#rogerfederer

Greta Thunberg issues Roger Federer a code violation.

The 17yo pigtailed truant has taken to shaming tennis superstar Roger Federer for being a Credit Suisse ambassador because of the bank’s involvement in financing fossil fuel companies.

Activists launched the hashtag #Rogerwakeupnow on Twitter to hit the 20-title Grand Slam winner.

The article notes

According to Greta, the bank would be the largest investor in fossil fuel companies with more than $7.8 billion annually shared among more than 40 companies that most contaminate the planet.”

Sorry Greta, forget trying to get him to ditch CS. Demand he stop flying to tournaments around the world.

Federer said in response,

“I take the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously, particularly as my family and I arrive in Australia amid devastation from the bush fire…As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions…We owe it to them and ourselves to listen…I appreciate reminders of my responsibility as a private individual, as an athlete and as an entrepreneur, and I’m committed to using this privileged position to dialogue on important issues with my sponsors.

What a woefully soft and pithy stance. The only noble action is to stop playing tennis with multiple carbon rackets and clothes made from the fossil fuel industry. Perhaps he should give all of his fossil fuel derived sponsorship and tourney winnings to the UN so they can best advise him on how to save the planet.

Maybe Federer should educate Greta and her young activist mates on the following when reflecting on the recklessness of the older generations…or not…

At the store check out, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags are not good for the environment.

The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, “We didn’t have this ‘green thing’ back in my earlier days.”

The young clerk responded, “That’s our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations.”

The older lady said that she was right our generation didn’t have the “green thing” in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.

But, too bad we didn’t do the “green thing” back then. We walked up stairs because we didn’t have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn’t climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn’t have the “green thing” in our day.

Back then we washed the baby’s diapers because we didn’t have the throw-away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.

Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house — not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn’t have electric machines to do everything for us.

When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, we didn’t fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.

We exercised by working so we didn’t need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she’s right; we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn’t have the “green thing” back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family’s $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the “green thing.”

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn’t need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn’t it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn’t have the “green thing” back then?

Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smart ass young person. We don’t like being old in the first place, so it doesn’t take much to piss us off… Especially from a tattooed, multiple pierced smartass who can’t make change without the cash register telling them how much.

Once again it only highlights how the current generation believe that they’re smarter than the previous one as well as the one that will follow them.

As for Mr Federer. New balls please.

In rare support of Nike

Who could forget Nike’s political stunt in favour of the kneelers supporting BLM? Recall the millions it paid Colin Kaepernick to tell us about the bravery of those sacrificing everything if they believed in it. Social justice is a thang at Nike, at least among the marketing department. Naturally, it provoked a lot of anger from real Americans who served their country, some who paid for it with their lives. Taya Kyle, the war widow of legendary sniper Chris Kyle, wrote a stern letter to Nike which was on the mark.

Now some are taking Nike to task over the sponsorship contracts it holds with superstars, especially females. Nike does not appear to sacrifice everything, especially when it believes it.

Six-time track and field Olympic gold medalist Allyson Felix penned an op-ed to The NY Times telling of the cold realities of re-contracting while considering having a child. Sadly the Nike contracting team is probably staffed with icy cold hard-nosed realists compared to the cuddly socially active marketing department.

33-yo Felix said Nike wanted to contract her 70% less after her pregnancy. She wanted the original value to stay in force even if she suffered slight underperformance in the months after childbirth. Her request is totally understandable. Surely Nike could have done some celebrity mother and child adverts to pluck at the heartstrings of the average person? Get all those mothers with newborns to sport a pair of Nike kicks and leotards as they push their strollers to yoga. Just the sort of mush that a marketing department craves.

High-end endorsements are extremely hard to get. The bigger the payout the higher the pressure and expectations thrust upon the star. Contracts are driven by athletic performance and the ability to drive sales off the back of it. These performance-based targets are likely to be written clearly in black and white. It sounds like Felix needed a much better sports agent to negotiate such clauses. Serena Williams had a child and her Nike endorsements rolled on unaffected. The tennis champ even narrated a “dream crazier” advert solely looking at women in sport.

