Alex Hammer

2018-02-18T17:51:00.001-08:00

I'm back. It's been a number of years.

"Smart Ecommerce" -- In the future what you want or need to buy WILL FIND YOU

2014-07-04T19:19:00.003-07:00

The Future of Commerce is “Smart Ecommerce” – But What Does That Mean?

Change within an industry is at first predominantly quantitative, followed eventually by qualitative. Search 100 years from now will not be better links, just as the automobile, as Henry Ford famously stated, was not a faster horse.

Ecommerce is dominated by a few huge global players, Alibaba, Amazon, Ebay etc. Beyond a very short list of behemoth ecommerce players, second tier players such as the Netlix’s of the world are substantial but more niche players.

Ecommerce success today is driven by either size and selection, coupled with price and convenience, or by vertical expertise, private or special sales, or the like.

But just as search engines are predicted in the future to become intelligent personal assistants that you take with you rather than greater and more refined lists of links, so will the ecommerce leaders of tomorrow be intelligent personal assistants as well which you take with you.

And like any great personal assistant, they will be proactive rather than reactive.

Today, and this is a critical point, you have to primarily go out and find what you want or need to buy. But in the future, what you want or need to buy will come and find you. Including, increasingly when you didn’t even know that you wanted or needed at all.

We term this “smart ecommerce”.

Smart ecommerce has many aspects and applications, and is the focus on our world-leading technology ecommerce 2.0 startup, Media 2.0 (see description for link to company).

Predicting the future is, obviously, never a perfect science. You’ve probably heard the famous saying, "We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters." from Founders Fund and Peter Thiel.

However, we can look across history and across industries to see what disruptive change may look like, and consider that in the context of major forces today, both generally and within ecommerce.

One overriding principle to keep in mind, going forward, is that while more than a few companies – and investors – have lost their shirt in ecommerce, sometimes falling prey to the “if you build it they will come” fallacy, the other important consideration is that commerce in general has a high floor, because there will not likely come a day when people do not need to buy things. And while brick and mortar is far from dead, as the shift in commerce continues to shift to the mobile, online and eventually also virtual worlds, ecommerce has, although there will continue to be winners and losers, certainly a bright overall future indeed.

So, what are the forces within “smart ecommerce”?

First, as the term smart commerce recognized, it is smart. It is smart in the sense that it is personalized, and it is smart in the sense that it is learning and increasing its capabilities and efficiencies over time.

So, today in ecommerce that looks like, for example, algorithm driven recommendation engines. “If you liked that, you may also like this” kind of thing. These can be extremely powerful and lucrative, but in the forms in which they exist today they are stone age tools in the history of ecommerce offerings to come.

Recommendations which meet you out in the world become notifications. Here is a coupon for this, for example, based upon your past preferences. Or the next book in the series you are reading is now available for pre-order. Or the band you saw seven years ago is coming again this summer to your hometown. Or the engagement ring you received years ago is due for its next cleaning.

Or, a bit in the future thanks to “The Internet of things” your car is texting you that it is past time for a tune-up, and your refrigerator is signaling that you are low on milk (of course for routine purchases such as milk, you’ll be autosetting your refrigerator to purchase your milk for you (and other groceries) when they run low).

Learning involves intelligence, which in the case of non-living things is artificial intelligence. Search assistants and ecommerce assistants will in many cases in the future likely be integrated together, if not one and the same. The Siri of today will be your friendly, cooperative, highly proactive and – critically – super intelligent assistant that learns what you want and when you want it. Of course, in the future, learning your communication and interaction preferences, your intelligent personal assistant will not only give you what you want – often before you know you want it – but give it to you HOW you want it.

Now that’s personalization. And convenience.

Ecommerce of the future eventually becomes, increasingly, an extension of you. An extension of your brain, and perhaps even an extension of your personality.

And perhaps part of you. Let’s look at the rapidly growing area of wearables. These are devices you wear on your body, or in your clothing, with sensors and computing power to tell you, for example, your exercise information, or your medical information. Someday it is hypothesized these will exist not only on you, but in you, implanted or traveling in the body providing all kinds of measurements and someday treatments or cures. Implants, temporary or permanent, in the brain may also serve medical functions and potentially virtual experience functions and other functions, possibly, which we can’t even imagine well today.

So, to keep things simple for now, let’s say you’re wearing a smart watch of the not too distant future which indicates that your hypertension is getting worse. This information, with your permission, is relayed to your doctor who writes you a new prescription. But not only that. The prescription is paid for by the same gadget that placed your order (and/or received the doctor’s new prescription). So wearables, or implants, and ecommerce could fuse as one.

In our company, Media 2.0, we’re working to perfect an additional revolutionary way in which ecommerce can find you, rather than you finding it.

Content.

What if the content locations for whatever topics you were most interested in also had the Amazon-like qualities of market size, convenience and price ecommerce offerings built into each content topic area? So, for example, because you are regular reader about motorcycles, and own three, motorcycle related ecommerce offerings related to both your specific reading and purchase history matched your interests algorithmically. What if I know that you are consistently reading New York Yankees articles from us and also that you go to Yankee Stadium five times a year, have New York Yankees products in your home and subscribe to several paid sports channels and a half dozen sports magazines.

How valuable would this combination of information be?

Pairing content and ecommerce effectively together is not easy by a long shot. If it was it would have already been done at scale. Let’s look at Amazon. They have some great product descriptions, photos and reviews but they don’t have entire sites, online magazines or blogs related to each type of product which you want to buy.

Amazon is a trusted site, but creating leading “destination sites” where the consumer returns over and over and over again, continually, to constantly gain the newest and updated content information that he or she likes to read, is an enhanced value proposition under which circumstances of ecommerce sales, when additional conditions are met, can thrive.

Historically, continuing to the present, content monetization has often become a race to the bottom, an attempt to capture the maximum number of eyeballs via the lowest or mass common denominator. to monetize via AdSense, ad networks and the like.

But eCommerce is a hugely higher potential revenue model than Adsense and Ad networks when well done.

Because we have demonstrated proof of concept and have world leading expertise in this area, we become, post funding as we scale, a leading acquisition candidate for any ecommerce giant who wants to add these lucrative ecommerce capabilities to its offerings (and in the build versus buy equation, there are a lot of hidden barriers to entry and the like which make buying rather than building a more attractive, and cost-effective, option).

The Three C’s and Success (Competition, Challenge and Character)

2014-07-04T15:43:00.000-07:00

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJ86ULDyX8

Chapter 2:
The Three C’s and Success (Competition, Challenge and Character)

(Go to The Laws and Secrets of Success: Delving Deeper than You've Been Told Before into the Mysteries of Why Some People Accomplish More Than Others, Are Happier, Better Liked, and Yes, Wealthier: Alex Hammer: 9781492870258: Amazon.com: Books for the complete story)

Most of us avoid or dislike obstacles, but not
the most successful.

Successful people realize that it is important, to
quote from Joyce Meyer, to use the hardships
in life to “make themselves better rather than
bitter”. This mindset is a critical difference
between highly successful individuals and those
less so. Successful individuals recognize and in
fact appreciate that life can be, and often is,
difficult, but that this is not something to be
feared or criticized but embraced. Less
successful people instead make excuses and
cast blame. If only they’d gotten better breaks
or not been mistreated. A victim mentality. By
contrast, successful individuals take
responsibility for their lives and the results in it,
and do not blame other people.

Competition
Successful people are often portrayed or
considered as ruthless. As competing with
others and taking whatever they can grab in a
win-lose proposition.

You’ve heard the expressions:
“Who did you step over (or sleep with) to get to
the top?”

“It’s a dog-eat dog world”

“No good deed goes unpunished”

Despite this conventional wisdom, this is not, in
fact, how most successful think and act.

Far from it.

You may not be used to thinking this way about
successful people, so it may sound a little
surprising at first, but consider this:

Successful people realize that the real
competition is actually with oneself. Others just
serve as a mirror, and a measuring stick, for us
to allow us to see where we are at and
improve. This is part of taking responsibility for
one’s life.

And for one’s success.

Life created each of us differently. An oak tree
will never be a better maple tree than a maple
tree. It will never be a better bird than a bird.
But if it takes advantage of its surroundings to
the maximum, plays well the cards it is dealt (or
can acquire), then it can be the best oak tree
that it is capable of being.

As corny as this may sound, successful people
realize that success involves being the best
“you” that you are capable of being. That is
why successful people are not jealous or
envious of other people. Envy and jealousy are
negative emotions emanating from a feeling of
lack. We wouldn’t be jealous of others unless
we felt that they have something that we do
not. It is this inner feeling of lack that gives rise
to a corresponding poverty or other form of
lack in the world – for as within, so without. By
contrast, gratitude is an expression of fullness
and wealth. How can you be grateful unless you
are already full and have a lot to give. The same
applies to all feelings of fullness or
completeness versus feelings of lack. For
example love versus hate (or apathy). Love is a
sense of I have enough for myself, and even
extra that I can give to you. Hate by contrast, is
a feeling of lack, you took something from me I
need, or you have something that I need, etc.
Apathy is much different than contentment.
Contentment is feeling that what I have is
enough, it is all that I need. Apathy is there is
nothing of value that can be gained nor to
share, and hence I have no interest in other
people.

Why feel bad that another type of tree has
some “desired” characteristic that you do not.
Or that something comes easier to another
than it comes to you. “Variety is the spice of
life” and successful people realize that is
important to focus on what you have, and
make the most of it, rather than what you do
not. This does not mean that one cannot nor
should not work on one’s “weaknesses” as well
as one’s strengths. Certainly we should seek to
improve in all areas that are important to us.
But to waste time and worry in comparison to
others when we each are unique and on our
own individual path in life is not something
which successful people are prone to do.

Competition in the World
And yet life does have a highly competitive
element. Seen from a spiritual perspective, this
involves the notion that the lower is always
subservient to the higher. From a carnal
perspective it can be expressed, for example,
through the notion of “the survival of the
fittest”, a “will to power” or a need to
dominate.

This is real, but far different than aggression.

