any merit. It's what, if not just straight racism. Right? If you are, if you are not hiring me because I have white skin, if you are not having me in your university because I have white skin, because I have a penis, because I have  right-leaning ideologies compared to left-leaning ideologies, that that is discriminatory in its essence and, and simply perpetuating, um, exactly what you were trying to combat. Right? But you were just blind to it through emotion. Um, the second argument that it gave was reverse discrimination. Critics argue that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination, disadvantaging individuals of historically privileged groups who may be more qualified. Right? That's exactly what I just talked about, perpetuation of stereotypes and divisions. Some argue that affirmative action can inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and divisions by focusing on race and gender rather than individual qualifications. Right? A hundred percent stigmatization of beneficiaries. Um, so it's basically saying that, um, somebody who is, uh, let's say they're black and they get hired somewhere or they go to a university, but they have less qualifications, they get a lower gpa, they have a lower s a T, but they get into the university because of their skin color. That is going to further stigmatize the idea that they should get in, even though they have lower scores, that, that makes the argument that people who are black should not have high enough scores compared to Asians or white people or, you know, any other culture that, that are getting discriminated against, against in this case. Right. Which again, is absolutely the case. Um, long-term effectiveness and, and not the case obviously that they shouldn't have high enough scores. They're just as intelligent and capable. Um, and that's why it, it is absolutely a stigmatization. Um, moving on, long-term effectiveness, uh, say that affirmative action, arguing that it may not address the root causes of systemic discrimination instead of basically just putting a bandaid on it. So, so what I tried to do here is say, using only logic and not straw manning, because what I found was when I was having it argue against it, it was using emotional language. It was saying that, well, there's, there's, uh, certain people who are, you know, have histories of being discriminated against and so blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. It was, it was straw manning the argument not using logic. So I said to G P T using only logic and not straw manning the argument by bringing up affirmative action or laws simply from a philosophical and logic based perspective. How do you argue against 0.2, 0.2 being reverse discrimination? Critics argue that affirmative action can lead to reverse discrimination, disadvantaging individuals from historically privileged groups who may be more qualified, um, this they say is inherently unfair and goes against the principle of equal opportunity. So I asked it to logically and without a strong argument, which is what it was presenting me prior, give me a logic-based philosophical perspective out outside of the bounds of what's available for rules within humanity, outside of the bounds of what's available for laws. Tell me specifically from a philosophical and logic-based perspective, how do you argue that hiring somebody based on race or sex is not racist or sexist? Tell me that. Okay. And here is what I had to say. A philosophical and logical perspective one could argue against. Point two, the reverse discrimination claim. By focusing on the concepts of fairness, context, and historical background and context, the concept of fairness can be understood differently depending on the context. In a society with a history of systemic discrimination against certain groups, equal treatment of all individuals without considering this context might not be truly fair. Affirmative action policies aim to address historical disadvantages and promote a more inclusive and diverse environment by offering opportunities to underrepresented groups. If justice philosophically, one could argue that corrective justice should be applied in cases where historical discrimination has caused disadvantages for certain groups means that measures can be taken to rectify past injustices and promote a more equitable society. From this perspective, affirmative action policies are not reversed discrimination, but rather a means of achieving corrective justice, filling the playing field. Critics of affirmative action often assume that all individuals start from the same position and have equal access to opportunities due to historical and systemic discrimination. This is not always the case. By considering factors like race or gender in hiring and admissions decisions, affirmative action policies aim to level the playing field and create a more equitable environment. Balancing competing interests. From a philosophical perspective, one could argue that promoting diversity and addressing historical disadvantages are important societal values that must be balanced against the principle of equal treatment. It is crucial to avoid undue burdens on other groups. Implementing carefully designed affirmative action policies can help achieve these competing interests without resulting in reverse discrimination greater good. The principle of utilitarianism suggests that actions should be evaluated based on their consequences, specifically by maximizing overall happiness or wellbeing. Affirmative action policies can be seen as promoting the greater good by fostering a more inclusive and diverse society, which can benefit everyone in the long run, even if it results in some perceived disadvantages for certain individuals in the short term. Okay. There is its argument back to steel manning. My argument, and I'll just give you the cliff notes on those. Again, fairness in con, in context, the concept of fairness can be understood differently depending on the context. Basically saying that if there's systemic racist or racism, uh, Or discrimination against certain groups equal treatment of the individuals without considering the context might not be truly fair. Right. So, so in my response, the back to that would be is yes, I, I've seen certain documentaries. I've, I cannot recall the name of it. , I can see the cover of it in my head. Um, but I've watched documentaries. I, I believe that there has absolutely been systemic racism in our country.  I, I am not blind to that. I, I completely agree with that point. I believe that the,  propor disproportionately black communities are affected through, drugs that were pushed literally by our government, like the crack epidemic, um, into more black communities through, through the ghettos in, in like the eighties, um, 100. 100% disproportionately affected them. I absolutely agree to the fact that, that they are, , at a much higher rate of incarceration, which causes men to be out of the households, which causes, uh, uh, children to have far more issues in their upbringings. That that's like 100% statistically factual. There is absolutely been systemic racism. There was perpetuation of racist ideologies by the same people who parents did have slaves however many years ago. Right. I I'm not blind to that. I agree with that. There is, there is systemic and, and or there or there. At least there has been systemic racism. I believe we are at a point in our culture where there, there is very little, very little that is going on that is against one minority group. Statistically, it's just not the case. Okay.  So fairness and context. I think when you're taking into consideration it's fir first point, a fairness and concept, a concept of fairness understood differently depending on the context. Um, history of systemic discrimination. Sure. But should we be dis perpetuating discrimination as an answer to that? No. We should be plugging the holes in the boat. We should stop, stop the FBI and CIA from, uh, pushing crack into primarily black neighborhoods. We should, I, we should address the issues with our police forces where they're, you know, primarily perpetuating, uh, high incarceration rates. Now, that's not to say that those incarceration rates aren't merited by actual crimes, um, but that's a separate convers. Um, it says the next point that it gave is corrective justice. Philosophically, one could argue that corrective justice should be applied in causes where historical discrimination has caused disadvantages. Same point applies, um, leveling the playing field. Critics of affirmative action can assume that all individuals start from the same position, have equal access to opportunities, however, do the historical, and it's all the same argument, balancing and competing interests, um, diversity and addressing. Okay. And then the last one was the greater good. The principle of utilitarianism suggests that action should be evaluated based on their consequences, um, specifically by maximizing overall happiness or wellbeing. Affirmative action policies can be seen as promoting the greater good by fostering and more inclusive and diverse society. Okay. Is it though, if it is specif. Perpetuating the, the very discrimination that it's setting out to solve in the first place, right? Nobody, nobody in today's world is blind to the fact that racism was not a thing, right? We all agree on that. We all agree that racism is wrong, at least a far, far greater percentage than those who disagree, right? Like very, very, very, very small percentage of people are still extremely racist. Um, at least to my knowledge. And maybe, but compared to what it was, it's so much better than it was right now. That's not to say that it doesn't exist. It obviously exists, but the percentage is just very low. Um, so the idea that perpetuating that, that. You know, through utilitarianism, the, the answer to racism is reverse racism does, does not seem to hold up well. Um, now it says, now, now what I said in response to this, so this is a really interesting way to, to, to tease out your own perspectives, right? When, when I'm not standing in front of another individual and, and in a heated argument, I can actually see some of these points that it's giving, right? When you ask it to not only argue against me, but then steelman my argument and then argue against that steelman, and then argue back to those counterpoints, you're, you're going to really see all sides of an argument. I, I am open to being wrong and I've been wrong many times before, so I plan on changing my opinion on things in the future. I, I am not held in my beliefs to the point where I, I think that I cannot be. And, and it gives some decent arguments and, and far more arguments than anybody else that you're gonna stand in front of you who is liberal or who is on the left is going to have in front of you without putting a motion in the way. So utilize G p t this way, utilize chat g p t in a way that you can further understand the opposite side of things. If we use the, this, this tool in this way, maybe we can lessen the divide right now. When you ask it to argue against those points, it makes some great points back against that, uh, case. But I think that this is a, a really, really great way of utilizing this tool to make yourself more aware of the logical arguments that are being made, um, because far more often than not emotion is being applied. And, and the people who are willing to have arguments like this, Not very common. Right? And, and, and, and even for me, right? And if I stand in front of somebody and I try to argue my points, there's going to be a point where there it, it becomes emotional. But when I'm sitting here arguing with a, a logic-based language model, it's very difficult to instill in, in, in their, inject emotion into the conversation. So I, I thoroughly enjoyed doing this. I even did a secondary conversation with it about, um, when does life begin? Had to argue when life, when people believe life begins, and how it, it, it says it. It was a really interesting philosophical conversation that I had with infinite intelligence. Um, Because I truly, it's very, very difficult to, for me to see the, some of the logics in, in some of these arguments. And, and generally it is such an emotional, uh, response and, and it's hard to even have conversations with people about this where it's not super emotionally charged. So I highly recommend that you have these, and to close this out for this conversation, I'll, I'll let you hear just what it had to say about, um, about arguing against the points that it's made, um, against the steelman argument. Okay. So give me the, so basically what happened is I said, tell me why you disagree with me. Why do you disagree that this is not racist? Because to me it seems racist. So it made its arguments Now. I said, okay, I teased that out a little bit. Tell me more further. Don't, don't do it from a scare. Uh, um, don't, don't do it from the perspective of emotion. Don't do it from the perspective of laws. Do it from a philosophical perspective without a strawman argument, cuz it was interjecting different arguments that didn't specifically speak to logic. Then I said, okay, great. Now argue against yourself as if you were me in the most compelling way. Then I had to argue against itself, back to argue against my points in its most compelling way. And then I had to argue those points back. And you could probably do this infinitely, but it really does, um, allow you to see all sides of the argument. Um, so if nothing else, take away that from this. If you, if you're not thoroughly enjoying this conversation, then do argue against the points go made in the previous response. One could emphasize the following