When all these roles came to light, never fear, dear reader, Goldman’s two directors on Kinder Morgan’s board refused to participate in deliberations. Ah, that oughta do it. Goldman convinced El Paso directors to go for the acquisition by Kinder Morgen, something that would help Goldman’s position as a part owner. Morgan Stanley, hired to advise the El Paso board on the heroic stuff of acquisitions, was not permitted to present alternative strategies to the acquisition, such as spinning off exploration and production. However, Goldman was exploring the possibility of executives of El Paso doing the spin-offs for themselves.

Got that? The shareholders of El Paso did and have filed suit alleging that Goldman had an interest in seeing the acquisition through because it would benefit through its ownership. Goldman indicates that its private equity folks and its investment banking folks are separate and apart and ne’re the twain shall meet. that the firm’s position in the transactions was cleared through its conflicts committee, Everyone denies any wrongdoing, and off to court we go.

On the same day that this litigation story appeared there was another story about Goldman’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein. Mr. Blankfein has agreed to become the Human Rights Campaign’s first national corporate spokesman. The Human Rights Campaign promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, and transgender people. In particular, the HRC focuses on same-sex marriage initiatives in and among the states.

Perhaps the Human Rights Campaign should check Goldman’s and Blankfein’s involvement with Focus on the Family and other traditional marriage groups. Mr. Blankfein could be doing what Goldman has done well for almost a century: hedging, or playing on both sides just in case your side doesn’t win.

Oops! Turns out the academic world is darn near as competitive as Wall Street when it comes to rankings and ratings. In fact, so competitive are those of the ivory tower that they used the same strategies: Cook the books and hope no one notices.

Claremont McKenna’s vice president and dean of admissions has been removed from his job title on the college website. President Pamela B. Gann explained the problem and concluded, “As an institution of higher education with a deep and consistent commitment to the integrity of our academic activities, and particularly, our reporting of institutional data, we take this situation very seriously.”

Indeed. Now, if we could just get the rankings and ratings organizations to respond with appropriate outrage. From Robert Franek of the Princeton Review, we have these thoughts, “That is a pretty mild difference in a point score. That said, 10 points, 20 points to a student that isn’t getting that score on the SAT could be an important distinction.” Yes, but even without the numbers difference, it is an important distinction. Claremont McKenna was not honest, and students who rely on reviews when such an obvious flaw is on the table deserve whatever fate awaits them at an institution that would pull a statistical stunt (however it may have impacted the rankings/ratings). Oh, and Mr. Franek finished with a flourish, “I feel like so many schools have a very clear obligation to college-bound students to report this information honestly.” Actually, it would be all schools, not just “so many,” and the reporting of correct data is not just a “clear obligation,” it is an ethical responsibility.

Oh, and NBC is not as pure as the driven snow. NBC just goes the opposite way. Brian Williams’ dog of a show, “Rock Center with Brian Williams” got a lovely ratings boost when NBC called the network’s coverage of the January 23rd presidential debate “Rock Center with Brian Williams.” Call a regular show by a different name as a special program and it doesn’t go into the ratings mix. But call a special program that has viewer draw by the name of your regular program, and you get to lop in the double ratings from that night into your otherwise abysmal regular ratings.

Here are the ethical issues. First, unless advertisers are incredibly savvy and up on details, they do not realize they are paying higher rates for something that is an accounting sleight of hand. Second, these networks are relying on a numbers strategy that is nonsustainable. If the shows are not working, the only real solution is fixing the show. You can’t cook the books often enough or long enough keep the ad revenues the same. The networks lull themselves into a false sense of security.