While the successful are often viewed as the
most aggressive, they may instead, perhaps, be
seen as the most focused or determined. They
are certainly not easily swayed away from their
goals. In addition, not only are they NOT more
aggressive, but they are in fact most able to
withstand the intrusions of others. In short,
they have a balanced mood and temperament
that is not easily displaced, even within the
highly competitive challenges of the world.
Unsuccessful people become moody, angry and
upset. They strike out at others when they do
not get their way or seek to overtly dominate
them. Successful individuals, by contrast, stay
calm and professional and withstand the
strongest blows. They possess the centeredness
and inner confidence and calm not to be easily
ruffled. This is a major component of success.
Not responding when others are asserting their
will to power against you can seem like
weakness, but many times it reflects a superior
strength in that such a successful individual is
not allowing oneself to be distracted to become
engaged by the other who is generally less
successful. Successful individuals are calm
because they are confident. They are not
overwhelmed by the will to power intrusions of
others because they recognize the reasons why
they occur as being from a source of weakness
from the other.

The most successful individuals may well be the
most competitive but they are able to do this
largely, rather than through overt competitive
actions but through, interestingly, the self-
control of avoiding the competitive acts of
others. By not becoming engaged, and thus not
wasting valuable energy and resources,
including time.

Success by ignoring others!!

(So, now you know why the very successful
never return your calls).

In all seriousness, We all prioritize our
activities, and the most successful are primarily
engaged with others who are also most
successful, who share the same or similar
characteristics as themselves.

By making oneself inaccessible and
unassailable, the successful individual is free to
focus on one’s own goals without distraction.
They also, in avoiding stress and resource
draining altercations, retain the focus and
resources to directly confront competitive
challenges that occur that they must respond
to that are more serious.

We call this picking one’s battles.

Competition Tools in Society
Those who are high on the success chain have
five extraordinarily powerful tools at their
disposal. Business resources (including,
importantly, financial resources). Legal
resources (and by extension the courts),
political and government resources (executive
and legislative (so we’ll count this as two). And
the media. Focusing on these is a book onto
itself, but suffice to say that, given these
collectively, the highly successful individual is
not overly concerned, for the most part, in
regard to competition that may arise from the
average man or woman on the street.
I will make one quick note about the media.
The fallacy (but oft repeated mantra) that the
media is the watchdog of the other four (and
especially the other three, being the three
branches of government) is perhaps the biggest
fox guarding the henhouse delusion that keeps
the whole system working well together in an
integrated and reinforcing fashion.
The general idea of checks and balances is itself
a tool of the rich and successful to present an
illusion of opportunity (if not fairness) that
many may suspect in their heart of hearts,
especially if they are the cynical kind, is instead
a reinforcement of entrenched interests of the
status quo.

Want to see it even more dramatically. Add in
these two additional forces: police and the
military.

It’s easy to see, how it can appear at times, that
it a completely stacked deck. However, before
we consider these an abuse of power, we must
also recognize that being a nation of laws
serves us all (although perhaps to varying
degrees), as does having a judicial system,
media, police, etc.

It’s simply a matter of balance and fairness in
regard to how these institutions are used. And
when they are misused, they start to erode and
lose their power, because the masses of people
will not follow them when the trust level dips
below a certain point.

Some might see such a structure as an
argument for Social Darwinism or “might makes
right”. There is a fine balance here. Power
MUST be used for one to be successful but
when it is misused this violates the essential
principles of life and backfires. Understanding
the intricacies and nuances between effective
use versus misuse, is a, if not the, critical
determining factor between success and
failure. How is this distinction effectively made?
By character, which we will be examining a bit
further below.

In short, the successful use power effectively
but are not power-hungry. We’ll examine this
more below (in short, the adaptive use of
power aids all and reflects a sense of fullness,
while the abuse of power represents a sense of
deficiency and lack and thus becomes non-
constructive or destructive, depending upon
degree).

Competition and the Marketplace of Ideas
The world is a competition of ideas. More
powerful ideas (such as a car for
transportation) tend to replace less powerful
ideas (such as horse and buggy).
Or, to date, capitalism over communism.
Almost by definition, the successful possess
better (i.e. more successful) ideas.

It has been said (and I’m paraphrasing) “that
whenever two people engage in dialogue in
good faith, the one who is more certain will
wind up influencing the one who is less
certain".

Think of the power and implications of that
principle.

The world advances so good ideas must
advance. The world is complex so ideas must be
considered not only in isolation but also as they
relate to the bigger picture. The power of
learning is that it exposes us to better ideas.
And through understanding and experience we
can incorporate those ideas into guiding
principles and wisdom.

The most successful people clearly do.

Successful ideas can be incremental or
disruptive in their advancement. Fortunes are
made from successfully implemented disruptive
ideas.

Challenge
They’ve done studies involving taking bees into
space, and the bees die. They die because there
is not enough resistance to their flying. The
bees need the resistance to survive.

Resistance is critical to human beings as well.

We need to grow – everything in life grows or
dies, that is a fundamental principle in life (my
Dad termed it, “if you’re not moving forward in
life, you’re moving backwards”).

Or, as many have heard said, “that which
doesn’t kill us makes us stronger”.

When we exercise it hurts, but it hurts in a way
that is making us stronger. Muscles need to be
used to grow. The “use it or lose it”
phenomenon.

Perhaps the challenges of life, the
disappointments and hurts, are mental
exercise.

Successful people better accept life on its
terms, and adapt to it. They take responsibility
for the actions they engage in, the thinking that
gives rise to it, and the results that emerge.
Unsuccessful people live in “woulda, coulda,
shoulda”.

It’s been famously said that “if” is the longest
word in the English language.

This is not to say that every pain is to be
embraced.

There is helpful pain and non-helpful pain. The
helpful pain is a stretching or a discomfort that
is expanding our capabilities, our minds, our
hearts, our conscience, our will, our spirits and
our souls. The non-helpful type of pain is when
we torture ourselves with the things we tell
ourselves --“I’m not good enough”, “I’m not
strong enough”, “No one will ever love me”, “I
can’t accept…” etc.

Successful people understand this critical
distinction, and make it.

Successful people are compassionate with
themselves in addition to being compassionate
with others. Self-compassion, a form of self-
love, is the basis for being compassionate with
other people.

Another Joyce Meyer concept is that human
interactions can be like sandpaper, helping to
take away our rough edges. If you are not that
compassionate in life, or if it is a trait that you
are working on, consciously or unconsciously,
you may draw people into your life who will
encourage you or literally force you (although
we do have free will) to be more
compassionate. Perhaps you will have a special
needs child, who needs more of your heart,
devotion and care than you thought that you
were capable of giving. Perhaps a trusted friend
or relative will betray you, forcing you to either
forgive or remain bitter over time.
When you start to realize that others are
serving as a mirror for you so that you can
better understand yourself and where you are
at, then, to the degree that you accept this, you
can begin to become more compassionate with
yourself and with others.

This is the basis of emotional intelligence
leading to success that we examined in the last
chapter.

Remember those bees above. That must seem
like nirvana in those first moments, to go
through life with little or no resistance, and
while it might be helpful for a short period of
time - we all surely need to relax and recharge
our batteries at times - life has its fullness and
growth from challenge.

It is, apparently, the nature of the world in
which we live.

It is human nature, even by those who are
disciplined, to sometimes (or often) seek the
path of least resistance, and embracing the
challenges of life takes real maturity. Life can
seem incredibly challenging. Will we survive?
Will we prosper? Will we continue to prosper?
It has been famously said that time is the gift of
the universe providing perspective. We’re
mortal, and we’re reminded of that with time.
There is no success, in the long run (from all we
know so far) of cheating death in this world.

This is incredibly sobering.

The losses that we suffer in life bring us closer
to that ultimate loss, that inevitable loss. Our
death. And are a reminder that can bring
richness and meaning to what we experience in
our lives if we are open to having it be as such.
Ultimately, challenge is scary because it brings
us closer to our ultimate challenge, our
mortality, the challenge that we cannot
conquer.

We distract ourselves with the challenges of
the day and as we solve these successfully we
delude ourselves that we are ultimately secure.

But cracks appear – inevitably.

Successful individuals are better at accepting
the truth of situations more fully. We all
intellectually accept that we are mortal but we,
it seems, largely put it out of our minds. Some
people say that successful people are driven by
their fears. If we are driven by fears then our
level of success must be questioned, as what is
our quality of life no matter what we have
gained if we are captive to fear?

The successful individual is at peace with
oneself and the circumstances in one’s life. He
or she has learned to come to terms with losses
large and small, understanding that challenge is
intrinsic to life, inescapable. In some way, the
successful have learned to accept the rules of
life from small loss to ultimate loss. In this way,
challenge takes on a new meaning. It is a
stretching of oneself to be better able to accept
what is, or some other framework that
generates acceptance and peace.

Challenge and the Law of Attraction
We examined in Chapter One the idea of self-
fulfilling prophesies. Angry people are
sensitized to look for angry and unjust
circumstances and find them (i.e. they help to
create them). By contrast, for example,
gratitude promotes richness and success.
How does this work in a little more detail? Well,
as I think of it, we’re all like tuning forks in
terms of what we attract and repel. Just as a
radio or TV station plays the message that
corresponds to that individual frequency or
wavelength, so experiences manifest
corresponding to the energy in our hearts,
minds and souls. Have you ever felt that
someone was drawn to you, or you to them, or
repulsed?

The outer is a manifestation of the inner, like a
mirror. Our experiences reflect to us how we
feel about ourselves (and correspondingly
about others). “Fruits of the spirit”, including
love, acceptance, joy, compassion, gratitude,
etc. REFLECT A STRONG SENSE OF INNER
COMPLETENESS, SATISFACTION AND
RICHNESS, TRUE WEALTH, etc. that become
manifested in the world in the forms of money,
harmonious relationships, health, etc.

THIS IS THE SECRET OF THE BOOK BY THE
SAME NAME, AND MAY BE, AS FAR AS I
KNOW, ONE OF THE POTENTIALLY
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE UNIVERSE.

Life, and life experiences, are showing you what
you already hold or believe yourself to be.
Or, as has been said, “wherever you go, there
you are”.