Is Felix’s 70% haircut anything more than Nike’s endorsement team taking a view on her future performance when it comes to which brand ambassadors will keep driving sales? It must have made a judgement call that Felix was past her prime. If we looked at all the females sponsored by Nike, what rank is she within the long list of names? Usain Bolt hung up his golden boots at age 30.

It is unclear how many millions that Felix received from Nike every year. Sponsorship is slightly different from employment. There are lots of caveats in sports contracts which ensure that athletes behave responsibly “outside” the game to reflect the values of the organisation. One might feel some pity that the choice to have a child ruined her contract terms but Nike has not done anything illegal.

It is unlikely that any two Nike superstar endorsement contracts are the same. Michael Jordan ended up with his own brand within Nike. Undoubtedly he was paid better than an up and coming college NFL star. It is most likely that Serena Williams’ contract had many different term and conditions to Allyson Felix. If Felix signed her contract she took on all of the legalities within it, including the fine print. Unlike an employment contract, sponsorships terms can change on a whim.

The Nike sponsorship Rolodex is undoubtedly littered with stars – male and female – in their 30s, re-contracted at far lower rates than when they were in their prime. Felix wouldn’t be alone. Age, rather than maternity was probably the bigger driver for the Nike decision makers. The world of sports is brutal. Unless one is a Valentino Rossi of MotoGP fame, a Roger Federer/Serena Williams in tennis or an Usain Bolt in track & field, ongoing sponsorship tends to fade as these stars get put out to pasture.

Yet we are not Nike and we do not have the full facts of how it grants its limited marketing dollars. Perhaps we should ask why Adidas or Puma aren’t beating a path to Felix’s door to contract her and get some mileage out of the controversy? Nike knows the endorsement field probably better than most. The risk of her defection is minimal at best, therefore, Nike can drive hard bargains. Take it or leave it.

NYT – try doing some research for a change?

8CBEB2D5-AC7B-4995-BF98-D10C6EF75249.jpeg

It is true that many airports are built near sea level. In fact many airports are built around swamps/marshland (less suitable for residential areas) which actually makes aircraft more susceptible to avian events (bird strike) than crashing sea waves. So how convenient it must have been to The NY Times to blame the recent terrible typhoon in Japan on climate change when in reality Kansai International Airport’s well known drainage inadequacies were exposed. The airport opened in 1994 and engineers quickly realized it was sinking through poor design. It needs to pump water out constantly to prevent it from drowning. It has zero to do with rising sea levels but the softer base beneath the waves. Yet The NY Times wrote about the plight of stranded passengers and how it portended their imminent peril. Puhlease.

So why didn’t NY Times journalist Hiroko Tabuchi write about the UN IPCC’s own climbdowns from their alarmism in recent years? Note climate skeptics did not write these claims. No, it was easier just to join two dots together without facts.

The IPCC wrote with respect to heavy rains:

“there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale“

With respect to storms and cyclones:

confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low. There is also low confidence for a clear trend in storminess proxies over the last century due to inconsistencies between studies or lack of long-term data in some parts of the world…Over periods of a century or more, evidence suggests slight decreases in the frequency of tropical cyclones making landfall in the North Atlantic and the South Pacific, once uncertainties in observing methods have been considered. Little evidence exists of any longer-term trend in other ocean basins…”

As for rising sea levels impacting Pacific Islands.

Professor Paul Kench of the University of Auckland and Australian scientists have shown in a study of 600 coral reef islands in the Pacific, 40% are growing in size, 40% are stable and 20% shrinking…

Yet The NY Times went further. Who knew Roger Federer was also a victim of climate change?

US Open performances. 

Well the brilliant minds of The NY Times suggested Federer’s loss was caused by global warming even though it was 0.19 degrees above average. Maybe that is why Serena got hot under the collar? Or was it because 20yo Naomi Osaka’s youth allowed her to weather the heat more effectively?

Air Travel

Yet the true litmus test of humankind’s blind panic is best described by the IATA’s air traffic forecasts which point to a doubling of air traffic by 2030. It is only fair that the general population follow in the footsteps of the 50,000 climate disciples that fly half way around the world every year to COP summits to kneel at the altar of the IPCC to warn us of being destroyed by our recklessness.

Once again, ridiculously researched junk journalism is put forward by a paper that assures us “All the news fit to print.” Joke.