The New York Times reports that many in the industry are worried about the practice but no one is willing to discuss it because it’s the old pot and kettle dialogue. Those who live in glass houses and all. Here’s a summation of ethics in the industry on this issue, from the mouth of a network program executive, “You do everything you can, as long as you can. And then they slap your hand.” These are the same news operations that have covered the scandals in business over the past decade and groused about how they cooked the books thinking that they could keep going. Chuck Prince said the same of the subprime debacle – that as long as the music was playing that he would keep dancing. Dear TV people, the folks in business were doing exactly the same thing you are now doing: Their mantra: Just get those numbers out there and keep it going, even if it is false and misleading. Slaps of the hand in business consisted of jail sentences, owing largely to the fact that it is fraud to lie about your real numbers performance.

NASA went ahead with the launch. Mr. Boisjoly and his colleagues calculated that the problem would occur at liftoff, at 24 seconds. However, the Challenger launched and cleared the launch pad tower. Mr. Boisjoly and the others breathed a sigh of relief. However, 13 seconds later, at 37 seconds, the Challenger exploded, killing all of the crew and Ms. McAuliffe.

In subsequent years, Mr. Boisjoly spoke to both engineering and business students about the importance of standing firm and making your case clear. He encouraged them to work to help manager understand why they are so concerned about a particular action proposed by a company or agency. Despite all that he suffered following his firm stand (loss of his job, depression, health issues), Mr. Boisjoly was firm in his conviction that he would still do what he did and say what he said all over again if he were faced with the same or similar situation.

Mr. Boisjoly provided those of us who teach ethics in business and engineering a exemplary model for the key component of ethics: speaking up when you know there is a problem. His impact on students, engineers, and business people is perhaps far wider reaching than he ever realized. Mr. Boisjoly was known as a crackerjack engineer. Add to that description that he was one decent and ethical human being. The only thing he was wrong about in the entire NASA Challenger debate was the time. Not bad to be off by only 13 seconds. RIP.

Further, why do they assume the withdrawal of the funds is political? Get in trouble, no matter how worthy your cause, and the Komen Foundation is not going to provide funds. Those who will protest by no longer giving to the Komen Foundation throw yet another unnecessary tantrum and harm a good cause. Their time would be better spent in getting Planned Parenthood’s out of its investigation difficulties.

On the same day as the seminar, the Barometer was at a tiny post office in a rural town. The agenda was mailing a package of laundry back home from a too-long road trip. The elderly woman at the counter ahead of the Barometer was trying to do a “Return to Sender” on a package because she said she did not think she had ordered the book in the package. The postal clerk explained that once you have opened the package the “Return to Sender” option is no longer available. The clerk explained to her that she could package it up and resend it. “Could I do it some way today while I am here?” was the sweet lady’s question. The postal clerk explained the only way was Priority Mail and that would be $12.60. The tiny woman, obviously hit hard by the expense but feeling she had no options, agreed to do that and the clerk handed her a label to fill out for the Priority Mail box. There was an odd look at this sweet lady stared at the label. She then asked the clerk, “Could you write the label for me? I really can’t do it.” The irritated clerk said, “No. Go stand over there and wait until I finish with these customers and then I will do it.” It was a heart-melter to see this humble lady step to the side.

As the clerk prepared the Barometer’s Priority Mail Box, the lull allowed for completion of the sweet lady’s label. She thanked the Barometer with a smile that revealed, at most, one tooth. For some reason, the clerk seemed irritated with both of us. Good!

With laundry on its way back to Arizona and the sweet layd’s label done, the Barometer left. Along came a customer who had stepped in and purchased stamps as the Barometer was doing the tender lady’s label. “I just want to thank you for what you did in there. I was going to step up, but then you did it. The Lord blesses us for these little things we do. But, I thank you.”

Well, that’ll put a little hitch in your giddy-up for the day. This was nothing more than a few minutes of addressing a label. So, why do we avoid the rewards of being some small help to another? So strange that we deny ourselves a feeling this good, isn’t it?

There was one more thing the woman who thanked the Barometer added before she left. This was a tidbit, something that she would know, residing in this small town, “She can’t read, you know. That’s why she couldn’t fill out the label.”