Feelings have a stronger vibrational energy
than do thoughts, so how you feel about
something is a stronger predictor of the law of
attraction than what you think about it. If you
feel happy, content, grateful, joyful, etc. then
the law of attraction is working to your benefit.
If you wish for good things but your emotions
are out of whack then at best you are sending
mixed messages and again feelings are more
powerful. Powerful and successful feeling leads
to powerful and successful thinking, and you
can work on your thinking in addition to your
feelings for beneficial effect.

Successful people know, and utilize, that to see
success in the world, it starts first inside.

Character
Biology should never have been characterized
as destiny. But character may well be.
I like to say that “talent can take one to the top,
but only character keeps one there”. This is
because those who rise without character may
reach the top but are much more likely to fall,
quickly or after a period of time, than those
who do.

It’s a similar principle to lottery winners who do
not have a wealth mentality despite winning
great wealth. If the lottery winner can develop
a wealth mindset then they should be able to
keep, maintain and even build upon their
winnings. However, if they can’t, then they’re
simply a poor person who temporarily happens
to have a lot of money. That is, they have
retained the mentality of a poor person, they
think like a poor person, and as detailed earlier
as per the law of attraction, this inner feeling
and belief of poverty must manifest in the
lottery winner again becoming poor.

People with a poor person’s mentality at some
level don’t feel entirely comfortable being rich.
Perhaps they feel guilty. Perhaps they do not
appreciate the money as one might if acquired
in a different way (e.g. by years of labor and
sacrifice).

Back to character. I define love as wanting to
help those who can do nothing for you, and
character as has been famously said, as “doing
the right thing even when no one is watching”.
It’s human nature that we want to lie in bed
and do nothing (and still become rich). We
want (at least at times) to be petty with others
and be selfish. Character teaches us we can’t be
lazy. Character teaches us we can’t be mean.

Not if we wish to have a successful life.

We have to have the discipline to work hard
Even when we don’t feel like it. We have to
move beyond our personal feelings and look at
the bigger picture in terms of our words and
moods.

Character is destiny.

In a later chapter we’ll be discussing success as
determined by the strength of your network.
Do you think that successful individuals want to
hang out with you or be part of your network if
you have bad character?

Let’s put it this way. You know how hard you’ve
worked to get to where you are. Do you want
someone irresponsible, careless or carefree
dragging you down?

I defined character as doing the right thing even
when no one is looking. Many people appear to
do the right thing when others are watching,
for personal gain. Character runs a lot deeper
than that. It is an internalization of beliefs, and
attitude and drive that keep one on true north.
Character is destiny. Ask the successful people
you know.

Conclusion
Competition is real but largely a competition
with ourselves to be the best we can be.

Successful people realize that as we compete in
the world we are learning about ourselves and
the notions that we hold. Successful individuals
make effective use and take benefit from
utilizing powerful institutions but do so in a
balanced way to avoid negative consequences.
Life is a battle of ideas, both incremental and
disruptive.

Successful individuals realize that as we compete in
the world we are learning about ourselves and
the notions that we hold. Successful individuals
make effective use and take benefit from
utilizing powerful institutions but do so in a
balanced way to avoid negative consequences.

Life is a battle of ideas, both incremental and
disruptive.

Successful individuals realize that challenge
exists to make us “better rather than bitter”,
and thus is to be embraced rather than feared.
Sometimes life uses others to help smooth
away our rough edges or improve us in some
other way. The law of attraction is a powerful
force and translates our inner feelings and
beliefs into experiences in the world. This is the
great and powerful secret.

Character, perhaps more than anything else, is
destiny. The successful may rise through talent,
but require character as a necessity to maintain
and expand upon their success.

(This has been a single chapter excerpt from The Laws and Secrets of Success: Delving Deeper than You've Been Told Before into the Mysteries of Why Some People Accomplish More Than Others, Are Happier, Better Liked, and Yes, Wealthier: Alex Hammer: 9781492870258: Amazon.com: Books)

Edit

Technology Convergence - How VC's and Larry Page are "Going Big or Going Home"

2014-02-26T12:09:00.000-08:00

Larry Page is driving the future of Google towards Moon Shots
Thinking big: Larry Page talks moon shots

Self driving cars

Wearable computing
Google Glass
Worldwide Internet/WiFi access
Loon for All - Project Loon - Google
Healthcare longevity research
WTF Is Calico, And Why Does Google Think Its Mysterious New Company Can Defy Aging? | TechCrunch

What Does the Future Dominant Company Look Like?
Google, Amazon, Facebook and Microsoft increasingly compete against each other. Are they Content Providers? Advertising Platforms? Search Engines? Social Networks? Hardware Providers? Ecommerce Platforms?

The more complex the world becomes, the more we need integrated systems that are highly personalized and (self) organized to guide us.

Gaining efficiencies in this competitive landscape by differentiating signal from noise is the "killer app".

"Going Big or Going Home"
A brief illustration:

Our startup, Media 2.0, is at the nexus of content and ecommerce. As Amazon has demonstrated (as well as others such as Netflix and eBay) commerce of the future (and today) is driven by content, sophisticated recommendations, trust networks, user generated content (including reviews, think about this: Would Facebook exist without user generated content? What else is it?), personalization, efficient distribution, social signals (including social networks) etc.

Why we claim we are the future of ecommerce - Investor FAQ

But this is only the beginning of the transformation of ecommerce (and commerce generally) via trusted content.

Those who "Get It" Write Their Own Ticket

Look at Google. Google's Search is, most essentially and fundamentally, an ecommerce engine driven by content - specifically search content, mediated by Paid Search, AdSense, AdWords and the like. Google "creates" its search content by organizing information from the world to meet user's queries.

Ecommerce and Content are like the famous classic Hershey's commercial. "You got chocolate in my peanut butter. No, you got peanut butter on my chocolate".

The two flow naturally together, but in unobvious ways, just as peanut butter and chocolate is not necessarily an intuitive combination. But unlike chocolate and peanut butter, you cannot just slop content and ecommerce together and expect them to be successful. An idea that is relatively simple is far from easy. Just the opposite, you can quickly and easily lose your shirt if you do not understand well what you are doing, falling into the terribly expensive pitfall of "if you build it, they will come".

In the video above we discuss creating destination sites across mobile and other platforms, and a few of the other important key principles in regard to utilizing content and ecommerce together successfully.

There is a lot more to tell, which is one reason that this domain is still in its infancy.

A Common Link

As per Marc Andreessen, "software IS eating the world". EVERY business is becoming a software business, or at a minimum a technology business, and being disrupted as this occurs.

But every business is becoming a content business as well. Look at social media as but one example. Can your business survive much less prosper without effective content today?

Some people study companies. Some people study stocks. I look at the macro and micro level, including studying those who most "get it" in the areas in which I am involved:

My 7 page interview with David Cohen:
Industry Leaders of Tech 2.0 Interview David Cohen: "Look for us to continue to pile up unfair advantages for our companies"

My 7 page interview with Brad Feld:
Industry Leaders Interview Brad Feld - "Fundamentally, it’s about being open, honest, direct, respectful, and humble"

(and many many more)

This post is just to whet your appetite. There is so much more of importance to discuss.

But I'll leave you with this:
Technological convergence
"Technological convergence is the tendency for different technological systems to evolve toward performing similar tasks. Digital convergence can refer to previously separate technologies such as voice (and telephony features), data (and productivity applications), and video that now share resources and interact with each other synergistically.

Telecommunications convergence, network convergence or simplyconvergence are broad terms used to describe emerging telecommunicationstechnologies, and network architecture used to migrate multiple communications services into a single network.[1] Specifically this involves the converging of previously distinct media such as telephony and data communications into common interfaces on single devices."

Jeff Bezos is a genius because he understands how seemingly unrelated businesses are, in fact, related. Larry Page is a genius because he is betting, and betting big, on what is next.

The World's Most Successful VC's and How They Discover "The Next Big Thing" First

Are you?

Go big or go home. That is your only real choice today.

I've come up with a saying that "the Universe expands or contracts opportunities based upon our ability to receive them."

That is your ticket to "The Laws and Secrets of Success".

How Facebook Could Be Killed By Mobile (and what Kara Swisher understands better than perhaps the rest of the world)

2014-02-26T12:02:00.000-08:00

Software IS famously eating the world (Marc Andreessen)
Why Software Is Eating The World

Every business is becoming a software business, and being disrupted in the process.

In regard to mobile specifically, it may well be eating the Universe.

Mobile is disrupting the disrupters.

Starting with Facebook.

The announcement that Facebook paid $19 billion for WhatsApp is a seminal event in the history of technology. I know that this sounds bold but it demonstrated just for starters that the days of purchasing a quickly built Instagram for $1 billion is far (very far, very very far) from a black swan event.

And it shows that Facebook, just recently considered the emergent dominant force in technology, is clearly on the defensive playing catch-up.

AND HIGHLY VULNERABLE.

You don't believe that? If mobile is eating the Universe, a lot of big companies who do not excel in mobile as a CORE COMPETENCY in the mobile space will die.

(Facebook's strengths in mobile will also be discussed)

Is the technology landscape starting to not only shift but explode?

Things could change, but how strong is Facebook in mobile compared to Google and Apple, for starters? (Think mobile operating system, detailed below)

Mobile competition is the defining factor. If Facebook cannot find a way to keep up with Google and Apple in the mobile space, they are (eventually) toast.

And at the prices that today's leading mobile apps are and will be selling for - no, WhatsApp will not be the higher water mark,and perhaps not by a longshot, Facebook, as rich as they may seem to be, could easily go broke in this arms race relatively quickly.

YOU READ IT HERE FIRST.

I read in one article that the WhatsApp purchase represented 9% of Facebook's stock. If accurate, (and I'm not sure or not whether it completely is as Facebook has a current market cap of $169 billion and change Page on google.com, but in any event the purchase represents a major major event for Facebook (and beyond)) I'm surprised that this huge bet on a single app by Facebook is not being more discussed specifically in regard to representing more than a moderate amount of risk for Facebook.

I don't know that this marks (pun intended) Facebook as being desperate, but clearly Facebook is highly vulnerable living on the buy side in a buy versus build mobile world.