counterpoints objective fairness. One could argue that true fairness should be based on objective criteria like qualifications and performance, regardless of historical context. Action policies by considering factors such as race or gender, may compromise the principle of objective fairness and lead to situations where less qualified individuals are chosen over more qualified ones quality before the law. Critics of affirmative action could argue that individuals should be treated equally before the law, regardless of their group membership. Considering factors like race or gender in decision making, affirmative action policies may infringe upon this principle of equality, perpetuating divisions and stereotypes by emphasizing factors like race or gender, affirmative action policies may inadvertently perpetuate divisions and stereotypes, rather than breaking them down, excite you that focusing on individual qualifications and potential rather than group identity would be a more effective way to promote a diverse and inclusive society consequences for intended beneficiaries. Affirmative action policies may have unintended negative consequences for the very individuals they aim to benefit. For example, beneficiaries of affirmative action may face doubts about their qualifications leading to a lack of confidence in their own abilities, or undermining their accomplishments. In the eyes of others, sing root causes, critics argue that affirmative action policies may not effectively address the root causes of historical and systemic discrimination. They suggest focusing on alternative solutions such as improving access to quality education, addressing socioeconomic disparities, and promoting broader cultural changes to create a more equitable and inclusive society notion of meritocracy. One could argue that affirmative action policies may erode the principle of meritocracy, which emphasizes that individuals should be rewarded based on their abilities and achievements rather than their background. Suggest that these policies may hinder the development of a truly merit-based society. So I have found that to be interesting, right? A lot of what it talks about is, um, the one that I saw to be most interesting of that is the equality before the law. Critics of affirmative action could argue that individuals should be treated equally before the law, regardless of their group membership. By considering factors like race or gender in decision making, affirmative action policies may infringe upon this principle of equality. Isn't equality what they are trying to gain in the first place, right? So if you're pursuing racist tactics to address inequality, aren't you further perpetuating inequality? How? There's no logical argument against that, that I can see, and I have yet to see it presented here. Um, besides the flawed emotional logic that based on previous history, we should now be racist and sexist towards other groups in order to help move the needle more towards equality sooner. But when do you stop doing that? Right? So, so at what point does, do, do you go from right, when do we say, all right guys, affirmative action's over now we're all equal. No, it's a, it may be a longer process to get there, but the way that you get to equality. Everybody being treated equally, not by tipping the scale with your toe for one person, because they're still where they're at, regardless of your affirmative action. So in, in this argument of infinite, of, of, uh, what, what did I call it? Uh, information God, um, against, against itself, I, I still hold true in my beliefs. And, and again, maybe I, I'm gonna have these conversations with it and, and be convinced otherwise on, on other things. And I really, truly hope so because it's hard to have a, a, a conversation with, with people on other ideologies without it getting emotional. Um, but this truly does allow it to be. It allows you to sit beside yourself and, and, and even just flex the muscle of listening. Um, so, you know, maybe next time we'll go through when does human life begin, which turned into a another interesting. Another interesting, uh, argument between me and G P T. All right, so that, that was, uh, that was that.  This episode's gonna go a little bit longer than I expected. Um, so let's move on. But first, hit that subscribe button. Leave a five star review. I, I hope you're learning something at least maybe how to leverage G P T as a tool for you to, to expand your mind, expand your consciousness, expand your worldview.  If you don't have a friend who's willing to sit at the table with you and drink an, an, a numerous amount of beers who has a, a completely different political ideology than you, then you might as well do it with, uh, information, God, because it, maybe, it may, who knows? Maybe your world worldview will change if it's in the face of something that is 100% logic based and, um, doesn't hold emotion within the argument. As long as you know how to phrase the questions properly. And I think that the, the, the concept of steel Manning allows you to further tease out your own arguments and see its flaws. And then further tease out the, a flaws of the other arguments. And, and maybe the, the end conclusion is eventually that there's humanity on both sides of it. And, and, and there there's some form of potentially logic applied to both. And, and, and in some portions, like I saw when I argued, where does life begin? I basically check made a G P T into admitting. Biological, uh, life begins even before conception. Um, so, so I found that to be interesting. So stick around for that, maybe in a, in a future episode where I'll tease that one out for you guys. So the next article that we're going to talk about here is going to be why did George, why did Alex Soros, why did Alex Soros visit the Biden White House 14 times, times 14 times? George Soros son visited the White House just since Biden took office. And this article goes on to say the son of pro crime, billionaire George Soros. And let's just point out the fact that this is gonna be a, a leaning article by that opening statement, but I don't disagree. Alex is raising eyebrows over more than a dozen White House meetings since December, 2021, where he met with multiple officials, including Then's Chief of Staff, Ron Klain, and several national security officials. There's this picture of him immediately in this article, uh, which goes back to his Instagram page with 116 likes on it with this man in a white suit like a pimp in what appears to be some sort of party with somebody in the background laying on a table like they're about to be. With some, you know, 20 year old beautiful woman next to him. Um, according to the White House visitor logs reviewed by Fox News and first reported by the New York Post, the 38 year old Alex Soros visited the White House over 14 times in his latest trips. Included visiting December 1st with then White House chief of staff Ron claims advisor Nina Sarva, who also worked on Biden's Presidential campaign, the log show. Later that evening, the younger Soros was one of 330 people to attend a lavish state dinner on the White House's South Lawn, hosted by the president and First Lady Joe Biden, honoring French President Emmanuel Mcn in Macron's wife Bridget. It says a day later, Alex Soros, whose chair, whose chairs the powerful liberal grant making network Open Society foundations, founded by his dad. Met with the both advisor to the Council of President Mariana Aam, and Deputy National Security Advisor, Jonathan Finer records show it's noticeable that almost all, with the exception of Ron Klain, who had the president's ear obviously were involved in national security. Um, Ukraine is a country where the Soros family has unfortunately boasted a lot of influence. There is tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown around there. So I think that would be something we're circling back and coming. Com circling back on in the coming months or years. Despite George Sorrow's notorious way amongst political circles, uh, Palombo said that the younger Soros could someday boast even more power. Noting Alex has been flaunting his influence on social media with pictures of himself alongside Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, former speaker Nancy Pelosi, and former President Barack Obama, his standing on 11 million of his own money. Now, that may seem like a drop in the bucket compared to his father, and it is, but it's not going to be that way forever. The way that I would put it, George Soros over his career has spent more than 20 billion in Open Society Foundation, which is the vehicle by which he makes this spending has around 20 billion on its balance sheet. So when Alex takes over, he has a war chest that is basically able to, I would say, at a minimum, double the amount of damage that his father is going to do and probably more. Here's a little deal, take a look. Official White House records revealing the billionaires eldest son had more than a dozen different meetings with top Biden officials since 2021, including four with the office of then Chief of Staff, Ron Klain. Matt Columbo is the author of The Man Behind the Curtain, the Secret Network of George Soros, and Matt joins me now. Matt, walk us through how the Soros influence Machine is pulling the levers at the white. Thanks guys. Well, it's looking like Alex Soros is prime to take over the Soros Empire. Obviously his father in his nineties cannot do it forever. Um, this New York Post piece outlined 14 different White House visits, but I mean, we almost didn't even need the report. You can go on Alex's Instagram, his Twitter, any social media, and it's almost like he's bragging to us. It is a picture of him and every progressive Democrat you can imagine, and really their left to counterparts overseas. Um, now of these 14 people he met, it is I think notable that almost all, with the exception of Ron Klain, uh, who had the president's ear obviously were involved in national security.  Ukraine is a country where the Soros family has, unfortunately moted a lot of influence. There is tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown around. All right. He's just saying everything that I. That he said only my voice is hopefully more present pleasant than his. Um, so pretty wild and the only person who I know of that was at the White House more than 14 times was, as I stated earlier, bill Clinton, having Epstein to the White House is the only thing that I find to be a little bit more concerning than the 14 times that Alex Soros has been there as well. All right. So I find that to be interesting and in the face of that, I guess we will see later, um, on in time that this man takes over four. George Soros, which is, you know, sad to hear that there's going to be a succession there. All right. Next on our quick hits is going to be that N P R quit Twitter after being labeled state affiliated media. And so basically Twitter called NPR State Affiliated media, basically calling them a propaganda arm of the US government. And then NPR came out and said, NPR is stepping away from Twitter, and this includes this N P R politics feed. Please read the thread to find other ways to find our network, including our Instagram and our newsletter. How funny. So some people describe this as rage quitting, which is like the best way to describe this. NPR threw the controller and quit Twitter over being described as a propaganda arm of the United States. Um, so this article, which we will touch on real briefly,  NPR stopped tweeting last week after being labeled State Affiliated Media. And although Twitter sends tweaked the classification slightly to government funded media, the outlet has already made up. Its mine. Uh, it's a short article, so, but you kind of already get it. Um, the, the credibility of many, many of these companies is gone. And under that idea, I'm assuming it would probably be most of our news media outlet companies that would be labeled in the same exact way, but I did find that to be interesting.  And then last but not least, let's go ahead and talk about this. All right. The biggest leak. Since 2011 of US military documents, this says, and this comes from the hill. The biggest leak of classified document documents in a decade created a sprawling crisis in Washington this week. As records detailed alleged US spying on the Allies insights into American thinking on the war of Ukraine, and at least two neutral companies mulling plans to support Russia. Penta gone. Officials are still reviewing the documents for validity, and the Justice Department is overseeing a criminal investigation of the leak. At least one of the documents containing casualty estimates appear to have been altered, but it's unclear how many of the roughly 100 records were manipulated in those documents that they're saying were altered, which you gotta remember when we go back to the ghost of Kiev and how much propaganda has gone into the war going on in Ukraine. You have to remember how much propaganda has gone into this. So I don't think it's compelling to immediately write off some of these comparisons and they don't seem that far off. Um, the, the comparison said that there was, for every Ukrainian soldier or for every Russian soldier that died, four Ukrainian soldiers died, which to me just makes sense with how large Russia's, uh, military forces compared to Ukraine's, even despite the amount of help that they were getting from other NATO countries.  This goes on to say that the documents have circulated online since March and probably as early as January before, picking up attention last week after a New York Times report. There are many more documents to come, but the leak has already done a lot of damage forcin

