Crowdfunding: Rise of the Talent

Andrew Sullivan, former blogger for The Atlantic who now uses The Daily Beast over at Newsweek as a platform, recently announced a new, and independent, business model where he will go off on his own (with his team), spurn advertising and request that his somewhat abnormally loyal readers donate to the effort subscribe. As Sully himself pointed out, Jay Rosen has an insightful and well-written take on the move. Rosen suggests:

In other words, core users have been “giving” to Sullivan’s site for years. They have been giving their time, their persistent attention, their loyalty (meaning: a bond strong enough to withstand the moments when Sullivan offends the user with his opinions and unruly emotions) and such other contributions as can be seen only by sifting though the inbox. 

I think that he is correct in that assertion and that the actual $20 yearly subscriptions only make that investment explicit. Further, investment seems like the right word here. As Sullivan has stated on his site, one could still visit the site and will not trigger the meter used for the non-subscribed if they do not click the "Read On" expansion link for articles. Thus the money pouring in seems more analogous to a media kick starter where those subscribing probably now feel a sense of ownership of the blog. Or, more accurately, are now validating the sense of ownership they have felt all along (although Sully mainly sidesteps sports, think of the fan ownership of the Green Bay Packers).

Though, as some have already rightly pointed out, I think the Louis CK comparison is closest to the mark. Both men have a tremendous fan base who appreciate and, more importantly, respect what they are trying to do in throwing of the yolk of their respective traditional media models. Louis CK's forays have already been wildly successful and, from the initial 1/3rd of a million subscriptions received in the first day, it appears that Sullivan and the Dish crew will be too. 

At least, I sure hope so. Louis CK has already got some of my money and Sully will be seeing his taste very shortly as well. If you truly appreciate independent commentary, you should think about investing on the Sully ground floor too.


IMAGE: TheDailyBeast via Google Images

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:

In all honesty, I have no idea how to start one of these things. Do I go fawning and describe how I was an insta-supporter after the 2004 DNC and that the support only strengthened throughout your eventual Presidential campaign/election? Do I mention my recent disappointment, not Andrew Sullivan-like but there nonetheless, at the first debate and the related tightening of the polls? I guess I go lazy and lead with those questions (what hackery!). I was not, however, one of those was most angered by your seeming malaise in the debate but was rather incensed at how easily Mitt Romney lied, obfuscated and changed tack throughout. I suppose he should have been called out, but the shamelessness of it all was almost unbelievable. Even sadder, the American people bought it and, at the very least, Mr. Romney is basically tied with you in the national polls and is right on the bumper in many swing state polls. Some say you should be as pugnacious as Vice President Smokin' Joe Biden, but I, for whatever that is worth, would pledge caution. Call Mr. Romney out, certainly, but do so calmly and civilly. This should not be your concentration, however, as the real reason Americans fell for Mr. Romney's schtick is because they believed it as a viable new course for America that would set them back on the path to prosperity (despite the fact that that path was actually lined with heaps and heaps of cow patties).

With that in mind, why not reframe the debate and bring your own vision for the future to the fore. For instance, the 47% Mr. Romney so easily dismissed are not too lazy or too downtrodden to find work that they must rely on the government dole, many jobs they would have been taking no longer exist because of productivity gains or because corporations looking to pad their already overstuffed earnings have shifted them abroad. Instead of counting them out or writing them off, let's empower them. They do not need redistributive "handouts," they need training for the post-recession new normal. How about we redistribute the money that we have, for far too long, pledged in corporate welfare? Oil companies making billions do not need billions more in subsidies and favorable tax treatment. The banks that have been the beneficiaries of the public's largess derived from our tax dollars are sitting on that money rather than making loans or lowering mortgage rates. They say they are in the business of making profits, not public welfare; I say the American public is no longer in the business of helping them do so. Mr. President, any Wall Street money you were getting is probably already in so there's no holding back now. Mitt Romney is the ultimate plutocrat, so why no embrace the populist within you? Instead of practicing corporate welfare, that money is going to be "earmarked" (let's take that word back too!) for education. And not just improving education in pre-K and kindergarten, areas where it is proven to have the most impact, but also job training to help those out of work land more highly skilled jobs. Lets create more of these jobs by encouraging the modernization of our grid and the retrofitting of buildings that will not only lead to more jobs but will have the added benefit of eliminating wasted in providing heating and electricity for our homes. It even has a tailor-made tagline: "It's not about welfare for people suckling at the public teat, it is removing the already fattened corporations from the teat so our middle class can start the American comeback." Or something. I'm sure your election team can work on that...

Once you've laid that out, ask Mr. Romney was his plan is. Specifically. Ask him how those that have been looking but cannot find a job are going to be helped by the Romney/Ryan plan. Ask him if we are REALLY just hoping for the magic tax cut bean to spur growth once again? How are the policies currently espoused any different from the previous Bush plan? Shouldn't the fact that R.Glenn Hubbard, main Conservative tax cut cheerleader for decades, is the chief economist and seeming architect of economic plans belie the fact that a Romney administration will just be repeating recent history rather than learning from it?