Ok, you may not believe me, but listen to what Kara Swisher, who you love and respect, has to say about the WhatsApp purchase

Facebook Price for Having No Phone OS? $19 Billion. A Must-Have Apps Play? Priceless.

Kara writes in part:

"Translation: We have now established a price floor for what it costs not to have a mobile operating system in a world in which having a mobile operating system counts for an awful lot these days.

And that means, for all intents and purposes, Google’s Android operating system and Apple’s iOS. And not, despite various and sundry efforts, Facebook, which also has tried to create a mutated shell version of its own OS called Home. (Phone home, as it turned out, did not work as well as it did in the movie.)

But a mobile presence is a must-do in the current digital environment, and this massive acquisition makes it clear that Facebook has decided that its core strategy will be to create or buy up must-have apps that consumers demand to have on their mobile devices."

Facebook only has a finite amount of money for acquisitions of course, as big as it is, and there are and will be a lot of valuable apps out there.

$19 billion for one communication mobile app? $19 billion here, and $19 billion there. And pretty soon you're talking real money.

Bankruptcy money perhaps when you consider the terms of this purchase for Facebook and what it implies going forward in this mobile eats the Universe world (read till the very end to see what I mean, no spoiler provided).

And prices, obviously are hitting the stratosphere. Marissa Mayer has "bought in" on mobile as a core strategy

Google has huge pockets.

Facebook is truly vulnerable in this new world.

In Facebook's Defense

Of course I am not saying that Facebook is toast. That might be ludicrous. But it doesn't sound quite as ludicrous as it did two days ago before the WhatsApp purchase was announced.

Of course Facebook builds in addition to buys. Paper for example. And they have their own messaging service, which they are keeping.

For Facebook, a company famously known for growing to the top in such a short period by building feature after feature themselves (Zuckerberg as a coder himself is an iconic image) isn't it ironic that in the mobile world, which is eating the Universe, that Facebook, seen to be the up and coming company displacing Google and Apple overall, is now in danger of being destroyed by Google or Apple in this mobile transformed technology world.

Or by another company. We're only at the very very very beginning of the mobile landscape. What if the next groundbreaking mobile company, say 2-3 years from now, is at that point (again, remember all the competitive bidding among the technology giants) now worth $100 billion.

And what if it decides not to sell but compete with the giants on its own.

Maybe Snapchat was totally crazy to turn down Zuck's $3 billion
Snapchat Spurned $3 Billion Acquisition Offer from Facebook - Digits - WSJ (or possibly not). But maybe some future hotshot breakout mobile startup will not be.

And Snapchat, despite being today's media darling may still seem unimpressive to some, is not alone. Remember Twitter famously spurned Facebook, for example, as well.
When Twitter Met Facebook: The Acquisition Deal That Fail-Whaled
(Kara again, gosh darn it)

Deja Vu All Over Again

Look at Microsoft. The lost decade (and longer) famously involved Microsoft being very late to the Internet. And not understanding it well because it was invested so heavily in its legacy products.

Bill Gates' famous warnings have not been seriously enough heeded by the company. To. This. Day.

Goodbye Steve "Windows Mobile - Surface" Ballmer.

Apple and Google ate Microsoft (Microsoft is still in the game but clearly in "ketchup" mode). And Apple and Google (or somebody else) may destroy Facebook as well.

Zuckerburg Has Been Outvisioned by Larry Page and Jeff Bezos (and of course Steve Jobs as Well)

This headline might have seemed utterly absurd until recently.Mark Zuckerburg has long been viewed as a visionary, and an incredible one at taht. And he may well still be. But today, never moreso than after this acquisition, Facebook is looking rather small. Or more accurately, NARROW.

Not because of what Facebook is but because of what the world is, the Universe is, the landscape is in this post WhatsApp acquisition world.

Humpty Dumpty has fallen and cannot be put back together again.

Mark Zuckerburg, as incredible as he is, to survive much less prosper needs to take a lesson out of Larry Page's moonshots and Jeff Bezos' bringing together of convergent dominant technologies

Technology Convergence - How VC's and Larry Page are "Going Big or Going Home"

And fucking quickly as well.

Bill Gates I believe it was, was famously quoted as being most scared by two kids in a garage. These two kids, now funded by TechStars or Y Combinator and an initial seed round, now have, believe it or not, in the next few years the capability to morph quickly into a hundred billion dollar company.

For real. Most won't of course. But all it may take is one.

Every company is at risk. Including, for example, Amazon:

It is famously said that people overestimate the amount of change in the short term, but underestimate the amount of change in the long-term.

For Facebook today, and many others in the coming days, that long-term has arrived today.

Why The Future is Now

How much power do you have when you can command $19 billion, and you are predicated on a business model that might well be considered actually anti-monetization (and Facebook gives in to this anti-monetization model despite purchasing).

I know it sounds crazy. Don't believe it. It's all in the blog post announcing the purchase from WhatsApp investor Sequoia Capital
WhatsApp | CrunchBase Profile

which reads in part:
Four Numbers That Explain Why Facebook Acquired WhatsApp
"Jan keeps a note from Brian taped to his desk that reads “No Ads! No Games! No Gimmicks!” It serves as a daily reminder of their commitment to stay focused on building a pure messaging experience.

This discipline is reflected in WhatsApp’s unconventional approach to business. After one year of free use, the service costs $1 per year — with no SMS charges. This can save users trapped in expensive data plans up to $150 per year.....

There's more. Get ready, here is the money shot quote from the Sequoia post:

"Facebook has assured Jan and Brian that WhatsApp will remain ad free and they will not have to compromise on their principles. We know that Jan, as a new member of Facebook’s board, will continue to champion the rights of WhatsApp users."

$19 Billion for an essentially free service that will remain so and without ads? A purchase that represents, frankly, a very substantial chunk of your company's worth? For one app?

THE WORLD HAS FUCKING FOREVER AND UTTERLY CHANGED.

Believe it (or not at your own risk)

The Future of Search - How the Law of Accelerating Returns is Disrupting the Disrupters and Giving the Advantage to Faebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon (and one more)

2014-02-26T11:51:00.000-08:00

Ray Kurzweil famously talks about the accelerating rate of technology change on an exponential basis.
The Law of Accelerating Returns
"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth."

One implication of this is that it is easier than ever for the disrupters themselves to be disrupted. For the adoption cycle of new and disruptive technologies is becoming more and more and more accelerated and compressed.

Don't believe it? Look at Mobile. Facebook, for example, long considered a frontrunner in innovation is, in short order, now on the defensive in Mobile. Facebook is transitioning, at least in mobile, from primarily a build to a buy company - most recently and famously spending $19 billion for WhatsApp, a company that Facebook may or may not be able to monetize, depending upon who you ask.

And a statement that seemed utterly laughable just months ago. Utterly laughable. Now doesn't seem quite so.

Namely, that Facebook could die:
How Facebook Could Be Killed By Mobile (and what Kara Swisher understands better than perhaps the rest of the world)

Die as into oblivion. Cease to be anymore.

Grow or die has transitioned into innovate or die, and where this proves impossible, into buy or die.

One consequence of this has become, almost overnight as well, that "moon shots" have become the new normal.
Technology Convergence - How VC's and Larry Page are "Going Big or Going Home"

The Future of Search

Remember the old truism that change is famously overestimated in the short term, but underestimated in the long term. Well, the long term is approaching for search now. And the tipping point could be a lot quicker, and a lot more disruptive, than people think.

My thinking was stimulated on this topic again today by reading this post
Hey Google, A Search War Is About To Explode

Here are a few quotes from that post to set the stage for the current discussion.

"It seems rather clear that the evolution of search is such that the traditional search engine means less and less, as social networks continue to grow. Sure, Google may continue to dominate the comScore rankings well into the future, but if those rankings don't include a gigantic portion of another sort of search- social, then what's the point?...

And now, just a few weeks ago, Zuckerberg stated that Facebook will compete directly against Google in search. In 2014.

Google knows this, and the late-to-the-game Google+ social platform is proof that Google is worried. Social search is eating into standard search, and it makes sense: A Facebook user who wants to know what people think about a new Italian eatery in his city, the contact info for a reliable locksmith, or whether or not Kanye West's new album is worth buying- these are all things that would have been typed into a traditional search engine in the past...

I'd argue that the one thing that Twitter has over Facebook's head is global reach, at the cost of privacy. What this means is that a Facebook user might dip into his or her personal network of 750 Facebook friends and find information, or perhaps join a public Facebook group with another 2000 members, and get information there. But Twitter has no such limits. A user can simply Tweet what he is looking for, and unless the Tweet is protected, is now open for the world to see and comment on. Twitter is essentially a crowd sourcing search engine...

I pointed out the surreptitious Siri strategy here. But what really caught my eye was Apple's acquisition of Topsy, which is a Twitter search and analytics company.

After taking a look at Topsy, I realized immediately, that simply put, it is a new age search engine. "New age" meaning it searches Twitter, a huge bank of (social) data. On some level, Topsy is equivalent to Facebook's Graph search, but the difference is that because Twitter is a public platform, Topsy can operate independently from Twitter, and therefore allow a company like Apple to spread its tentacles throughout Twitter. And since Twitter is the only true social media competitor to Facebook (not including Pinterest), acquiring Topsy was an ingenious move by Apple to gain a hold in the social media world, which, as I argued above, is really the search world."

There are many important ramifications of the above, which could be discussed for days and still just scratch the surface.

But here's one: Microsoft and Yahoo!, Google's two closest search competitors by far, seem to be competing in search by today's rules.

While Facebook, Twitter, Apple and Amazon (you have to add Amazon, they know everything about what you want - at a minimum from a product perspective) are playing tomorrow's search game.

Today's search game vs. tomorrow's search game.

(of course we could also get into the notions of personal assistant search, voice command search, wearable search or any of a number of additional hypothesized notions in regard to the future of search).

And the Envelope Please

The future winner of search is..................

Google - but not Google.

The future of search may be (get ready to be surprised by something you already suspected might be true but didn't realize)

The future of search may be...................

YouTube.

I read somewhere that a healthy percentage of the younger set are using YouTube as their default search engine rather than Google, Bing or Yahoo!.