Black and White Network Pod Episode 4 - Anheuser-Bush LOSES $6 BILLION! People are BURNING bras over Nike's Dylan Mulvaney partnership! Riley Gaines Felt LIFE WAS IN DANGER! New To The Channel? Hit the Subscribe Button and Check out Our Website For Exclusive Content and Livestreams: www.blackandwhitenetwork.com Get your MERCH here: https://teespring.com/stores/blackandwhitesports Use Promo Code "USAFIRST" for 25% Off! All Of Our Audio Is Available on Podcast on Apple, Google, Spotify, Castbox, etc: https://anchor.fm/blackandwhitenetwork --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/blackandwhitenetwork/support

Two simple and powerful lessons for all business owners. Steve Sipress, entrepreneur, marketing, sales, tips, ideas, help, strategy, small business owner, direct response, tactics, success, profits, growth, results, marketing consultant, Bud, Light, Dylan, Mulvaney, advertising, influencer, brand, branding, Anheuser, Busch, Alissa, Heinerscheid, target, market, broad, narrow, woke, trans, transgender, inclusive, inclusivity, inclusion, diversity, equity, DEI,

Bud Light Boycott Having HUGE Effect On Sales #budlightboycott #budlight DONATE : https://paypal.me/radiobaloney Help support the channel, it's greatly appreciated!