And if Mr. Romney brings up a plan to privatize social security, whooo boy! It could not be easier to point out that the only benefit such a plan would bring would be to Mitt's buddies on Wall Street who would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on that money. They could then charge hundreds of millions of dollars of management fees for the possibility to mismanage the American public's money as bad as the banks did before the Great Depression. Doesn't that sound great?!?

How about immigration? If it doesn't get brought up, bring it up. I think the vast majority of people who are against the DREAM Act were probably not voting for your re-election anyway Mr. President. Ask Mr. Romney where he stands and, if he changes his tune, why he is standing to the left of the spot he stood two months ago. Stress the importance of the need to keep highly educated and highly immigrants, especially those who came to this country for that education, in the country. These are the drivers of innovation and growth that we so desperately need.

I cannot even be bothered to go into the social issues as I've already run too long and I think almost everyone knows where Romney/Ryan stand on that anyway (aside from abortion; where do they stand on that? Okay, maybe bring up abortion after Ryan's VP debate performance). Do not run on the past, except where you need to emphasize that Romney/Ryan will be repeating past mistakes. President Bill Clinton already made the case for you record, it is time for you to make the case for why you are the man to look to for the next 4 years. The refrain from the DNC and from numerous commercials has been about "moving forward," so how about you show the American people where you will be driving us. Many of your supporters are already in the tank and are confident you are to lead us on the right path. It is high time to show the rest of America. You rode into office on the inspirational wave of the change you would bring and you need to inspire Americans to their better natures again.

Thank you for your time Mr. President. The American people are counting on you.

With the utmost sincerity,


NoMas Paine

The REAL Mittens Showed Up... Or Did He?

Ever since Mother Jones' fateful unveiling of Mitt Romney's 47/53 opinion from a private fund raiser, there has been much talk across the journobloggingtalkinghead-o-sphere about whether we've FINALLY seen the real Mitt Romney. Depending on who you were reading, these opinions have taking both good and bad connotations. Personally, in your humble bloggers opinion (IYHBO?), I agree that it is impossible to pin down the REAL Mitt Romney politically and still think that this WAS the real Willard.

Wah, wah, wwwaahhhhh, you say? Well, I do not necessarily believe that the talk revealed much of anything about his political beliefs and that he would be anything to anyone to get elected POTUS. At the same time, from my long experience having dealings with self-entitled douchers, it fits a pattern where, at each turn, Romney peels a layer to further reveal his self-entitled doucher core. The first instance of this was revealed when it came out that he was the ring leader of a group that harassed a fellow student by pinning him down and cutting his hair. Many cried homophobe when this was revealed, but it sort of just seemed like the seedling of a self-entitled prep school doucher (of course, the most common of all douchers). This trend has continued with his absolute refusal to release any tax returns outside of the two years he already has, despite requiring his VP candidates to give him 10 years of tax returns, essentially telling the American public to just trust him on this. Self-entitled douchers who think their deserved presidency is an essential fait accompli do NOT show the general public anything more than what they want to. Facts. In his mind it is probably unfathomable that he would not be President considering that the markets would rise upon his election.

The truly indicative phrase in Governor Romney's talk at the fundraiser, however, was not about the 47% of the electorate who will never vote for him. Do no misunderstand me. That little tidbit was certainly damaging and the coup de grace of calling them too lazy to rise up was horrible. But to really get into the mind of Mitt Romney (the self-entitled doucher) look no further than these words:

By the way, both my dad and Ann's dad did quite well in their life, but when they came to the end of their lives, and, and passed along inheritances to Ann and to me, we both decided to give it all away. So, I had inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have we earned the old-fashioned way, and that's by hard work and…[applause] I see that—

I say that because there's the percent that's, "Oh, you were born with a silver spoon," you know, "You never had to earn anything," and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is—95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country.  

These are the words on a man who was born on third base but continues to suffer from the misperception that he hit a triple. Or, to be fair to a man who did work hard to get where he is but still had a TON of help and advantages along the way, the words of a man who hit a blooper for a single and then got to third thanks to a series of unforced errors. Though it IS fantastic that he did very well for himself in private equity and gave away any money left to his family from both sets of parents, he still does not recognize that he was still born with a silver spoon and all the built-in advantages that infers. This idea was further reflected in Ann Romney's admittedly great RNC speech where she talks about their struggles living in Boston while Mitt pursued his graduate degrees while leaving out the fact that they were living off of a vast, and bequeathed, stock portfolio that most people couldn't dream of.

Though clearly not the same level of megalomaniac, Romney's self-perception reminds me of figures like James Dolan or Woody Johnson (sorry about the NY sports team references but they are the only examples I can bring to mind of this phenomenon, since they are the co-banes of my existence; pun not intended) who go about doing whatever they want, infuriating their fan base, because they think they deserve it.

Anyway, long story short, Governor Romney probably does not hold disdain for 47% of the voting public. I doubt that he really thinks about 90% of the voting public at all. He's just a self-entitled giant doucher, surrounded by people of his ilk, who felt comfortable to let out his dawgs contained douchiness. I think his own self-entitlement matter a lot more in that talk than any other entitlement that he addressed.