This makes sense to me. I am increasingly using YouTube as a default search engine as well. In many cases, video answers are proving better than text answers to the questions that I am asking. Which means that YouTube is a better search engine, for me, in these cases, than Google.

And this is happening more and more.

And here's the money idea:

If YouTube were organized as a search engine as well as Google, people might drop Google overnight. If you could get search results organized on YouTube as integrated and thorough as you can on Google, that could be a game changer.

Of course, Google (via YouTube) would be putting Google out of business, to a degree at least, if it did that.

Cannibalization (marketing)

I realize that Google results already include YouTube listings, and that another company may come up with their own hybrid model (or something completely different).

The Sound of One Hand Clapping

Google, Facebook, Amazon and the other behemoths are looking more and more like each other every day. They compete in many major markets, and the distinctions between them (the companies and sometimes also the markets) are blurring.

Search in the future may exist across many different types of activities. This may occur to the extent that the notion of search as something distinct loses some or all of its meaning.

If that ever occurs, then search may become everything, and/or nothing at all.

Beyond Content Search - Toward a Science of Content Organization

2013-09-12T17:37:00.000-07:00

The future of content is content organization.

One has millions and millions of YouTube videos available to watch, but, even with search, it's difficult to find what you want. Sometimes you don't know exactly what you want (and that is why you are doing the search in the first place) and sometimes what you think you want is only a small subset or what you really want if you knew all of the choices available.

We have thousands of TV channels available but we can't find the good stuff to watch

Tech videos are all over the web. How do you find all of the best videos produced yesterday on the web, or all the best videos of a single person (http://www.blinkx.com/ is one start, but it is still not intelligent search, there is too much wading and sorting)?

THE NOISE IS OUTWEIGHING THE SIGNAL, AND THE RESULT IS INEFFICIENCY AND WASTE.

Curation is one answer, but it is too expensive (ask Mahalo).

Part of the answer may be alogorithms (think Google Search), and part of it may be analytics.

WE NEED A SIRI OR GOOGLE NOW FOR CONTENT - Whoever makes a breakthrough here that is significant has the potential to disrupt the field of content.

Part of the answer may thus be personalization (which is really a form of self-organization) in which based upon your responses and history better discovery is presented to you. Part of the answer may be crowdsourcing.

Discovery has too much randomness in it, think stumbleupon.

We need discovery that is organized.

We need a science of content to find and discover the content that we want.

Attention VC's: Content isn't king. It never was. Organized content may be.

Own Your Power Without Abusing Others

2012-12-04T05:20:00.000-08:00

Life is a delicate dance.

As the famous line in the song states, "some of them want to abuse you, some of them want to be abused".

We're in this life to learn from each other, and to learn, in significant respects, how to find balance.

If we are entrusted to positions of authority we may need to correct others, and hold them accountable, but this must be learned to be done with a pure heart as an appropriate role for good, order and learning and not for undue or excessive personal gain.

We must speak truth to power but allow others to speak their truth. Your greatest voice is in the actions of your life.

As the saying states "I can't hear what you are saying because I am overwhelmed by who you are".

And

"Nobody cares about how much you know until they know how much you care"

And

"When the student is ready the teacher will arrive"

Life is beautiful but hard

Happiness is a decision, and a gift. It is a gift that we give ourselves consciously. Because we are entitled to be happy. It is our natural condition until we start to tell ourselves things to be unhappy (I'm not successful, I'm not rich, I was taken advantage of...)

On the one end of the spectrum we have accountability and on the other we have courage. G-d made all individuals equal in value, but he allows us to play different roles. The key is to be true to our rules, to play them effectively, fully and well, but within the context of an awareness of the equality of each of our humanness (and, if you'll accept, also our Divinity) that serves as the foundation from which to play these roles properly and effectively.

If you do not see the Divinity of the other then you have not played your role to the maximum of what it can be played.

Conflicts are battles of ideas

It is famously said whenever two people come into a room and have dialogue, that the one who has greater conviction will have a more sizable impact on the one who has lesser conviction. The experiences of life, or circumstances if you will, are repeated moments of learning, of awareness, of our convictions in this battle of ideas. Ideas can hurt. They can even kill. But they also can heal.

Of course, as you also know, "there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come".

Accountability is heads and forgiveness is tails

We get into trouble when we seek to separate the two. That is why, as the saying states, "forgiveness is the gift that you give yourself" (and is the gift that keeps on giving). But also, because as is also famously said "truth is beauty and beauty is truth" the things in life that are holding us back in our development need to be stripped away from us, sometimes painfully. This is all, in essence, that accountability really is.

Character is Destiny

One saying that I have come up with is that "talent will take one to the top but only character will keep one there"

Or, as they say, "be careful in regard to how you treat people on the way up, as these are the very same people that you will encounter on the way down".

Consider the Power of Love (and self-love/self-acceptance)

As the Bible reminds us:

"Love is patient;
love is kind.

Love is not jealous
or boastful;

is not arrogant or rude.

Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable - or resentful;

it does not rejoice at wrong
but rejoices in the right.

Love bears all things,
believes all things hopes all things, endures all things

Love never dies"

I will follow you only when you inspire me

Tanks may detour but never derail dreams.

The balance between sentimentality and coarseness

Some people want to stamp out all emotionality in the world. Others are consumed in it.

We are powerful beings. All of us.

We must, hopefully, learn to own our great power without abusing others.

What a world that would be.

The World's Most Successful VC's and How They Discover "The Next Big Thing" First

2012-11-22T09:29:00.001-08:00

1. Leverage key influencers

Every day I watch "The Charlie Rose Show" and the "PBS Newshour". Charlie introduces and reintroduces me to people who I need to know. The PBS Newshour shows me not just what is happening in the world, which today I can find anywhere, but most importantly what it means. Information isn't power. Relevant actionable information is power.

The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post.... All successful people find the top information, in context, most efficiently. Both at the macro but also, essentially, at the micro level as well.

2. Curators are the new black

Poorly filtered information, regardless of its quality, leads to information overload. Effective curation allows one to see the forest from the trees. Curation paired with insight and effective strategic and management systems insures that you are wandering around in the correct forest(s).

3. The Network Effect 2.0

If you want to know how successful you will be in the future, the quickest and most accurate way to do that is to look at the power of your network.

Networks, like money, flow to value. If you want to increase the strength of your network you must increase the strength of your value.

When you have plenty to give you will attract takers, which you can think of as customers, and will attract the attention of high level individuals and systems.

4. Be Open

If "the only constant is change" and one must "evolve or die" then openness is the lifeblood of success. Be open in your thinking, be open in your schedule, be open in your relationships and be open in your time.

In this world of exponential gains, this is not your grandfather's success. We all stand, as they say, on the shoulders of giants, and it is also true, as is said, that we must understand history or be condemned to repeat it, but we live in an increasingly disruptive age such that today's success will not look like yesterday's and tomorrow's most certainly will not.

5. Connect with Disruptors

Here is my recent 7 page interview with TechStars Founder and CEO David Cohen. If "software is eating the world" then TechStars (and Y Combinator, and AngelList) are, potentially and increasingly in fact, eating the world of professional investors. Look at the growth curves, yes...

But also the mindshare.

Here is my recent 8 page interview with elite VC Brad Feld. Does it surprise you that he and David Cohen are so closely aligned?

THE TOP INDIVIDUALS FIND EACH OTHER.

You should do the same.

6. Practice Gratitude

The Universe has physical laws and also metaphysical ones. On a basic level, think about social forces. Why do you wish to help one individual over another? Why would you hire one over another? Trust one over another?

Attraction applies not only to gravity and magnets.

As Ghandi said "You must be the change that you wish to see in the world".

Or famously, "when the student is ready, the teacher will arrive".

7. Recognize "The Next Big Thing"

To be an elite investor, first, moreso than anything, you need a Ph.D. in "the next big thing".

Paul Graham has a great discussion of some of the factors involved.

What if my startup, Media 2.0, turned out to be one of those next big things? Would you even be able to recognize it?

Of course we'd never let you in.

Checking into Eliot Cutler's Americans Elect Resignation

2012-10-11T05:17:00.000-07:00

Angus King to Jail if Guilty? http://bit.ly/RN4WEH

RE: Michael - Governor Angus King in New York
From: hscpub 
To: info 
Cc: bensdad2 ; matthew.o.gagnon ; mhdrucker ; hscpub ; mstone 
Date: Thu, Oct 11, 2012 8:10 am

Was Eliot's June 26 AE resignation letter (and also other AE board 
members resignation) documented anywhere in the press before recent FEC 
complaint filed. If yes, please have Eliot provide links. If no, why 
not? Isn't that newsworthy?
Angus King to Jail if Guilty? http://bit.ly/RN4WEH
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=eliot+cutler+americans+elect+resignation&oq=eliot+cutler+americans+elect+resignation&gs_l=hp.3...350.10489.0.10771.57.38.7.10.10.0.264.4792.8j28j2.38.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.rDQuqGvntbU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=2664c7b9590ae96e&bpcl=35243188&biw=1454&bih=726
http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/10/politics/republicans-seek-irs-investigation-into-nonprofit-status-of-group-supporting-king/?ref=regionstate
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B61rrpmRSrQWX3lxMm1IQlBBUm8/edit
Best Alex

What investors don't realize about startups

2012-09-10T05:42:00.002-07:00

It's a big bad world out there in regard to differentiating signal from noise.

In Black Swan Farming Paul Graham writes:
"That's made harder by the fact that the best startup ideas seem at first like bad ideas. I've written about this before: if a good idea were obviously good, someone else would already have done it. So the most successful founders tend to work on ideas that few beside them realize are good. Which is not that far from a description of insanity, till you reach the point where you see results."

Success in any field is about seeing around curves. Wayne Gretzky, asked about his success, famously said that he skates not to where the puck is but where it is going to be.

80% of our success comes from 20% of our efforts, but 99% of our great success comes from 1% of our efforts. Graham again:

"Unfortunately picking winners is harder than that. You have to ignore the elephant in front of you, the likelihood they'll succeed, and focus instead on the separate and almost invisibly intangible question of whether they'll succeed really big...