What you'll learn in this podcast episode Guidance from the US Department of Justice, particularly the recent 2020 memorandum, stresses that a company's compliance program must reflect and evolve with its risks—and should not be a snapshot or on cruise control. But in assessing those risks, it's helpful to see what other companies in the same area or circumstances have done to meet them. Collective action and coordination can be very useful in dealing with common risks. So, when is benchmarking and a collective approach to risk helpful? And when can it backfire? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Advisory Services Emily Miner continues the conversation from Episode 6 about benchmarking with her colleague Susan Divers. Listen in as the two discuss the benefits and limitations of benchmarking, and how organizations can ensure they benchmark their E&C programs effectively.    Featured guest: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.  Featured Host: Emily Miner Emily Miner is a director of LRN's Ethics & Compliance Advisory services. She counsels executive leadership teams on how to actively shape and manage their ethical culture through deep quantitative and qualitative understanding and engagement. A skilled facilitator, Emily emphasizes co-creative, bottom-up, and data-driven approaches to foster ethical behavior and inform program strategy. Emily has led engagements with organizations in the healthcare, technology, manufacturing, energy, professional services, and education industries. Emily co-leads LRN's ongoing flagship research on E&C program effectiveness and is a thought leader in the areas of organizational culture, leadership, and E&C program impact. Prior to joining LRN, Emily applied her behavioral science expertise in the environmental sustainability sector, working with non-profits and several New England municipalities; facilitated earth science research in academia; and contributed to drafting and advancing international climate policy goals. Emily has a Master of Public Administration in Environmental Science and Policy from Columbia University and graduated summa cum laude from the University of Florida with a degree in Anthropology.   Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Emily Miner: Guidance from the US Department of Justice, particularly the recent 2020 memorandum, stresses that a company's compliance program must reflect and evolve with its risks and should not be a snapshot or on cruise control. But in assessing those risks, it's helpful to see what other companies in the same area or circumstances have done to meet them. Collective action and coordination can be very useful in dealing with common risks. So when is benchmarking and a collective approach to risk helpful, and when can it backfire? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled podcast. I'm your host, Emily Miner, director of Advisory Services at LRN. Today I'm continuing my conversation from episode six about benchmarking with my colleague Susan Divers, our director of Thought Leadership and Best practices. We're going to be talking about the benefits and the limitations of benchmarking and how organizations can ensure they benchmark their E&C programs effectively. Susan brings more than 30 years experience in both the legal and E&C spaces to this topic area with subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Susan, thanks for coming on the Principled podcast. Susan Divers: Oh, Emily, it's always nice to talk with you. Emily Miner: So Susan, before we get started, let's kind of define benchmarking and summarize the conversation that I had in our last podcast with our colleague Derek. So benchmarking means comparing what you do as an organization in this case to a usually large number of comparable organizations or individuals. And most often, this is done in a quantitative way, although there are also opportunities to benchmark qualitatively. And at LRN, we've been using benchmarks for a number of years now through our research reports. We've conducted major panel research on the role of ethical culture in an organization and in organization's risk of misconduct. So looking at how that varies across countries, across industries. We conduct every year research into ethics and compliance program effectiveness research that you lead and that you and I collaborate on. And we've been doing that for, oh gosh, coming up on, I don't know, maybe eight years now. That's been given us a insightful look into Ethics & Compliance Program best practices, and how they've evolved over time. We've also conducted research on codes of conduct, analyzing nearly 150 publicly listed codes of conduct from the top listed companies around the world and looking at similarities and differences and best practices in that space. But we have a brand new product at LRN that we're launching later this month that I know we're all really excited about called Catalyst Reveal, which is a platform that will, as it's name suggests, reveal insights to our clients about their ethics and compliance program, things like course level data training, data, employee sentiment, ethical culture. It will also give our clients the ability to see how their results along these metrics compare with other organizations in the LRN client universe. So looking at by industry, by company size, and a few other comparable filters. So with that exciting launch as our backdrop, I wanted to talk to you as an expert and a thought leader in this space about benchmarking compliance programs, when to do it, when not to do it, et cetera. So let me turn it over to you, Susan, and let's start with the benefits. What are the benefits of benchmarking in ethics and compliance program? Susan Divers: Sure, Emily, I'd be happy to talk about that. In thinking about this topic, there are really three really good functions that benchmarking is appropriate for. And then there are some where it's not so appropriate and we can talk about all of that. But starting with what it's very appropriate for, the first is if you're setting up a program, you need to figure out kind of what are the basics that you need to do at the outset. And it can be very helpful particularly if it's a new program, and it usually is if it's setting it up to be able to say your management, "We have to have a code. We have to have policies. We have to have audit. And we have to have training" and those are kind of the four basic pillars and being able to make that case. That's very basic, but it can be very helpful in terms of people who are struggling to get started in what we all know is a really complicated area. So that's kind of the first setting where benchmarking I think can be very helpful. And then the second is you've got your program and you're up and going. Now, no two companies are alike, no two industries are alike, and I can get into that a little bit later, but it's helpful to know if you're mainstream or not. Like for example, our Ethical Pulse Culture check lets you sort of get an idea from a short questionnaire embedded in our platform in Reveal whether your culture is really out of whack or pretty much along the same lines as mainstream. And again, that's really helpful because it can show you an area where you're maybe excelling and it's good to take credit for that and scale it, or it can show you an area where you're deficient and it's good to know about that too. And then the last is, and this is where for example Ethisphere has done a lot of really good work, best practices. People are constantly innovating. I'm always amazed at how ethics and compliance programs are changing and getting better. And we can talk about that a little bit, and Reveal's going to be very helpful there. But benchmarking can give you ideas that can be very valuable for enhancing your program. So those are sort of the three big areas where I think benchmarking can be extremely helpful. Emily Miner: Yeah, thanks Susan. And on that last point that you shared, that's really resonating because if nothing else, benchmarking or surveying what other companies are doing out there with respect to ethics and compliance and different facets of that, it gives you as an ethics and compliance professional just an idea of what's possible. Maybe there's a new approach to communicating with your employees that you haven't thought of that might work for your organization. I'm at the SCCE's Compliance & Ethics Institute right now, and there was a session yesterday about one particular organization's sort of their evolution of their compliance program following some significant trust that was lost in the organization to senior leader misconduct. One of the things that they talked about was having employees around the globe put on skits that they turned into videos that dealt with ethics moments and how the actors, which were the employees of the organizations, would kind of get famous around the world for their skits. It was a very lighthearted way of communicating very serious topics that resonated for this particular organization. But a lot of people in the room were asking questions, "Oh, well, how could I put together a skit like that? Did you write the script or did the employees come up with it and this and that?" Just that it's a way of sharing ideas and fostering innovation across the industry that can be really exciting and powerful. Susan Divers:    Yeah, that's a great example, but maybe it's time to talk a little bit about the limits of benchmarking too because that's a good illustration of the point that benchmarking's good for the three things we just talked about. Setting up, making sure that you're in the mainstream and not at either end, or maybe you want to be excelling and then getting ideas and best practices. What it's not good for is saying, "Hey, we met the criteria." And the reason is there isn't a criteria. In fact, there was a quote two days ago or so from the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices, and she said, I quote, "It's like running a different company every two years." So the point I'm trying to make here is that your program has to be based on your risks, and those risks can change dramatically, I mean, certainly in the semiconductor area, and that's what she was talking about. The risks have changed, they basically changed radically with all the changes with China and the export sanctions and the war in the Ukraine. So it's not enough to say, "Hey, I'm doing what everybody else is doing in that area." And secondly, the other big problem is comparing apples to apples. I picked three consumer companies to sort of illustrate this. One is Walmart, which obviously is a big consumer company. Another is PepsiCo, another is Mondelez. And if you look at all three, they all have really different risk profiles. They may be in the same area generally, but Walmart's much bigger than the other two. Walmart had a major scandal a number of years ago where they wound up paying, I think it was 137 million in 2019 because in order to get permits for their stores in Latin America, particularly Mexico, their lawyers were actually paying bribes. When you think about it, that should have been something that they were sensitive to on their risk profile and both training and auditing the local lawyers. Also, there was some lawyers on their teams internally. That was a risk and they failed to mitigate it. PepsiCo is bottling, and so do Mondelez has plants, but it's not quite the same level of regulatory intensity as setting up a store, hiring people, environmental health. So I use that example because I'm trying to pick an industry and say, "Well, if you compared yourself to one, you might miss some of the particular risks that you have." One of the also things to bear in mind, and you alluded to it when we started, is that DOJ has never recommended benchmarking in all of the guidance. In fact, they've said things that kind of contradict benchmarking if you were using it to say, "Hey, we met the norm." They've said, "You don't want to be on cruise control," and that's because things change. And they've also said, "You don't want to just take a snapshot of your program at a given time." And that's kind of what the CEO of Advanced Micro Devices was saying too. And that's because any time you're looking backwards rather than forwards, you could miss the iceberg that's looming up ahead and going to sink the Titanic. So at any rate, I think benchmarking can be very useful, but you have to use it for the right purposes and you have to bear in mind the limitations. Emily Miner: Right. Absolutely. It's never the be all end all. It's one data point that we should be collecting and looking at in some situations and not others. And in those situations, it's one of many that we should be considering when we're thinking about program effectiveness. Susan Divers: Yeah, it's an element. Yep, absolutely. Emily Miner: So let's kind of tease this out a little bit more. Where do you see benchmarking being helpful? I know that you gave those three scenarios, but maybe if you could pick out a concrete example to share against any of those three scenarios to illustrate how it can be helpful or when it can backfire. Susan Divers: Sure. Well, let's pick another consumer company, Anheuser-Busch. This is a great example because it illustrates how benchmarking can be used very effectively to drive a best practice. Anheuser-Busch had a very prominent CECO who has very recently left to go to the Department of Justice in the last couple of months. When he was there, he set up an internal data analytics program that was able to pull data from their own systems, payments, SAP of course, onboarding and pick out red flags without, if you will, human intervention. In other words, he was able to take a number of data streams from various parts of the company and meld them together. And because he was very good CECO, he was able to figure out what some of the risk signs were or the red flags. What it did is it enabled Anheuser to manage its third parties, which if you think about it, beer distribute, beer companies have a lot of third parties. And then they could focus in on those companies, those third parties where there were red flags. They didn't have to audit everybody to the same degree of intensity. And that approach of internal data analytics was a best practice that was gathering steam, sorry. But once Matt really took it to the next level and showed how it could be done, then it really became mainstream in the E&C area. And Matt's now at DOJ. So if you're going to go in and have tense talks with regulators, being able to talk about what you're doing in benchmarking is important. And it takes us back to Reveal where Reveal is a really powerful tool that we've developed that will enable you to see red flags or predictive factors. And again, remember looking backwards doesn't really help you because it doesn't tell you if there's a big iceberg about to sink the Titanic. But looking forward and saying, gosh, the data that's coming in from Asia on attempts to pass courses or on our Ethical Pulse Culture check or other features is worrying. It's nothing specific that we know about at this point, but it indicates that, I'm just picking on Asia randomly, it indicates that we need to spend some time in Asia figuring out what's going on. So that's really an excellent use of benchmarking and that's a good story as to how understanding what best practices are emerging and adapting them then for you, because nobody could simply take Matt's system of third party analytics and plug it into their company and come up with the same results. It has to be tailored and it has to be specific. But that's a really good example of what DOJ is talking about in this area where they say you have to tailor it to your risks. So does that make sense? Emily Miner: Yeah, absolutely. It's a great example with Anheuser-Busch and the system that they set up. I want to kind of talk about specific types of data that we collect in ethics and compliance or can collect, because I feel like the kind of two most common ones that organizations want to benchmark are training completion rates, that's a metric that is easy to collect and is often one that is shared, and hotline. "Oh, my hotline reports. How does this compare?" And the hotline providers will publish annual benchmarking reports on hotline. So we've got course completions, we've got hotline data, but we also collect other data points, or there are other places where we could to think about program effectiveness. I'd love to hear from you, as you think about the universe of ethics and compliance data, where do you think kind of benchmarking holds water and where does it not? Susan Divers: That's a great question, Emily, and I'm glad you asked it. Let's start with the hotline because that's a really good example in a lot of ways of two of the pitfalls. One of the major pitfalls that we touched on is are you comparing apples to apples or apples to potatoes? A company, let's take Starbucks for example, they have 300,000, relatively young, many of them first job employees. And are they going to call the hotline if they see something or worried about something? The odds are probably no even though they've got a big kind of young and engaged workforce because they're inexperienced. Most of their employees, I was talking to their CECO last week, and most of their employees really haven't worked extensively in the workplace. So Starbucks might have really low hotline numbers. Another company that's largely unionized, on the other hand, because unionized workers generally know about the hotline and they know about formal complaint processes, they'll have high hotline usage compared to other companies. Let's just pick a slightly ridiculous example, but a big manufacturer of clothing like the Gap or something. You'll have unionized workers in the plants, but Booz Allen is a consulting company. Are you going to compare hotlines between Booz Allen and the Gap? That really is an apples to potatoes comparison. So I think hotline benchmarking, and I know most of my colleagues in the E&C area would agree is very, very difficult because you'd have to really know what the workforces are to try to get an idea. And then secondly, it can be driven by other factors such as when I was at AECOM, we deployed a lot of people in the Middle East and the conditions were harsh. So our hotline complaints would go up when people were under stress, but another company might not have that circumstance. Emily Miner: Yeah, that's such a great point about when you're using benchmarking and you're considering using benchmarking, you have to be really thoughtful about what that benchmark pool is made up of. The union example is such a great one because even within the same industry, you compared the Gap to Booz Allen, but even within the manufacturing industry, for example, not all manufacturing company has a unionized workforce. So you can think, "Oh, well it's manufacturing, so it's comparable," but it might not be depending on the workforce dynamics. That level of insight isn't always available when we're benchmark data sources. Susan Divers: We forgot one thing that both of us know, which is I think the last stat I saw was more than 90% of meaningful issues are not raised through the hotline, they're raised in conversations with managers. So I've never been a fan of hotline benchmarking. Emily Miner: Yes, absolutely. Susan Divers: But to turn to training completions, that's an interesting one too. Again, it really depends. If you're using an old fashioned training provider whose library consists of 45 minute or even longer lectures, sort of Soviet style on the evils of sexual harassment, first, it's probably not very effective. And secondly, a lot of people won't complete a 45 minute course just because it's long. If the training is repetitive and hectoring, they'll drop out. Whereas the kinds of courses that we have and that we emphasize are very engaging, they tend to be shorter, they tend to be more microburst learning. So again, what are you comparing? Do you have a lot of employees on the shop floor? Well, it's hard for them. They can't really just take a break, sit down at their laptop and open up a course on antitrust. So again, I think training completions can be tricky. It doesn't mean it isn't interesting to see that data, but figuring out, again, whether you're making an apples to apples or an apples to potato comparison, I think is really important. And then secondly, remember, it's retrospective looking. It's not telling you anything about what's coming around the corner. Emily Miner: Mm-hmm. One thing that we've focused on in this discussion is comparing ourselves to other organizations. I mean, that was how I even defined benchmarking at the outset, but there's also internal benchmarking, comparing your own performance year over year or whatever the period of time is. When you were just talking about training completion, it made me think about that internal comparison, less so with training completion because I think it tends to be high, a lot of companies mandate it so there can be penalties for not completing training. So if it's high for that reason alone whether or not it's good or relevant to employees or they liked it or whatever. But thinking about metrics like pass/fail rates or number of attempts or test outs or some of those more nuanced training related data points and comparing against yourself year over year and seeing what has changed and what might be the result of that. I mean, maybe you noticed in year one that it was taking the majority of your employees or a significant minority of your employees more attempts than you wanted to answer certain questions correctly related to a certain risk topic. And so then as a result, you rolled out some focused communication and maybe you targeted specific groups of people where you noticed were particularly struggling for additional manager led conversations or whatever. And then in year two, does that pass rate or attempt rate improve? That's a helpful metric because you're comparing apples to apples, you're comparing yourself and you're able to connect it back directly to specific interventions that you may have need to make improvements in that area. So I just wanted to point out that benchmarking can be done internally as well. It's not always an external exercise even though that does tend to be how we talk about it. Susan Divers: Well, and you're exactly right, and that's where it gets really valuable because first you can make sure that you're comparing apples to apples. For example, if you've just done a merger and suddenly your population of employees has doubled, well obviously then you know that you've got a much different comparison year over year, but you can break that down and you can make those comparisons by manipulating the data. Secondly, your Ethical Culture pulse survey is a really good tool year over year adjusted for employee population size. And if we've got new people coming in the company, a merger for example. And it can be proactive. It can, again, spot trends as you were just saying that indicate that you may need to spend more time with people. But the beauty of internal benchmarking, particularly the way Reveal has set that up for our clients and made it easy is that you can get genuine insights looking at what happened last year, what happened this year and you know some of the reasons why there may have been a change. Whereas if you're comparing yourself to, I don't know, Ernst & Young, you don't. You don't have visibility in terms of their numbers. So internal benchmarking, I think you're right to stress that. And it's a very, very valuable tool. Emily Miner: I've done, as you know, a lot of work with organizations evaluating and assessing their ethical culture. The trend that I've noticed with those clients that we've done this type of work year over year over year is that the benchmark, the external benchmark just grows. It's important kind of in year one and maybe year two, but after that it ceases to be relevant and the companies don't really care what it is anymore because it's also they're not shooting for the benchmark. The benchmark is often the average and they want to be above average. And so it's more about competing with yourselves and how did we improve against our own performance last year? And so that's just been interesting to observe. I think as companies get more robust in their use of data and their tools and how it informs their strategy in some areas like ethical culture for example, that external comparison just becomes less relevant over time. Susan Divers: That's a really good point too. And that gets back to the Department of Justice saying, "Don't put your program on cruise control." And I do remember, I think it was 15 years ago when benchmarking was much more trendy and before people really thought through the limitations, someone was bragging that they had benchmarked their program against Boeing. Boeing then subsequently had major meltdowns left, right, and center most specifically and tragically the 737 MAX where people died. And so running around saying, "Hey, my program benchmarks well against Boeing" may not have been really a compliment to the program in the end. But it also misses the point which you're making, which is you have to look at your program and what's gaining traction with your people and where the proactive red flags are emerging because that's what enables you not to be Boeing, not to pick on Boeing, but it's a good example. Emily Miner: So Susan, let's wrap up by offering some recommendations to organizations that are thinking about program effectiveness, how they measure that. They want to have those benchmarks. Maybe they fall into those three scenarios that you outlined at the beginning. What recommendations or best practices would you offer to those organizations, to your peers? Susan Divers: Well, the first one is be really smart about it and avoid comparing apples to potatoes. And to do that, you have to really think it through. What are we comparing to whom and how similar are they? I really, again, think that's most useful for kind of like, "Are we in the mainstream? Or is there something maybe we forgot?" If it turns out that everybody in your industry has suddenly amended their training curriculum to train about trade controls in the wake of the Ukraine war and you haven't, well, that's a helpful benchmark. But I think the main ones that are valuable are what we were talking about with best practices and data analytics and the creative use of data analytics that are tailored to that particular company is a great example of that. And then the second one as you pointed out which I think is equally valuable and really essential too, is internal benchmarking up to a point where you're able to see what direction things are going in. And again, it's more in the nature of red flags rather than a way of saying, "Hey, we met the requirement, we're good." It's, "How are people doing this year compared to last? What does that tell me about where I need to focus my resources?" Emily Miner: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Yeah, Susan, thank you so much. And thank you for joining me on this episode. We are out of time for today. So to everyone out there listening, thank you for listening to the Principled Podcast by LRN. It was a pleasure to talk with you, Susan. Susan Divers: Oh, it's always a pleasure to talk to you, Emily. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to you by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen and don't forget to leave us a review.        