IMAGE: Mittens goes for the full Boehner at the Univision Forum from miamiherald.com

Cuomo Out to be the Millennial Candidate in 2016?

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, with the support of Mayor Palpatine Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly, will request the the legislature decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana in order to mitigate the disproportionate affect the city's "stop and frisk" policy has on young minorities. The possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana would be a violation, almost like having an open container, rather than a misdemeanor; i.e., you get a ticket rather than going to jail. Clearly this is a good policy but does not do enough to counter the many problems with stop and frisk and certainly does nothing to fight marijuana's ludicrous classification as a schedule 1 drug. Nonetheless, I like what Governor Cuomo is doing here. Whether he meant to or not, he's clearly differentiating self from "No Soda Nanny" Bloomberg in how he is deciding to leave his NYC legacy.

When one considers this latest legislative move by Cuomo in light of his push for the recognition of gay marriage, it is hard to believe that Governor Cuomo is not setting himself up for a 2016 run as the candidate of the mostlikely newly economically powerful and more mature millennial generation. It is a beautiful political play as, between his continuously rising favorability numbers and the support of the Bloomberg/Kelly duo, he's basically bulletproof here. State GOP can attempt to call him soft on crime, but that is pretty hard to pull off when you have the Mayor and the Commish in your corner. So he has no political liability and gets to ease off of another law that millennials find ridiculous... illegality of marijuana. Impressive anyway you look at it.

I actually hope Cuomo does run as he seems to be really cutting his teeth as Governor and I think he'll be ripe by the time 2016 comes around. He has strong political ideas and ideals and I know many a millennial who will support his sensible policies.

Quick Mini Rant:

Please indulge me briefly. Or don't and just stop reading here. It's my rant and I'll do what I want to. How EFF'N RIDICULOUS is it that marijuana is still considered a schedule 1 drug? Just so we are all on the same page, here is the DEA's definition and examples of a schedule 1 drug:

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Some examples of substances listed in schedule I are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“ecstasy”).

Really? REHHEAAALLLYY? Take a look at that list and please tell me which one doesn't belong. And which one of those is the scientific name for cocaine again? Oh wait, it is not on there because it is a schedule 2 drug because of it's medical benefits! Please read this whole rant again. We can have medical cocaine, but not medical marijuana without state DEA's, ostensibly with the implicit okay of President Obama, busting things up. Because that make sense.

UGH... I need to go smoke a joi pack of cigarettes and nail back a fifth of whiskey. Legally.

Image: NY Daily News

Dimon's in the Rough

See what I did there in the title? With the mixed metaphors and play on words and such? SO clever. Anywwaaayyy, JP Morgan Chase, the formerly venerable white shoe investment banking institution, reported a $2 billion trading loss yesterday afternoon. Not so surprisingly, Jamie Dimon managed to continue to sound like a giant doucher while attempting to show some sort of facsimile of contrition. While admitting to immense risk management failures, he managed to contend that oversight of the banking industry was still a ridiculous idea. Here are two actual quotes (well a quote and a paraphrase) from the same call to analysts:

"There were many errors, sloppiness and bad judgment," Dimon said. "These were grievous mistakes, they were self-inflicted."

 followed by...

Dimon said yesterday that the timing of the trading blunders "plays right into the hands of a bunch of pundits out there" who want a strict proprietary trading ban, the Volker Rule, named for former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker.

I mean... wow. Only a wanna-be pugnacious solipsist like Jamie Dimon could somehow claim that his firm's catastrophic failure in self-oversight somehow indicates that the Volcker Rule is a bad idea. Listen, I'm no class warrior. While sympathetic to a couple of Occupy Wall Streets complaints (when they enumerated them), I'm not marching for the 99%. But people like Dimon and some of his cohorts need to get their shit together and realize that while such rules will definitely be bad for their bottom line, it'll probably be good for the health of the world economy as a whole. While this is really for another, longer, post I've been thinking about for awhile... many commentators seem reluctant to assert is that the Volcker Rule, formerly known as the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, worked pretty well for 6 decades. Enacted in the turmoil of the Great Depression, Glass-Steagall, among other things, separate commercial banking from investment banking. Lo and behold, there were no serious shocks to the banking system anywhere approaching the same scale of the Great Depression. Our current Great Recession then occurs after it was essentially repealed in 1999 (Good call Billy) and the Volcker Rule hopes to re-institute a weaker version. Now, clearly one cannot directly correlate the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the Great Recession, but why not bring back a rule that worked so well for over half a century? I've not really heard any compelling reasons, that hold any water, from folks like JD... who's firm bears little resemblance to the old JP Morgan & Co. that once ruled Wall Street (read this fantastic book for more. Seriously, Ron Chernow is the MAN).

To make a long story not any longer than the above, I hope Jamie stops spewing BS until the time he can put forth a reasonable argument for why the provisions of the Dodd Frank Act, including the Volcker Rule, would be bad for anyone aside from him, his cohorts, and their respective bottom lines.