The first rule I knew intellectually, but didn't really grasp till it happened to us. The total value of the companies we've funded is around 10 billion, give or take a few. But just two companies,Dropbox and Airbnb, account for about three quarters of it.

In startups, the big winners are big to a degree that violates our expectations about variation. I don't know whether these expectations are innate or learned, but whatever the cause, we are just not prepared for the 1000x variation in outcomes that one finds in startup investing."

Think about all of the factors that must have gone into the development of Y Combinator. Personal factors in Paul Graham and others. Company factors during its history.

But three quarters of its value on two picks. Sounds like a 99% to 1% ratio (or more) to me.
So successful investing is really the art and science of finding and managing that 1%.

In the end, for the most successful investors, nothing else matters.

NEVER FORGET THAT.

Reaching Daylight

How does a running back reach the open field?

One relies upon experience, and instinct. But there is also the playbook and studying film. And then, of course, you have to factor in the important factors of the other 21 people on the football field!

Every day we make little decisions that collectively lead to bigger decisions. These bigger decisions, collectively, define our path in life. It's well known that a 1% difference in arc, over time, relates to a dramatically different destination.

The arc, in its vision and its adjustments is part of that 1%.

Could the elite running back tell you how they reach the open field? If they did, would you be capable to understand?

The Next Zuckerberg

If I was the next Zuckerberg (or Jobs or Page) and my company Media 2.0 was the next Facebook or Apple or Google, how would you find me?

The question is, would I let you?

Graham:

"History tends to get rewritten by big successes, so that in retrospect it seems obvious they were going to make it big. For that reason one of my most valuable memories is how lame Facebook sounded to me when I first heard about it. A site for college students to waste time? It seemed the perfect bad idea: a site (1) for a niche market (2) with no money (3) to do something that didn't matter.

One could have described Microsoft and Apple in exactly the same terms."

Would you recognize Jobs, Page, Zuckerberg and Gates at the earliest stage?

The great founders manage their investors rather than vice versa.

When you see the tiny trail out of a forest of noise when the forest looks black you have vision.

Learn from the Past

If you want to find the next Zuckerberg or Page you need to understand them. Volumes have been written on each and yet if the next one walked up to you you could still well miss it.

You're not in the business of examining companies, you're in the business of having a Ph.D. in the next big thing.

You have to live the next big thing, be so immersed in it that the forces of the universe draw it to you.

Or as Obama would say, get out of the weeds and stop playing small ball.

Graham + 1

Is it a matter of having more shots at the basket? Graham writes:
"We can afford to take at least 10x as much risk as Demo Day investors. And since risk is usually proportionate to reward, if you can afford to take more risk you should. What would it mean to take 10x more risk than Demo Day investors? We'd have to be willing to fund 10x more startups than they would."

Compare that to Warren Buffett. When asked about diversification Buffett replied that he believes in putting all of his eggs in one basket and then zealously guarding that basket.

Buffett famously does little buying. He reads and studies voraciously and, as he says, he's looking for that one or two outsized ideas per year.

Of course he's in a different part of the investment curve, dealing only already with highly established companies. But Buffett is living the 1%. He's a diamond finder. And because diamonds don't fade Buffett is not a day trader.

One Day Left to Live

Psychologists help people clarify their values by asking them what they would do if they had only one day left to live.

If you get rid of all of the noise, then only the signal remains!

If you want to find the 1% investment return, you have to clear away the 99%. Which means that your life becomes a study of the 1%. If you could invest in only one founder, who would it be? What would that individual look like? How would you recognize him or her? How would you appeal to such a person.

And how would you draw them into your life?

Ecosystem

Graham:
"I'm not saying that the big winners are all that matters, just that they're all that matters financially for investors. Since we're not doing YC mainly for financial reasons, the big winners aren't all that matters to us. We're delighted to have funded Reddit, for example. Even though we made comparatively little from it, Reddit has had a big effect on the world, and it introduced us to Steve Huffman and Alexis Ohanian, both of whom have become good friends."

You have to have enough data points to be able to discern signal from noise. It's the little things that bind to the little things that bind to more little things that become big. But you have to know where things are pointing, and what they mean. Something can be little but leading to something big, or it can be little remaining small.

The running back takes a step left and another step left and another step left because this leads to exploding through the line to the right.

Lining up your ducks in a row. You need the right ducks and you need them lined up correctly.

It's what investors don't know.

Governor King – That’s what you get for being a hypocrite about money in politics (explained)

2012-08-24T07:07:00.003-07:00

Originally posted on Dirigo Blue on July 28, 2012

http://hammer2010.blogspot.com/2012/08/gerald-weinand-where-is-my-angus-king.html

Note: When this post was deleted on Dirigo Blue all of the original links were

lost (I've been able to find some of them but the links, for example, to other

Dirigo Blue articles I wrote cannot be found as all of those posts have now

been deleted).

Governor King – That’s what you get for being a hypocrite about money in

politics(explained)

Governor King responded to the current US Chamber ad against him by saying:
“We have been expecting these types of negative, ill informed attack 
ads. The U.S. Chamber’s attack on Angus shows just how out of touch 
this organization is with business challenges in Maine. This is a case 
of Washington politicos trying to tell people in Maine how to vote. 
Mainers and Maine businesses know Angus King has a strong record of 
support in the business community. His primary focus for eight years 
was working with business and creating jobs — everything from saving 
jobs at Bath Iron Works with the shipbuilding tax credit to bringing 
National Semiconductor to Maine, repealing the business equipment tax 
(BETR) as well as working tirelessly to streamline business 
regulations. These negative ads are business as usual in Washington and 
it is exactly what needs to change. The U.S. Chamber is the largest 
lobbying organization in America and they refuse to disclose their 
donors. It is nameless, faceless outside money trying to influence 
Maine voters.”


There’s a problem. King’s response didn’t address the attacks in the 
ad. The attack ad had two major attacks: 1) That King spent too much 
money, specifically $2.6 billion, and 2) That King left a deficit of $1 
billion.


Why do politicians answer a different question than the one they were 
asked?


As if we, the voters, are not going to notice.


So we still don’t know what King’s actual response addressing the 
attack ad claims is going to be.


Leading journalist Michael Shepherd in an examination of the US Chamber 
ad entitled “Truth Test: US Chamber of Commerce TV ads against Angus King

ring true” concluded:


“Claim: “While King was governor, state spending skyrocketed to ($)2.6 
billion.”
Claim: “When King left office, he left Maine with a billion-dollar 
budget shortfall.”
We rate these statements true.”


Money in Politics


In my opinion, King has been parading around as a reformer on money on 
politics but his actions tell a different tale. Earlier I wrote in part:
“The news today is a Washington DC fundraiser for former Maine 
Governor, and current Maine Senate candidate Angus King, “to raise 
money from big-name donors and lobbyists”.


That after King has been stressing that as an Independent “Nobody will

tell me how to vote – except the people of Maine.””


I continued:
“If you stick around long enough in politics, and in life, occasionally 
things come full circle. Lawrence Lessig, Professor at Harvard Law 
School, is perhaps the Nation’s leading authority on money in politics 
and potential reforms. Lessig gave a very powerful keynote at the ten year

anniversary of the Maine Clean Election Act event. King served as 
the moderator of that same event (Lessig actually begins the keynote, 
see the link above, by thanking Governor King).


Of course, in the irony of ironies, King had just gone out and ignored 
Maine Clean Elections, endorsing privately financed candidate Eliot 
Cutler for Governor in an election just a couple of weeks before the 
Maine Clean Elections anniversary event including Lessig moderated by 
King!


We’re not done.


Lawrence Lessig has a new video out that nails to a T the factors 
involved in money’s influence in politics. One of the powerful things 
that he says is that politicians can signal their loyalty to big donors 
of a party to attract SuperPac money to come to their defense if they 
are attacked by the other side.


Governor King has been speculating in the press that he expects large 
SuperPac expenditures against him. I hope that this sort of signaling 
was not what he was doing through this fundraiser in Washington DC.


The More Things Change…


On the issue of money in politics, I explained how I believe King is 
also failing to lead by example.


“If King unilaterally disarms, he could get overrun with SuperPac money 
on the Republican side. But if he gives up the larger principles to be 
able to “fight fair” then what is he standing for that we would elect 
him for?


I don’t believe that the ends justify the means. It’s not acceptable to 
me for a candidate to say I’m playing by one set of rules while they 
benefit me but I’ll work to change them later on to make them fairer to 
others.”


“King does have another way. Why not self-fund his campaign? King 
cleared a reported $8 million when he sold his company Northeastern 
Energy Management in 1994 and according to his recent financial filing 
remains a wealthy man (with reported investments between $4.8 million 
and $22.5 million some might say very wealthy).


Funding your own campaign – now that would be truly Independent.
Seriously, if you have that much money why sacrifice the high ground 
and ask lobbyists and big donors for financial assistance for what you 
could pay for yourself?”


Leadership Lessons Learned?


Now King is whining about the money spent against him. His campaign 
today put out the following email which read in part:
“Attacks like these–and this may just be the beginning–are distractions 
 from the critical issues we face, but I do need the resources to 
respond. Negative ads only work if they are ignored–but that means we 
have to fight back.”


Which would be fine except that Governor King had previously just 
recently promised to run a positive campaign, saying:
“‘There’s going to be a lot of negative stuff — not coming from me,”

he said. “No negative ads coming from this campaign whatsoever.’”


In addition, I believe that Mainers are pretty smart about attack ads 
overall. I wrote:
“They say that negative campaigning is used because it works (it can 
also backfire) but I’ll tell you this. I believe that it is only 
effective when there is a kernal of truth in the ads to begin with. 
People won’t generally believe something that they know in their hearts 
to be false. But  if they already have their doubts…”


Note: I’ve indicated that I feel that Governor King is the best 
candidate in the race. I’m still holding onto that overall belief, but 
more tenuously now. Speak more from the heart Governor King and just 
level with us. The people of Maine are smart enough to understand.

Maine Investigation Runaround!!

2012-08-20T08:19:00.001-07:00

Note: Click on each image to increase font size to make it easier to read

Pain only comes from holding on

2011-10-07T06:14:00.000-07:00

Hold on to your dreams, but let them evolve.