What you'll learn in this podcast episode Over the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in E&C programs when it comes to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do these recent reports, policies, and guidance mean for compliance professionals? In this episode of the Principled Podcast, LRN Director of Thought Leadership and Best Practices Susan Divers is joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the law firm Paul Hastings. Listen in as the two discuss the recent guidance from the US Department of Justice as well as DOJ policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture.      Featured guest: Jon Drimmer Jonathan C. Drimmer is a partner in the Investigations and White Collar Defense practice and is based in the Washington, D.C. office of Paul Hastings. He resolves complex cross-border problems with the benefit of having sat in every chair at the table: senior legal officer for a global 500 company, federal prosecutor, and seasoned advocate. He is a recognized international expert on anti­corruption and business and human rights, and is a frequent speaker, author, and commentator on issues related to both topics. Before joining Paul Hastings, he was Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Barrick Gold, one of the world's largest mining companies, with operations on five continents. The compliance program he built at Barrick has served as an industry standard, and elements of it have largely been duplicated by numerous other companies inside and outside of the extractive sector. Mr. Drimmer has directed hundreds of investigations around the world related to anti-corruption, human rights, AML and export controls, tax controversies, environmental incidents, public disclosures, fatalities and health and safety injuries, sexual harassment and discrimination, and other areas. He has represented companies and individuals in numerous government enforcement proceedings in the U.S. and overseas, in relation to FCPA and bribery claims, human rights issues, and a wide array of other matters. He has participated in dozens of major disputes in the U.S., Canada, and abroad, including transnational torts, anti-corruption claims, environmental cases, international arbitrations, tax disputes, construction claims, and land controversies. He previously served in the Justice Department as Deputy Director of the Criminal Division's Office of Special Investigations, where he led cross-border investigations, first-chaired numerous prosecutions, and argued federal appeals. He was a partner at an Am Law 100 law firm in Washington, D.C., a former Bristow Fellow in the Office of the U.S. Solicitor General, and a judicial clerk on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Drimmer served on the board of directors of the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights Initiative from 2012-2014, and again from 2015-2017. He served on the board of TRACE International from 2012 until 2018, and currently sits on the board of the TRACE Foundation. He has also taught international law courses at Georgetown University Law Center for nearly 20 years.   Featured Host: Susan Divers Susan Divers is the director of thought leadership and best practices with LRN Corporation. She brings 30+ years' accomplishments and experience in the ethics and compliance arena to LRN clients and colleagues. This expertise includes building state-of-the-art compliance programs infused with values, designing user-friendly means of engaging and informing employees, fostering an embedded culture of compliance, and sharing substantial subject matter expertise in anti-corruption, export controls, sanctions, and other key areas of compliance. Prior to joining LRN, Mrs. Divers served as AECOM's Assistant General for Global Ethics & Compliance and Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer. Under her leadership, AECOM's ethics and compliance program garnered six external awards in recognition of its effectiveness and Mrs. Divers' thought leadership in the ethics field. In 2011, Mrs. Divers received the AECOM CEO Award of Excellence, which recognized her work in advancing the company's ethics and compliance program. Before joining AECOM, she worked at SAIC and Lockheed Martin in the international compliance area. Prior to that, she was a partner with the DC office of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. She also spent four years in London and is qualified as a Solicitor to the High Court of England and Wales, practicing in the international arena with the law firms of Theodore Goddard & Co. and Herbert Smith & Co. She also served as an attorney in the Office of the Legal Advisor at the Department of State and was a member of the U.S. delegation to the UN working on the first anti-corruption multilateral treaty initiative.  Mrs. Divers is a member of the DC Bar and a graduate of Trinity College, Washington D.C. and of the National Law Center of George Washington University. In 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 Ethisphere Magazine listed her as one the “Attorneys Who Matter” in the ethics & compliance area. She is a member of the Advisory Boards of the Rutgers University Center for Ethical Behavior and served as a member of the Board of Directors for the Institute for Practical Training from 2005-2008. She resides in Northern Virginia and is a frequent speaker, writer and commentator on ethics and compliance topics.    Principled Podcast Transcript Intro: Welcome to the Principled Podcast, brought to you by LRN. The Principled Podcast brings together the collective wisdom on ethics, business and compliance, transformative stories of leadership and inspiring workplace culture. Listen in to discover valuable strategies from our community of business leaders and workplace change makers. Susan Divers:  Good afternoon. From time to time, but particularly in the last few years, federal regulators have provided detailed guidance on what they expect to see in ethics and compliance programs when companies present them as a defense to misconduct inquiries or investigations. What do the recent flurry of reports, policies and guidance mean for compliance professionals? How should they be applied to improve E and C programs? Hello, and welcome to another episode of LRN's Principled Podcast. I'm your host, Susan Divers, director of thought leadership and best practices at LRN. And today, I'm joined by Jon Drimmer, a partner at the international law firm of Paul Hastings. We're going to talk about the recent DOJ guidance and policy impacting corporate compliance programs and ethical culture, and hopefully help everyone understand what it is and how they should apply it to their programs. Jon is a real expert, as well as a friend in this space. He has the unusual distinction of serving in three of the principal seats that affect ethics and compliance, once as a federal prosecutor at DOJ, another time as a chief ethics and compliance officer and deputy general council for a large mining company, and now as an ethics and compliance advocate with a leading law firm. Jon, thanks so much for joining me at Principled Podcast. Jon Drimmer: Thanks, Susan. It's great to be with you. Susan Divers: Super. Well, let's jump right in. Last week, we saw a new policy come out of the Department of Justice that both Lisa Monaco and also Ken Polite have talked about with great emphasis. We've also seen the report come out of the sentencing commission about their 30 years of accomplishments. And we've also seen some major guidance in the last two years. Can you put it in perspective for us and talk about how it fits together, and how they interplay. And then we can jump in and start figuring out what they mean. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. No, happy to do it. So let me take each one in sequence. So what we saw come down from the deputy attorney general was a new policy memo. And in essence, what that means is policies are, they are the rules that apply to federal prosecutors and prosecuting entities around the country. They are the standards that are going to be applied. Guidance, which is something that we see come out in a number of different ways through formal guidance as well as through statements and speeches and other informal approaches, this is basically how those rules are interpreted, how prosecutors should be thinking about the application of those policies as they're applied to any given circumstance. And then finally, reports, and you mentioned the sentencing commission's 30 year look back, those are more general. And they do tend to come out for transparency purpose, they're often retrospective, like the sentencing commission report. But they generally talk about how these rules have been applied. So policies are the rules, the guidance effectively aids in their interpretation, and the reports generally are a bit of a look back as to how they have been applied to date. Susan Divers: That's really helpful. It really helps me put all of those in perspective. Talk a little bit more than about the policies and the guidance. Are they mandatory? Are they voluntary? Jon Drimmer: Well, for prosecutors, they're mandatory. So when you look at the policies, this is effectively how prosecutors are to approach any given situation. It is a directive to them in terms of how it is they should go about doing their jobs. And I'll tell you it's critical. It's critical for chief compliance officers to understand those types of initiatives, those types of emphases. It's critical to prosecutors as well, as they get that direction in terms of what they should be focusing on. So really, it's a very important part of the process and helping to shape how investigations are run and scoped from the government's end, and what can be expected on the company side as well for chief compliance officers. Susan Divers: But it's not technically a rule, if I'm correct. But it sounds like you strongly recommend that ethics and compliance professionals pay great attention to it. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. No, that's fair. It's not a regulation. It isn't something that goes through a formal regulatory process. It's not the equivalent of a law. It's a direction. It's a directive that's basically given. And so it doesn't have the force of law, but it is a very important set of instruments to understand the relevant DOJ policies, the justice manual. So yeah, that's a fair assessment. I do strongly recommend understanding it in detail, but it isn't technically a law or regulation. Susan Divers: And if I understand correctly, and I've been in this situation myself too as a chief ethics compliance officer, if there's a misconduct inquiry or investigation, and 95% of those are resolved without prosecution or probably more, basically, you'll be asked to come in and meet with the Department of Justice prosecutors, possibly the SEC too, and part of that is talking about your ethics and compliance program. Can you put that in context and explain why they want you to do that, and how you should do it? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, absolutely. So what they're really looking for is a discussion of A, what the compliance program was at the time of the incident in question, and where it is today at the time of charging. It's really both time periods are really quite important to them. And they want to understand how with a compliance program the issue or event might have occurred. But they also want to understand what changes have been made to improve its effectiveness since that time period. And often, given the way that investigations go and timelines, there may be a good bit of time between the original incident and the time a formal compliance program presentation is ultimately made. And in making that presentation, the guidance, the policies, these are incredibly important in shaping the factors that you're ultimately going to present on. But the real tip is not just presenting on the formal approach, the formal program, the policies, procedures. But how do you know they are working in practice? And that has been a huge emphasis from the government in the last couple of years, and one that ethics and compliance professionals should take heed of. It's not just a matter of rolling out the program, but with the rollout, including those steps to validate its effectiveness in mitigating the relevant risks it's designed to address. Susan Divers: I want to get into that in more depth in just a second. But before we leave sort of setting the scene for why this is so important. So if you go in and you meet with the Department of Justice and its prosecutors, and you do a good job, a credible job, of presenting your ethics and compliance program, and it's clear that it's a strong program, and you've got hopefully evidence of effectiveness, what's the consequence of that? Jon Drimmer: Well, at the end of the day, I mean, the most significant issue is monitors. And if you've been involved in an issue that violates a federal law, federal criminal law, and the question is: Are you sufficiently capable of addressing your compliance issues going forward without day to day regular oversight from a monitor? That is a critical inquiry, and so number one, an effective compliance program and design and implementation is really important for a monitor. It's also important in charging decisions. It can be important in terms of disgorgement and fines and penalties as well. It's taken into account in the federal sentencing guidelines. So in the end, an effective compliance program really is a critically important part of a resolution process for a DOJ investigation. Susan Divers: So that's basically why ethics and compliance programs, if I understand correctly, came into being. It's really to mitigate the impact of misconduct investigations, and hopefully allow the company to go forward with it's E and C program. We won't talk about monitors today. That can be another podcast. But that's something that you want to avoid, generally. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. You generally want to avoid that, yeah. I mean, look, there's another element we probably won't get into today as well, that you and I have talked about extensively, and that is how programs ultimately help shape the values and culture of a company, so aside entirely from proactively mitigating relevant risks, affirmatively driving a culture that does increase productivity, increase retention, increase morale, that's a critical component of a compliance, an ethics and compliance program as well. It does dovetail a bit with culture of compliance, which is something that is important to demonstrate when you're in front of the government. It's something the government is increasingly emphasizing. There's a positive aspect that isn't just preventing potential problems from happening that are associated with ethics and compliance programs, as you've written about quite persuasively. Susan Divers: Well, you too. And I'm glad you reminded everybody of that because that is a critical reason for having an effective ethics and compliance programs. So let's leave the sort of rewards and penalties side and start talking about: What are the prosecutors and the Department of Justice leadership really saying in this plethora of policies, guidance that's come out in the last couple of years? What are the key messages? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I would say in reading through the recent speeches, the policies, coupled with the guidance, I think we can take away several messages. And two of them are, number one, there is this enormous focus on program effectiveness, and I can't say that enough. And as I read the memo from the deputy attorney general colloquially calling the Monaco memo, I see as a major sub theme, and as a former chief compliance officer, this absolute drive towards the effectiveness of programs. And just to take a step back for a minute, in some ways, this is how the sentencing commission's report actually becomes relevant in this discussion, and the 30 year look back report was issued roughly at the same time as the DAG memo. And if you look at the report, a few interesting statistics jump out. And these again, this is focusing on companies that actually went through a court sentencing, so it isn't settlements, which is typically how corporate resolutions are resolved. But 2021 was the first year that more than half of the companies sentenced under the guidelines had a compliance and ethics program. And the previous high was 2018, when it was about 28%. But in 30 years, since 1992, only 11 companies have had a reduction by a court because their compliance program was effective. That's .5% of all of the companies sentenced, and most of those are actually small companies. So most of the time, for those companies that are going through the process, they aren't getting credit for having an effective program. And with the Monaco Memo, if you actually look at a lot of what policies are ultimately looking to drive, it does center around effectiveness, driving performance, driving commitment through a focus on individuals. And so it talks about producing information in a timely way, focusing on individuals because that is what incentivizes effective performance. For chief compliance officers, it might mean if you're going to do an investigation, a thorough investigation, you do have to include that within your scope, the focus on individual culpability to a degree that you might not have before. The same is true with ephemeral messaging, which is a big emphasis in the recent memo. Ephemeral messaging has been part of their calculus for several years now. But here, they do want to focus on whether the company policies regarding ephemeral messaging are effective. Is the company capturing messaging that's occurring on company related devices? Are we allowing personal devices? If so, are they limited to certain apps that are capturing company business related discussions? Is there training? Is there auditing? Are there other steps on ephemeral messaging? So they really want to see not just: Are there policies? But are they effective? And those are just two examples. But if you do dig into what's behind a lot of these policy announcements in the memo, it really is looking to drive effective programs. Susan Divers: Well, I want to dig in a little bit. And just to clarify by ephemeral messaging, you mean that if we have senior execs using What's App to communicate, rather than company systems that are subject to discovery, then we might have a problem. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. It can be company, it can be teams messaging, it can be What's App on company issued devices or personal devices. It's any of the messaging systems that are used to communicate that ultimately may not ordinarily be retained by the company in the way that email is. Susan Divers: So that's an area that the policy makes clear, compliance officers ought to really take a hard look at and may need to make some changes, or at least provide some clarity. I want to get information effectiveness more in a minute too. But just to deal with the other very specific granular recommendation that I saw in the Monaco Memo, it was that you really have to have an incentive system that's aligned to ethics and compliance. And by that, it's both positive and negative. In other words, you have to reward ethical behavior as part of your system of incentives, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions. And you have to penalize misbehavior, whether it's bonuses, compensation, promotions, but also claw backs. Can you talk about that a little bit? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah. It really was fairly prescriptive, as you say, in terms of, in ways that I think should make chief compliance officers happy. That's the stuff that we always advocate for with human resources and with executives. Hey, we want ethics. We want ethics and compliance included in hiring decisions and promotions and bonus frameworks and performance commitments. And that's really what helps integrate ethics and compliance into business operations and prioritize it along with operational considerations, so that should be welcome news for chief compliance officers. The claw back aspect, which is the stick, that's the carrot, this is the stick, it's interesting. They really emphasize it's not good enough just to have claw back provisions that are theoretically applicable, that are present in policies and are never applied. They want to see them applied in cases where there is appropriate individual culpability. And that may mean applied in different ways. They're clearer that there is no uniform approach to a claw back provision, but it isn't good enough just to have it as a policy. You need to talk about it. You need to train on it. And you need to actually implement it in appropriate situations, which is part of the focus on the individual responsibility and again, driving effectiveness. Susan Divers: That's a very good segue into effectiveness. I do want to emphasize what you said, which is this is something that ethics and compliance professionals need to pay attention to. And it should be a welcome development to have that kind of accountability and importance placed on ethics and compliance considerations. But it's: What do you do about it, as you said, if you've got claw back? I think the SEC says that about 50% of publicly traded companies have claw back, but you have to use it. Otherwise, you're probably worse off if you have it as a tool and then you don't use it if you've got senior level misconduct. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, I think that's right. But better to have it than not have it, and if you've got it, you've actually got to apply it, is kind of what they're signaling. But look, this is hard. I mean, it is really hard when you are doing investigations of your own people. As a chief compliance officer, this was the least favorite part of my job is doing investigations into people I work with, people I knew, people who in other aspects of my job, I had to trust. I had to trust them in terms of implementing or overseeing certain aspects of the program. And when you have to do an investigation into them, it feels lousy. It screams out for why independence is important. And those particular instances is just a matter of investigative integrity, but it's a lousy part of the job. And applying a claw back provision to senior executives who you have worked with, who you have traveled with, whatever it is, it's a lousy part of the job, but they are saying it is an important part and a part that has to be applied in practice. Susan Divers: Yeah. I agree with you. That is really the worst part of being a chief ethics and compliance officer, for sure. Let's dive deeper into effectiveness. As I've gotten to know you and worked with you on thought leadership, I've always been extremely impressed with you focus when you're a chief ethics and compliance officer on effectiveness. And I remember some of the things you did, even including short pulse surveys in your investigations to get feedback from employees, so that's just one example. But can you talk about what do we really mean by effectiveness in terms of ethics and compliance programs? What should we be measuring? What should we be looking at? And where should the focus be? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. I mean, really what effectiveness means is: Are the goals of any particular element of your program being achieved? Are you meeting the goals that you have set out for that particular element of the program? So for instance, your goal might be to roll out a new training, and to roll it out to 90% of everybody on a mapped basis. That isn't going to get into effectiveness. Effectiveness is: How well do they retain the critical aspects of the content that is being conveyed? And that can be done through surveys, that can be done through tests, et cetera. But when we're talking about effectiveness here, again, it isn't just about roll out, it isn't just about robustness and good faith commitment to implementing a program. But is it working in practice? How do you know it? How do you test it? How do you validate it? Often, that's done through KPIs and through metrics. I personally like surveys, sentiment survey, I've always liked surveys as a way of getting information. And beyond that, it brings employees into the program when they are talking to you, providing information about their own experiences. I think that's a very effective way to do it. I think 360s in terms of reviews that include ethics compliance is another important part, so you do again get perspectives of employees on individual performance, particularly for supervisors, from an ethics and compliance standpoint. I think you need to look at audit results. I think you need to look at investigations. I think you need to look at a number of different factors that all indicate on a lag indicating basis, what is working and what isn't working. But I think that should be a relentless focus, personally. And I think for every element of your program, you should be looking at multiple ways to try to assess. Is what I'm doing actually working to the degree that I want it to, and in the way that I want it to? And if not, you have to make an adjustment. That's what effectiveness is about. Susan Divers: That's a really good definition. I think one of the traps people can fall into easily is to focus on activities rather than impact. And I like your phrasing of it as a relentless focus on effectiveness. I mean, one of the things we're just doing is rolling out a short, I think it's 10 question ethical culture pulse survey that comes up at the end of a code of conduct course. And it asks questions about respect and trust and organizational justice, which as you know are key elements of an ethical culture. So always trying to get at perceptions and concerns and to the degree that you can measure how that's playing out, I think is really essential to effectiveness. I want to talk about in a minute how non US companies are affected by all this, and also the most common mistakes you've seen people make in your long and in depth, varied career. But before we get there, I was just looking at some of the DOJ material, and I see that Matt Galvin has joined the team. And now I think there's at least three or four former chief ethics and compliance officers. And Matt came for Anheuser, and he has a particular focus on data analytics. What are you seeing in terms of using data analytics for effectiveness? And what do you recommend in that area? Jon Drimmer: I think that's a great hire. I think it'll be great for Matt, and I think that's a great hire for the government, really bringing in somebody who ran a compliance program and who has had a very substantial focus on data analytics. And at AB InBev, the Brew Right program that he put together is one that's usually been held up as an industry leader. I mean, I do think data analytics is critically important. One of the challenges with data analytics that you have to always get around is making sure that your data is good, that things are being recorded and described in like manners that allows for apples to apples comparison. And you have to understand what to do with that information. And so it's not enough to run the analytics, but when you get the analytics back, you have to have a program in place, resources in place, to act on it. And so thinking through holistically what the data is, where it's coming from, how you're going to act on it, depending on what you get is all a really important part of the equation to think about ahead of time before you just start collecting and running. Look, it's critically important. It's been something that's been emphasized for years as a key way of identifying effectiveness, as well as potential risks that you might not otherwise see, and trends, and patterns. So it really is a very important part of a program with the caveat that you've got to make sure that your data is really good and that you know what you're going to do with it on the back end. But that's a great hire, and I'm sure it's really going to advance compliance thinking in the government around the use of data. Susan Divers: I think that's a good way to characterize the importance of data metrics and particularly stressing that it's not enough to have them and get the insights, you have to act on them. It's similar to risk analysis and risk assessment. It's great that you're running a yearly risk assessment, but are you factoring those results into your training or your policies? So that's part of that focus on effectiveness. Talk to me a little bit, Jon, if you would, about we've been talking about the Department of Justice. It does seem to me that what DOJ does in areas like this has a lot of impact on international companies. It's not limited to the US. And you're in a great position to discuss that a bit, if you would. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Of course. No, absolutely. Look, and to be clear, when the government emphasizes things like data and benchmarking and metrics and KPIs, I can't applaud them enough for bringing in someone like Matt, who has seen it on the ground, has put into place a great program to really help educate. And that's going to be true for US and non US companies. The government focuses on violations of the law, where there is jurisdiction, where there's something that will touch the US, or you have US companies or US issuers. But if you're a foreign company and you're doing business in the United States, or you're listed on a US exchange, the US laws very well may apply to you. The FCPA certainly very well may apply to you. And some of the biggest settlements, again just sticking with the FCPA, have been with non US companies in the last two years. And I don't want to limit this to the FCPA because the memo from Lisa Monaco, it's not limited to the FCPA, but it will extend to throughout the criminal division. And so whether it's antitrust, or healthcare fraud, or other areas that the criminal division might oversee, this is going to apply to companies regardless of whether they're US or non US, depending on the jurisdictional components, so it's a very important part for all companies doing business in the United States, not just US companies. Susan Divers: And I think sometimes people forget how broad that actually is. People sort of think, "Okay, there's US companies, there's French companies, there's Indian companies," but if you're doing business here, or you're using the banking system, then you are basically within the ambit of US jurisdiction if you commit bribery violations, or antitrust, or sanctions violations, or whatever they happen to be. So it really is a very broad net. And I think for that reason, I think the guidance has driven the evolution of ethics and compliance programs globally, not just in the US. Is that your sense too? Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah. No question about it. I think if you look around the world, whether it's the UK, or France, or throughout Latin America, for those governments that have formally put out either guidances, or they've integrated into their laws what compliance programs ought to look like, I mean, it really looks a lot like what the Department of Justice and the SEC have put out, which of course is premised on a sentencing guidelines foundation. But really, it is driving global compliance processes and programs around the world, even for those companies that don't touch the US, even in their home jurisdictions. It's driving very similar approaches and ways of thinking about compliance. Susan Divers: Yes. And I think if anybody needs proof of that, they should read the Glencore CPA settlement, which I was just looking at, which is a huge fine for anti bribery for basically a non US company. But we're starting to run out of time. I could do this all day, as you know. But let's wrap up with: Given your unique perspective, having sat in all of the key positions, what are the most common mistakes you see people make in ethics and compliance programs? And if you can relate some of those to the guidance, that would be great. Jon Drimmer: Yeah, sure. Look, I mean,  I think first and foremost, it isn't really understanding and looking to integrate into programs what drives an ethical culture. And we talked before about the absolute importance of organizational justice as one of the key drivers in thinking about how that should get integrated into your program. And another is managerial modeling. And truthfully, what people seem to often forget is that most employees look at their supervisors, and maybe their supervisors' supervisors as the company. They look at them as management. And so focusing on, quote, unquote, tone from the top, and the most senior leaders of a company, to the exclusion of direct supervisors, middle managers, I think is often a mistake. And so driving behaviors expected of managers is critically important. I think people also ignore the absolute singular importance of confidence in internal reporting mechanisms and hotlines, which is often a proxy for whether your culture of compliance is strong, and whether organizational justice exists, whether managerial modeling is occurring. But I think beyond that, we've talked about the focus on effectiveness. And I think too often, you do see compliance programs that really are driving towards activities and robustness and metrics and numbers that don't take into account. Is it really working in practice? And I do think that has to be, especially in light of the guidance, which talks about culture, it talks about effectiveness, it focuses on effectiveness, I think that's got to be a critical emphasis for any program. And I think a lot of programs aren't sufficiently mature in that particular aspect, which may be why this guidance or this policy is coming out now. Susan Divers: So it sounds like if you were advising let's say a startup, or a relatively small company that's program is just getting underway, you would advise them to focus very much on the value side on getting organizational justice right, on getting speak up culture going and creating that atmosphere of trust, and also on making sure that managers know what the ethical and compliance considerations that affect them are, and what that means in practice. Jon Drimmer: Yeah. Yeah, that's exactly right. And look, that relates directly to the guidance as we look at rewards, in terms of pay, of performance commitments, presumably of bonuses, of promotions. So setting those expectations for management, along with organizational justice and speak up, I think are really vital components. And so if you are just starting out, the sooner you look to embed that within the company, the more effective it's going to be hopefully as the company grows. Susan Divers: Wow, this has been such a terrific, insightful conversation. And I really feel like I've benefited a lot personally just from hearing the way you've wove together the policy, the guidance. And just for one point of clarification before we sign off, I've been looking at the guidance since I think 2013. I've seen an evolution, actually. It's gotten stronger and it's gotten smarter in focusing on the right things like culture. I don't see it really weakening or changing, even during the Trump administration, interestingly. Is that your perception as well? Is that your expectation for the future? Jon Drimmer: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Look, they are clearly sharpening the guidance. They are sharpening their policies in a way that is actually quite healthy. And I completely applaud the degree of transparency that we've seen in terms of talking about how these are applied, in terms of talking about how these are to be interpreted. So I applaud the transparency and I completely agree. It is getting much sharper, particularly around those aspects that really impact compliance professionals, like culture, like incentivization, like trying to establish commitments, like integrating compliance into employment processes. So I think it is getting smarter. And again, I think the transparency is really helpful, and particularly for chief ethics and compliance officers. Susan Divers: Great. And I agree. I mean, it's actually making people's jobs easier if they take the key messages in the guidance and are able to use the guidance to drive change in their organizations. So Jon, thanks so much for joining me on this episode. Just to wrap up, I'm Susan Frank Divers, and I want to thank everyone for listening to Principled Podcast by LRN. Jon Drimmer: Thank you. Outro: We hope you enjoyed this episode. The Principled Podcast is brought to by LRN. At LRN, our mission is to inspire principled performance in global organizations by helping them foster winning ethical cultures rooted in sustainable values. Please visit us at lrn.com to learn more. And if you enjoyed this episode, subscribe to our podcast on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Google Podcasts, or wherever you listen. And don't forget to leave us a review.  