The next time we see that person in need when we are in a rush . . . well, think of this heart-wrenching story from a rural post office. Such a story may be awaiting you when you take the time to help. Sure beats guilt.

Mr. Einhorn held a one-hour conference call with investors, media, etc. to explain how the British regulators, with whom he had just settled an insider trading case for £7.2 million (about $11 million), were out to lunch. The fine was settlement for civil charges related to Greenlight’s sale of shares in Punch Taverns immediately following an Einhorn conference call with management in which the executive team indicated that it was considering issuing new shares. British authorities said that Greenlight’s prompt sale in advance of Punch’s announcement of a new issue saved Greenlight millions in loss of value of the shares which was likely following such dilution. Mr. Einhorn, who famously shorted Lehman and is a favorite person to track on short sales, insists that he settled because “we would face an uphill battle as a high-profile hedge fund challenging a British regulator in a British court.”

His other comments strain credibility because of their blowhard tone. Mr. Einhorn insisted during the call that his actions were inadvertent and unintentional because he did not believe he had been given any inside information. The guy who figured out the subprime mortgage instrument collapse did not notice that he was the only one selling off Punch Tavern shares? He didn’t notice the news did not show up in the papers? The Brits were having none of it and concluded simply that his belief that he had not been given inside information was “not a reasonable belief.” You can read more about the conference call at Juli Werdifier and Peter Lattman, “Hedge Fund to Pay $11 Million Fine in Insider Trading Case,” New York Times, January 26, 2012, p. B2.

Mr. Einhorn offered colorful denunciations of the regulators to whom he had just paid penance. Said he, “This resembles insider trading the way that soccer resembles football.” And he labeled the case as “something more akin to a traffic cop with a quota at the end of the month an a miscalibrated radar gun.”

However, following the call, Britain’s Financial Services Authority (FSA) also extracted a fine of £130,000 from Greenlight’s trader on the Punch transaction because, “Greenlight made the decision to sell all of its shares having just spoken to Punch management. The Greenlight analyst who participated in the call…had stated at the time of giving the sell order to Mr [Alexander]Ten-Holter that…Greenlight potentially had a window of a week to sell before the stock ‘plummets’.” See Megan Murphy and Brooke Masters, “Fallout Spreads From Einhorn’s Improper Trading,” Financial Times, January 27, 2012,http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1c701aa0-48d3-11e1-974a-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1l2qYF1TU Greenlight released a statement calling the fine against Mr. Ten-Holter “unjust.”

Mr. Einhorn has reached his fork in the road. The Barometer hopes that he walks away from the settlement with the reality of the close call that it was, with the humility that should accompany his good fortune. If he does, the world is his oyster and he can continue his brilliant financial career. However, the language of the odd phone call is not the stuff of repentance and reform. That’s the stuff of too many fallen giants, akin to those smart guys who always belittle the regulators. Sometimes the regulators are right, and in this case, they were also merciful.

There are two others from Ariel Kaminer’s New York Times, “The Ethicist.” An employee of a small start-up company supports the Occupy Wall Street movement but has come to realize that his employer’s start-up is financed primarily by one of Wall Street’s biggest companies. He wishes to know if he should resign immediately. By all means, quit your job and begin a search to find a company that has not been touched by a Wall Street company. He might join with the petrophobic to pool resources to see if they can find a company that does not have ties to oil in some way.
Then there was the grandma who did not want to take her granddaughter to a local production of The Nutcracker because she learned that David Koch’s foundation was one of the donors for the production. Mercy, you would not want your grandchildren exposed to culture when you have no idea where the funds used have been. That’s showing those Koch brothers!

Be prepared for the Super Bowl ads because the tantrums have already begun. A greyhound protection group is fixin’ to boycott Skechers because its Super Bowl ad shows a dog walking around a track in four tiny, red Skechers shoes. Are they protesting the indignity of a bulldog being forced to wear shoes? Nay, they are protesting the fact that the dog is walking on a track where greyhounds run and are allegedly mistreated. The Barometer knows that she would have recognized that track instantly and been nauseous at the thought of a company using such a backdrop to sell dog shoes? Skechers?