I've thought about writing another book, entitled "From domination to discovery"

For much of my life, when I've been unhappy at times (never depressed (I'm too motivated for that) just not feeling satisfied with what I have and what I've done) I've believed - wrongly - very wrongly - that a positive "force of nature" can rework the world.

That is assimilation. The notion that we can bend and incorporate the world - people, events, circumstances - into our rubric. Like when we eat and it becomes part of our body.

That is the dominance part.

The countervailing principle, accommodation, means that we bend ourselves to the world.

From a sense of weakness that is called capitulation.

From a sense of strength it can be called discovery.

Pain comes only from holding on. Life is in eternal flow. You have something inside of you, or beyond, that propels you. I do too. So does everyone in the world.

Some may be more tuned into it than others.

We're not here to dominate others. There is a "will to power" - a well known concept - but competition, whether it exists in the marketplace of products, people or ideas, is meant - when practiced in evolved form - to refine and strengthen.

Like fire can purify (harden into steel) but also burn.

Sunlight can nourish but also be harmful if misapplied.

As I heard a famous person say one time, "let life make you better rather than bitter"

Let the fire strengthen you rather than burn.

Let the sunshine nourish you but don't overbask in its glow.

Let the fear go.

Let the anger go.

Let the disappointment go.

But keep pressing on.

Pain only comes from holding on.

What happens when you move beyond domination?

Discovery.

Discovery is an openness to life, experiences and people.

It is love, because you can only love what you truly respect.

Including yourself.

I've had some hardships in life, and disappointed by my family, who doesn't (often) recognize my path and goals.

But they have their own.

And they have equal greatness. We all do.

Discovery is not capitulation. It is relationship.

I matter. But you matter just as much in regard to value.

We are equals. I'll still be following my life plan, which for each person is primary, but I realize that your life plan is primary for you.

This allows us to avoid being ships that passed in the night. Interacting but never truly connecting.

Connection - real connection - is always a process of discovery.

The world will be transformed as we as individuals are transformed. We always choose leaders who reflect us and our values, so when we have evolved then our leaders will have evolved as well.

In fact, if you want to look at your own level of development, just look at who you associate with.

And who associates with you.

Please be gentle with yourself as you press on. But do press on.

Pain only comes from holding on.

Windgate? My Letter to Attorney Generals Janet Mills and Andrew Cuomo on windpower issues in Maine

2010-03-15T06:23:00.000-07:00

Updates (4/22/10)
1. Ongoing discussions with both AG's offices
2. http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/141729.html
"Ex-PUC head enriched by wind company"

Alex blog post note: I am not anti-windpower, I am only anti conflict of interest.
And of course I would be against any corruption as well.
Also, why are Maine's top political figures acting as followers, if not enablers, rather than leaders, in regard to protecting Maine's integrity (just for starters).
Let me know what you think.
Thank you.
Alex

Note: Below does not contain final few edits (grammar, punctuation, etc.) of letter mailed to AG Andrew Cuomo.

23rd February 2010

Hampden Mitchell
------------------
------------------
------------------

Alex Hammer
Hammer For Governor
P.O. Box 2113
Bangor, ME 04402
(207) 945 5240

Andrew Cuomo, Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
The Capitol
Albany, NY 12224-0341

Dear Attorney General Cuomo,

The subject of this letter is a concern we have that there is a lack of transparency and disclosure of financial interests between elected officials and others in Maine and the wind energy company First Wind from Newton, Massachusetts. We are aware that your office requested wind energy companies sign an ethical code of conduct governing the development of wind energy in New York State.

Background

On Friday April 11th, 2008, the Maine legislature by a unanimous vote of 139-0 in the House and 34-0 in the Senate, voted for final enactment of “An Act to Implement Recommendations of the Governor’s Task Force on Wind Power Development” (LD2283).

http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/bills_123rd/billtexts/SP090801.asp
http://www.maine.gov/doc/mfs/windpower/members_list.shtml

The bill called for developing at least 2,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power in Maine by 2015 and at least 3,000 MW by 2020. http://www.nrcm.org/news_detail.asp?news=2331

Sec. A-2. 35-A MRSA §3402, sub-§2 of the bill modified the regulatory process for siting wind energy projects to expedite them in de-organized and unorganized territories and, at the same time, recognized that adverse environmental and ecological effects might be present and should be taken into account before permitting a project. In addition, the bill stated that the development of wind energy resources in Maine should ensure that significant tangible benefits accrue to the people of Maine, including, but not limited to, the residents of communities that host wind energy projects.

To date, First Wind has received permission for four projects in the Northern part of the State of Maine: Mars Hill, Stetson 1 and 2 near Danforth, and Oakfield. There are many more sites planned by First Wind and other developers. Contrary to what officials from First Wind claim none of the projects have gained the full support of the people in these communities nor have they involved transparent processes of public involvement in permitting.

Mars Hills residents videos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lp31TWPC5tc Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpFLsNiXE0g Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBPHKWR-wTM Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sutK3bCPrY

In fact, citizens have, and are now organizing, and become vocal in opposition to the development of Wind Energy in the State, forming groups, holding press conferences, protesting, writing op-eds in newspapers, drawing up local ordinances, going to court,

http://mainebusiness.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=314278

and using the internet, radio and blogs to make their opposition to the development of wind energy in Maine known.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suFNf-BGgVY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jgLs_NbW0U

A call for a moratorium on the development of wind energy by a grassroots organization, the Citizens Task Force on Wind Power, was made on Feb 19th 2010 at the Hall of Flags, Augusta, Maine.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/

The Citizens Task Force has been involved in a number of initiatives aimed at fighting Industrial Wind in Maine attempting to persuade the legislature to introduce legislation to protect both the environment from degradation and the health of residents from the noise effects of wind turbines when located close to homes.

I, Hampden Mitchell, write this letter concerning a conflict of interest that has not surfaced before in the public domain. The Portland Press Herald recently ran a story by Tux Turkel that touched on the issue.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2010/02/01/wind-backers-decry-conflict-of-interest-claims/

This was followed by an article by another candidate for Governor, Lynne Williams Esq.

http://www.lynnewilliams2010.org/just-because-its-not-illegal-doesnt-mean-its-ethical

Late last year Ira Stoll on his blog summarized some important background:

http://www.futureofcapitalism.com/2009/09/clean-energy-ii

A case of Conflict of Interest in Wind Energy in Maine

I, Hampden Mitchell, have recently discovered that my elected representative, Everret Mcleod of Lee and his wife, who were on the guest list at the private opening of the Stetson 1 wind project by Maine Governor Baldacci near Danforth, Maine, shortly after this opening, signed a lease agreement with First Wind energy on a parcel of land he owns with an option for placement of wind turbines on his land. This agreement was made on 12/05/08. The information is publicly available in the Penobscot register of deeds.

http://penobscotdeeds.com/

See attachment for outline information with book pages and dates of contracts.

Please note also that Mr Everett Mcleod is a member of the State of Maine's Government Oversight Committee. http://www.maine.gov/legis/opega/About_GOC.html

Shortly after this land lease agreement was signed, Mr Everett McLeod and his wife took out a series of mortgages with HSH Nordbank [Details again in the Penobscot registry of Deeds], a German tax payer bailed out bank, that capitalized First Wind Energy company. http://cleantech.com/news/4738/first-wind-brings-191m-financing

This appears to be similar to the type of behavior that encouraged you to investigate and draw up a Code of Conduct for Wind development in New York State and to consequently subpoena the same company First Wind.

I have been unable to persuade Attorney General Janet Mills in Maine to introduce a code of conduct for wind energy. When Stetson 1 was opened by Governor Baldacci, in unorganized territory, just outside the organized territory of Danforth in which I live, I went with my wife to what I thought was an open celebration of the project. We were refused entry by a wind company employee because we were not on the guest list. Danforth, Maine, a small remote village, has a population of around 620, many who would have been unable to celebrate this opening because they were at work. My wife and I were surprised that the opening of the project was by invitation and not open to the public.

Subsequently, I filed a Freedom of Information (FOI) request with the Governors office for the guest list of the event and was told by Karla Black, Assistant Legal Advisor to the Governor, that I would have to go to First Wind to find out who was on the list. That was when I did some research on the Internet about First Wind and found out that your office had drawn up a code of conduct for wind energy companies in New York State and that there had been many complaints from citizens about the behavior of employees of First Wind, even some involving intimidation. Obviously, I was not going to single my wife and I out for retribution so I contacted the Attorney General Janet Mills' office in Maine to find out why there was not a code of conduct governing wind companies in Maine. I was told to ask the relevant regulatory departments in Maine who replied that they certainly didn't expect Wind company officials to behave poorly but that there were no plans for a particular code of conduct governing wind. The Attorney Generals office did not reply to an e-mail I sent a few days later asking again if they were going to help me.

Some time later I engaged Representative James R. Martin of Bangor who was sympathetic to New York State's code of conduct to contact Maine Attorney General's office on my behalf. I was informed by Assistant Attorney General Jerry Reid that as my complaint was the only one that they received they did not feel it was necessary to do anything but that they would monitor the situation. I was also informed that there were already laws on the Maine statute that covered conflicts of interest by elected officials. Green Gubernatorial candidate, Lynne Williams, has since said to me that she complained both before and after my contact with the Attorney General's Office about the behavior of First Wind.
.
Wind turbines for Stetson 2, close to Stetson 1, another project in the same unorganized territory, also just a few miles from Danforth, were on site before the project was permitted and there were no public meetings, that I am aware of, held about this project. Again a private guest list was drawn up for the “celebratory” opening, the list made up of invited supporters and residents of the area, some of whom I suspect have and will be gaining from the companies largess. Curious, I went to the entrance of the project again and was joined by other residents who were also upset with the behavior of this company.

http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/130697.html

Senator Kevin Raye, minority leader, was present that day and entertained, with wind officials and the Press, by the owners of Settlers lodge a business that provides accommodation and guide services in the area.

http://alice.euroinvestor.fr/print/printnewsstory.aspx?storyid=10751028

Mr and Mrs Eldridge Cleaves, of the lodge, supported both projects providing the media with stories of how good the projects were. Mrs Cleaves stated to the press that she didn't know why the protesters outside the gate were unhappy because from the million dollar view where her lodge is located, about 6 miles away, the wind turbines looked wonderful.