In der heutigen Folge „Alles auf Aktien“ sprechen die Finanzjournalisten Anja Ettel und Philipp Vetter über den Absturz der Tech-Aktien und ein großes Versprechen bei United Airlines. Außerdem geht es um Tesla, Spotify, Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount Global, Meta, Amazon,  Alphabet,  United Airlines, Infineon, Siltronic, ASML, Siemens Energy, Daimler Truck, Bayer, HelloFresh,  Netflix, Apple, Disney, ishares S&P500 Consumer Staples Sector (WKN: A142NW), Lyxor Stoxx Europe 600 ETF (WKN: LYX02J), Nestlé, Diageo, Anheuser, Pernod-Ricard und Danone, Anheuser Busch InBev, Heineken, United Breweries, Molson Coors und Ambev.

The famed Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee is one of the most haunted hotels in the countryCardinals/Brewers game on Sunday lasted nearly four hoursMiLB enforces pace of play rules and shaves 30 minutes off time of gamesPujols hits #681 and a young Cardinals fan got the souvenir ball

The CIA is Everywhere.Shameless Self PromotionThe Artist - A DocumentaryFilmed in the thriving art community in Dayton, Ohio, The Artist - A Documentary explores the life of an artist through conversations with people passionate about what it means to be an artist, the challenges they face in this digital age and the importance of the support of the art community.http://www.theartistadocumentaryThe CIA is everywhere. Guess where Brendan Whitworth New CEO of Anheuser-Bush North American Zone used to work?Brendon Whitworthhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/brendan-whitworth-5784b33/Alcoholism Statistics in Americahttps://www.projectknow.com/drug-addiction/statistics/Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/SkatingBearStudios)

Get my FREE Copy of “Scale What Does It Mean” here: http://bit.ly/SCALE-MEAN BUY Diecast Promotions trucks at http://www.farmtoysandmore.com Shop online here: https://www.advantagediecast.com Connect with me on social media! Facebook: http://bit.ly/FBP-ADC Instagram: http://bit.ly/IG-ADC Facebook Group: http://bit.ly/FBG-64th-Gear-Jammers YouTube Channel: https://bit.ly/Toy-Talk-on-YouTube YouTube Video: https://youtu.be/y7hqqH-RzRo Send me your letters, snacks, or other things to: Toy Talk with Logan Skeele P.O. Box 508 Georgetown, KY 40324 Boom! What's going on everyone I'm Logan the 64th Gear Jammer Skeele founder of Advantage Diecast, opening the Southside Warehouse doors on another episode of Toy Talk. America's Favorite Brew It first began in the 19th century. During the mid-1800's German immigrants settled in St. Louis, they brought along with them an industry that would have a big impact on America. They introduced lager beer. In 1843, a soap maker Eberhard Anheuser migrated to St. Louis Missouri. With no experience in brewing, he became part owner of the Bavarian, in 1860 he bought out investors in the brewery. He changed the name to Anheuser & Co. Adolphus Busch arrived in the united states as an immigrant from Germany in 1857. By 1861 he met and married Lilly Anheuser. After serving in the union army during the Civil War. Adolphus Busch went to work in his father in-law's brewery. Slowly, he brewed and built a brand name beer that would become the most iconic brand in the nation. The introduction of lager beer to the United States by Adolphus Busch during the mid-19th century forever changed the landscape of brewing beer from small neighborhood breweries, to a large industry that it is today. Budweiser was introduced to the united states in 1876, when the E. Anheuser Brewing Association of St. Louis, Missouri, introduced Budweiser Lager Beer. #Peterbilt352 #Pete352 #AnheuserBuschBrewingAssociation #AnheuserBusch #Budweiser #diecast #ProductReview --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/logan-skeele/message

Panel:  Editors Jenn Litz-Kirk, Jordan Driggers, and Sarah Barrett.  (

“In protecting our business, we are not talking about protecting AB's business, but everybody in the chain that was relying on AB to maintain their business continuity. And that came from the farmers to the people in our breweries, to the wholesalers that we service to the retailers that they service and for the consumers, that they would need to have some sense of normalcy.” An event like a pandemic can make one reexamine personal and professional priorities. For Brazilian-born Michel Doukeris, it was a chance to bolster his 165-year-old company's commitment to its customers. When hand sanitizer was in short supply, the CEO of Anheuser-Busch quickly shifted brewery production to fill that need. When the American Red Cross saw blood donations decline, the venerable company used its partnerships with major sports franchises to allow their arenas to be used for that vital purpose. That kind of altruism also extends to the company's supply chain – and to its competitors. “We want to be the company that contributes the most for our retailers and wholesalers for their business growth,” he tells Mike. “It's about working with our employees and our communities to be strong. … And it's about having a leadership position in the overall industry, making the industry better, making the industry healthier and making sure that we are contributing through innovation to make this industry a vibrant one for the next 100 years.”