The mental gymnastics tantrumites go through atop their high horses are a wonder to behold. A recent photo in the Wall Street Journal showed the U.S. Park Police tracing an extension cord in the Washington, D.C. McPherson Square Occupy folks because the police discovered that the crowd had spliced wires at a light pole in order to obtain free electricity. Any thoughts on how the electricity was made? Oil-burning peaker plant? Any ideas on which Wall Street firm does the financing for the utility?

These childish stomps of the feet with their assumed ideological purity have become strained and irritating. One must distinguish between and among conduct by others and the need to boycott/distance/condemn or whatever vs. views. To take a recent example — it would have been out of the question for the Barometer to attend a Penn State game if Mr. Paterno had remained as head coach, the athletic director had held onto his position and so forth. The reason would be that the institution itself would have failed (twice) to respond appropriately to actions that directly resulted (or would have continued to result) in harm to others (in the first misstep children were harmed and had there been a second misstep through the failure to terminate it would have only increased the problems in that distorted culture at Penn State). Penn State alums and other donors would be justified in halting the flow of money to an institution that had deep-seated issues in terms of accountability as well as protection of innocents. The conduct of the institution in a management sense was the problem, not the views of the coach. Effective management means wise stewardship of funds. The withholding of donations or participation as a ticket holder would be based on a measurable business quality, not business views.

However, we often have situations in which we are simply ideologically at odds with those who own businesses we frequent or customers who need our services for businesses we find offensive. The pesticide company, the capitalists on Wall Street, Skechers, and the Koch Brothers are not engaged in illegal activity. They are engaged in activities that are offensive and/or Satanic to some because of personal views.

So, there is a much larger issue going on here. We are becoming a society of litmus-test boycotters. Surely we do not want to be judged in isolation, but as a package of who we are and what we do. There is the piggy-back ethical question of whether it is good to judge an organization (the local production folks for The Nutcracker) by one act – that of taking a donation from David Koch.

The reality is that while we may disagree with Wall Street, pesticide companies, David Koch and his brother, we can recognize that we do agree with them on other issues. For example, evil though all-things-Koch may seem in the eyes of certain beholders, there is the fact that the grandmother and the Koch brother are pizanos when it comes to support of the arts and in ensuring that children have the benefit of this initial and wondrous exposure to ballet.

We have an ethical responsibility of fairness to others — that we can recognize that no one is completely bad because of his or her views on one subject. I once heard a liberal commentator state that he was shocked to learn that Ann Coulter took her mother to every chemotherapy treatment and stayed with her during the treatment and then cared for her after she took her home. Why should this be a shock? There is some good in those with whom we have disagreements.

As mature adults we need not stomp our feet and threaten to take our toys and go home each time we are unable to control other’s conduct on the basis of our own ideology. As mature adults, we are able to let our friends choose their friends and step in only when, out of concern for their well being, we fear that a newfound friend could be harmful to them (and I insert the caveat that I refer to something more harmful than “I don’t like their views!”(See Penn State example above)) Whatever one may think of the Koch causes and views, there is some good in them — and as difficult as it may be for a small person to admit it — we do share a least one view with the Koch Brothers — that there is great benefit to society in introducing our children and grandchildren to the arts.

The attachment of demonic status on this tenuous basis of political ideology is a frightening reflection of a society lapsing into a lack of maturity. Civility might experience a comeback in a world in which we are willing to acknowledge that those who disagree with us are not always Beelzebub. Whatever happened to starting a dialogue? Taking our toys and going home with an “I’ll fix them!” attitude does not advance any cause, ideology, or viewpoint. Indeed, there is little hope for progress when we regress to tantrums.