In de portefeuille van Jansen Belegt is een wijziging aangebracht die niet iedere luisteraar kan waarderen. Microsoft (+44%) maakt plaats voor Adyen. Een van de redenen is omdat ik denk dat Adyen harder gaat groeien dan Microsoft deed. Waarom niet bleeder AB-Inbev (-38,7%) verkocht? Die gaat volgens Jansen Belegt flink herstellen, zodra de horeca wereldwijd weer open is.

Het is de hoogste tijd voor en volgende stap voor Jansen Belegt. De verkoop van Microsoft bracht wat geld in het laatje en werpt de vraag op: wat te kopen? Luisteraars tipten via Twitter (naar @RobJansenBeurs) onder anderen Sligro en Beyond Meat. Die laatste zie ik wel zitten, maar ik ga tóch voor technologie. Net als de meeste particuliere beleggers is dat volgens mij de profijtelijkste sector. En de keuze is gevallen op Adyen.

Ab dem 16. Mai rollt wieder der Ball in der Fußball-Bundesliga. Neun Spieltage sind noch zu absolvieren – zusammen mit Sportrechte-Experte Christian Anheuser bespricht Quotenmeter-Redaktionsleiter Manuel Weis die Lage im Fußball-Oberhaus. Wie wird sich der Fußball im TV verändern müssen, um während der Coronakrise überhaupt stattfinden zu können und wie wird sich das auch auf das Zuschauerinteresse auswirken? Wir sprechen über die Forderung nach Free-TV-Spielen genauso wie über die weiter ungeklärte Situation der Freitags-Rechte. Wird DAZN seine Sublizenz behalten können? Für Mitte Juni hat der Chef der Deutschen Fußball Liga (DFL), Christian Seifert, zudem den Bieterprozess für die Vergabe der nationalen Medienrechte im Zeitraum 2021 bis 2025 angekündigt. Manuel Weis und Christian Anheuser haben daher ihre ganz persönliche Glaskugel angeworfen und die Pakete schon mal vorab TV-Anbietern zugeordnet. Was kam heraus? Manuel Weis sieht künftig drei Live-TV-Anbieter bei den beiden höchsten Ligen, Anheuser sogar vier Stück. Außerdem reden wir darüber, ob Amazon von der Krise als eines der wenigen Unternehmen wirklich profitieren und daher verstärkt im Sportrechte-Markt aktiv werden könnte, wie DAZN die Krise übersteht und warum bis heute noch nicht klar ist, wer in Deutschland ab Sommer 2021 neben Amazon wirklich die Fernsehrechte an der Champions League hält.

Ab dem 16. Mai rollt wieder der Ball in der Fußball-Bundesliga. Neun Spieltage sind noch zu absolvieren – zusammen mit Sportrechte-Experte Christian Anheuser bespricht Quotenmeter-Redaktionsleiter Manuel Weis die Lage im Fußball-Oberhaus. Wie wird sich der Fußball im TV verändern müssen, um während der Coronakrise überhaupt stattfinden zu können und wie wird sich das auch auf das Zuschauerinteresse auswirken? Wir sprechen über die Forderung nach Free-TV-Spielen genauso wie über die weiter ungeklärte Situation der Freitags-Rechte. Wird DAZN seine Sublizenz behalten können? Für Mitte Juni hat der Chef der Deutschen Fußball Liga (DFL), Christian Seifert, zudem den Bieterprozess für die Vergabe der nationalen Medienrechte im Zeitraum 2021 bis 2025 angekündigt. Manuel Weis und Christian Anheuser haben daher ihre ganz persönliche Glaskugel angeworfen und die Pakete schon mal vorab TV-Anbietern zugeordnet. Was kam heraus? Manuel Weis sieht künftig drei Live-TV-Anbieter bei den beiden höchsten Ligen, Anheuser sogar vier Stück. Außerdem reden wir darüber, ob Amazon von der Krise als eines der wenigen Unternehmen wirklich profitieren und daher verstärkt im Sportrechte-Markt aktiv werden könnte, wie DAZN die Krise übersteht und warum bis heute noch nicht klar ist, wer in Deutschland ab Sommer 2021 neben Amazon wirklich die Fernsehrechte an der Champions League hält.

Anheuser-Busch Foundation Donates $25,000 to Montana Fire Alliance for Farm Safety

Ethan's Oktoberfest Special starts out with intoxicated antics UNDER THE ANHEUSER BUSH. Then, a sobered-up and repentant Ethan offers a prayer and musical offering (GAMBRINUS POLKA) to King Gambrinus, the patron saint of beer. After playing a Viennese-style waltz (IN A BEER GARDEN WALTZING WITH YOU), Ethan is visited by none other than King Gambrinus himself. The King informs us, among other things, that IN HEAVEN THERE IS NO BEER. 

When Adolphus Busch V tried to get an entry-level job at his family's beer empire, he was rejected. Undaunted, he started his own business -- a Colorado-based cannabis company called ABV.He talks about growing up as a Busch in St. Louis and taking his family's entrepreneurial spirit into a whole space.

When Adolphus Busch V tried to get an entry-level job at his family's beer empire, he was rejected. Undaunted, he started his own business -- a Colorado-based cannabis company called ABV.He talks about growing up as a Busch in St. Louis and taking his family's entrepreneurial spirit into a whole space.

Jansen Belegt is begonnen met de opbouw van de portefeuille. ASML, WoltersKluwer en AB-Inbev moeten voor rendement gaan zorgen. In deze aflevering legt Rob Jansen uit waarom hij juist deze aandelen heeft gekozen.

Galapagos wist ondanks goede cijfers niet te profiteren op het Damrak. Dat heeft alles te maken met het al dan niet slagen van het geneesmiddel tegen reuma, dat hopelijk toegelaten wordt op de Amerikaanse markt. Liever tipt Jim Tehupuring (1Vermogensbeheer) het aandeel PostNL, Arend-Jan Kamp (IEX.NL) adviseert Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield te kopen.

Recorded in Begyle Brewing Company on Chicago's "Malt Row," Mayor Emanuel and beer writer Josh Noel plunged into Josh's new book, Barrel-Aged Stout and Selling Out, to explore the story behind craft brewing, the community it created, which new Chicago taprooms to keep an eye on, all while sipping a few samples along the way.

Sheila Jimenez always throws a fun bash and her Halloween Brew Fest at Tippy’s was no exception. In the depths of Tippy’s cellar, costumed freaks and craft beer lovers mingled in the dark and enjoyed some fines brews, wine, and meads.   Sheila and her sister Sarah Brewer sat with Dougy Fresh, Cowboy, and Paulie G before the scare fest began and talked brews and nonsense.   Listen as the gang gushes over Dr. Manahan’s special, spicy pumpkin ale and vent over cheap, fake Anheuser craft beers.   A big thanks to brother pig, Jordan, for donating the creepy Halloween decorations to help make the night a success.  Can’t wait for an even bigger and better year next Halloween. Tune in and be sure to get to Tippy’s for some of the best wings and pizza around.     www.tippypizza.com   Shout outs in this week’s episode include:  10-56 Brewing;  Dogfish Head Brewery;  BriarScratch Brewing;  People’s Brewing Company;  Upland Brewing Company;  Revolution Brewing;  Kopacetic Beer Factory;  and Adam Lepper of Founders Brewing Co.   Be sure to check us out Sundays on Indy In-Tune. www.indyintune.com   Members of the Hopped Up Network. An ever-growing group of independent beer podcasts. Dedicated to providing insight into our local craft beer communities.  www.hoppedupnetwork.com

- Uber At Fault for Fatal Autonomous Accident - BMW and MIT Create Printed Inflatable Materials - Hydrogen Network for Fuel Cell Semi Trucks - Nikola Taps Bosch for Fuel Cell Development - Mercedes Expands E-Class Family - How GM Balances Its Scale

- Uber At Fault for Fatal Autonomous Accident- BMW and MIT Create Printed Inflatable Materials- Hydrogen Network for Fuel Cell Semi Trucks- Nikola Taps Bosch for Fuel Cell Development- Mercedes Expands E-Class Family- How GM Balances Its Scale

Our daily newscast from Marcia Campbell’s "All Nighter" on WSM 650 AM, "The Legend," a clear-channel station out of Nashville, TN.

An agreement has been reached in principle for the world's largest brewer Anheuser-Bush InBev to buy South Africa's British brewing company SABMiller for more than a trillion-rand. If the take-over deal succeeds, a single company will be selling one in every three beers across the globe. The deal is still subject to international regulators' scrutiny

Roderick on the Line - Ep. 14: “Big City Apology” on Huffduffer The Problems: all things golden, antiqued, chocolatey, and considered; public radio murmuring; tales of fraud and malfeasance in Adam Ant wallet licensing; thwarted love in a 6-story wooden bookcase; tea taxonomies; The Dustin Hoffman Scenario; hats off to the Confident Delivery Guy; the scotty that nails 3-pointers; Blackie chases Blackie; still working on dialing down the ping-pong talk; getting one’s hands around The Ladder of Enlightenment; John’s Aerostar residency; taking Clydesdales to the Prom; long con involving a sailboat; shtupping the honey bear; pony keg of Axe; JFK’s struggle with Hodgman’s Disease; Busch v. Anheuser feud; the box in Geneva holding a Glock and 7 passports; disputes in international band nomenclature; the old money of Canadia; Bob’s Dad was such an asshole; the thing about the Village People; a thread on the Buckaroos (not the pipe guys); the jailer’s keychain surrogacy; anxious Bonobo regret; going Dutch—again; Lapsang Souchong is NOT the lady from Myanmar (formerly known as Burma); the inescapable dander of the compulsive onanist; some followup from Merlin’s Other Program; why John can’t go to Tonga; the thing about deer at a watering hole; and, that one time a steely-eyed yeti with twigs in its fur demanded satisfaction.