I am not certain who will eventually receive funds from a grant that was made to The Forest service by First Wind but Mr Eldridge Cleaves who is the President of The Woodie Wheaton Trust

http://www.woodiewheaton.org/WWLTCurrNEWS.htm

praised First Wind for helping the area out in a press release put out by First Wind:
“I am pleased by the opportunities offered by this Fund. The people of Washington County and in particular those who live within the confines of the Baskahegan River Watershed value the outdoors as an essential part of their daily lives,” said Elbridge Cleaves, an area resident and business owner. “People who live here know how important our woods and waters are to our quality of life and economic well being.”

http://www.firstwind.com/aboutFirstWind/news.cfm?ID=162c66a0-3d8c-4511-af5e-d4dbf35cba1e&test

I filed two more Freedom of Information requests to the Governors office. One for all communication between the Governor and First Wind's CEO Paul Gaynor on the subject of Stetson 1 of which I received three documents. Only one document contained information that I considered interesting.

A sentence in a January 17th 2008 letter from CEO Gaynor to the Governor stood out:

"Your administration has shown the leadership necessary to create the kind of regulatory certainty that will attract investment"

I explained to Maine's Attorney general's office that I had thought that regulations were intended to protect citizens rather than the companies. First Wind received $40.4 million in stimulus from the Department of Energy. Is this the investment Mr Gaynor was referring to?

My second Freedom of Information request was for all communication between Kurt Adams, development officer at First Wind, and Governor Baldacci, since Adams started working for First Wind after leaving the Maine Public Utilities Commission (Prior to that Adams was Legal advisor to Governor Baldacci). The request turned up no documentation at all. I have to trust that Karla Black who is Governor Baldacci's legal advisor and carried out the search for the communication between the Governor and his ex legal advisor is doing her job, but it does seem odd that she is also on The Right to Know committee in Maine and my request turned up absolutely no communication between someone who had been so close to the Governor and presumably still is.

Regardless of whether a citizen supports Industrial wind energy or not as a form of power, citizens demand, and have been promised, transparency in the dealings of their elected officials. It seems we are not getting that here. It also seems evident that those friendly with the wind companies, elected officials and select citizens, gain financially from the wind companies largess whilst those that question and criticize, as is their right in a democracy, are marginalized with little course of redress. When so much public money is at stake, First Wind received stimulus monies of $40.4 million for Stetson 2, and prior to that was receiving Tax Increment Financing and also presumably receives carbon credits, must not the justice system ensure there is fair play by elected officials?

It is our belief that Rep Mcleod is just the tip of an iceberg in Maine and we have other instances that may be examined in regard to potential conflicts of interest. We are prepared to go into these in detail with you or assistants in your office. As Rep Mcleod is a member of the Maine legislature with direct involvement in wind power legislation and also on the Government Oversight Committee we find this example most disturbing.
Yours Sincerely,

Mr. Hampden L Mitchell

Alex Hammer

Attachment: Outline details record of Everret Mcleod entries in Penobscot Registry of Deeds.

c.c Maine Attorney General Janet Mills

c.c Congressman Eric Massa (D) New York State

What does Maine need to prosper? | Guest Columns | Sun Journal

2010-03-06T12:26:00.000-08:00

What does Maine need to prosper? | Guest Columns | Sun Journal

Independent for governor promises transparency - Bangor Daily News

2010-03-06T12:25:00.000-08:00

Independent for governor promises transparency - Bangor Daily News

Maine Voices: State needs new focus on solutions and methods to achieve them | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

2010-03-06T11:58:00.000-08:00

Maine Voices: State needs new focus on solutions and methods to achieve them | The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram

Updated: Bob Tyrer, Susan Collins and William Cohen

2008-03-31T06:42:00.000-07:00

Image from WikipediaLONGTIME COHEN STRATEGIST TO MANAGE COLLINS' CAMPAIGN

Portland Press Herald - NewsBank - Sep 29, 1996
Excerpt:
"Most people in Maine don't know Bob Tyrer. But he is about to make his mark on the U.S. Senate race in Maine. For more than 20 years, Tyrer has worked quietly behind the scenes for retiring Sen. William Cohen. The 39-year-old Michigan native has served as Cohen's chief of staff and his top political strategist. He has set Cohen's agenda, managed his seven offices in Maine and Washington, influenced his key decisions..."

NO PROOF OFFERED THAT RIVALS SOUGHT 'DIRT' ON COLLINS A...

Portland Press Herald - NewsBank - Oct 15, 1996
Excerpt:
"Over the weekend, Collins complained that the Democratic Party hired a researcher to ``dig up dirt'' on her in the waning days of her close campaign against Joseph Brennan, her Democratic rival. But on Monday, Collins' campaign manager, Bob Tyrer,..."
See also:

Book Excerpt: Author Jean Hay Bright - A tale of dirty tricks so bizarre - Susan Collins v. Public Record

FAMILIAR BACKER FUNDS TRIP TO MALAYSIA BY COHEN, COLLINS

Portland Press Herald - NewsBank - Nov 24, 1996
Excerpt:
"Topping the political news: Inquiring minds have asked, so inquiring minds shall know: Who footed the bill to send retiring Sen. William Cohen and Sen.-elect Susan Collins to Malaysia last week? The answer: A private group in Washington called the Asia Pacific Policy Center."
See also:

United States Senator Susan M. Collins :: About Senator Collins

http://collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorCollins.Biography
Excerpt:
"After working for 12 years on the Capitol Hill staff of Maine Senator William Cohen..."

FORMER STAFF MEMBERS FOLLOWING COHEN TO THE PENTAGON

Portland Press Herald - NewsBank - Dec 22, 1996
Excerpt:
"Assuming Cohen wins confirmation by the Senate, Bob Tyrer will serve as his chief of staff. The 39-year-old Tyrer has worked with Cohen for more than 20 years. A native of Ohio, he graduated from the University of Maine in 1987. Since 1989, he has served as Cohen's chief of staff in the Senate."

The Washington Post Delves into the Cohen Group (William Cohen) in Five Page (Length Online) Article

Excerpt:
"Tyrer, who was Cohen's chief of staff at the Pentagon, added: "It does not strike us as illogical that Secretary Cohen and others at The Cohen Group would continue to be involved in their business careers in issues that they have worked hard on and felt strongly about during their public careers." Tyrer said the firm has been willing "to turn away work that might raise even the faintest ethical or reputational concern.""

Google News: Bob Tyrer Susan Collins William Cohen
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Bob+Tyrer+Susan+Collins+William+Cohen&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&as_ldate=1995&as_hdate=2008

The Washington Post Delves into the Cohen Group (William Cohen) in Five Page (Length Online) Article

2008-03-13T04:01:00.000-07:00

Also:
August 12, 2007, The Washington Post
What Is This Man Thinking?
By Secretary William Cohen
http://www.cohengroup.net/news/op_ed/op_ed081207.cfm

Alex: This article is from 2006, but I could not find any history of it being covered in the Maine mainstream media (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=The+Washington+Post+The+Cohen+Group+William+Cohen&btnG=Google+Search and
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Maine+From+Public+Life+to+Private+Business+-+washingtonpost.com+William+Cohen+The+Cohen+Group&btnG=Google+Search) despite it being a page A01 Washington Post (5 pages online) story (perhaps they are no longer indexed or beyond first page of search results).

The Washington Post Delves into the Cohen Group (William Cohen) in Five Page (Length Online) Article
From Public Life to Private Business - washingtonpost.com - Former Pentagon Chief Cohen's Firm Serves Defense Contractors
"Sunday, May 28, 2006; Page A01"
Excerpt:
"After more than 30 years in politics, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen was saddled with credit card debt.

The baker's son from Bangor, Maine, was never wealthy, and his government salary went only so far. When the motorcades and military escorts ended in January 2001, his final financial disclosure form listed tens of thousands of dollars of charge-account debts at interest rates as high as about 25 percent.

Within weeks of leaving office, he was living in a $3.5 million McLean mansion with a swimming pool, a cabana and a carriage house.

Cohen's career had entered a classic final phase: the monetizing of the public man.

Instead of returning to Maine, which he had represented in the House and Senate for more than two decades, Cohen followed legions of government officials into the business of consulting and lobbying. Trading on an insider's knowledge, contacts and personal cachet, the former defense secretary created his own Washington firm, the Cohen Group , which works for some of the biggest companies in the defense industry....

Tyrer, who was Cohen's chief of staff at the Pentagon, added: "It does not strike us as illogical that Secretary Cohen and others at The Cohen Group would continue to be involved in their business careers in issues that they have worked hard on and felt strongly about during their public careers." Tyrer said the firm has been willing "to turn away work that might raise even the faintest ethical or reputational concern."

Tyrer and other members of the firm generally declined to discuss their activities in detail because, they said, clients wanted confidentiality....

"There is a competitive spirit in my soul," the former college basketball player said. "And I've been competing, it seems, almost from time immemorial.

"There are times I say, why am I doing this, at this pace, and yet, that's just who I am."...

Nonetheless, there is overlap between Cohen's government and business careers.

In December 2000, shortly before Cohen left office, the Pentagon awarded Iridium Satellite LLC a $72 million contract , without competitive bidding, that helped save the company's communications satellites from destruction. David R. Oliver Jr., who was a senior procurement official at the time, said that he and Cohen were the Pentagon's principal advocates for the Iridium deal.

Over the past two years, Iridium has paid the Cohen Group about $400,000 to lobby the House, Senate and Department of Defense, according to lobbying disclosure statements.

"Several months after Secretary Cohen left office, The Cohen Group was contacted by the Chairman of Iridium to assist with marketing to several government agencies including DoD, as well as foreign governments," Tyrer said in writing. "Obviously, we had no such discussions while in office."...

Though Cohen co-sponsored the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, which said "responsible representative Government requires public awareness of the efforts of paid lobbyists to influence the public decisionmaking process," the firm's lobbying disclosures are sometimes vague.

For example, the firm has lobbied the Defense Department and the now dismantled Coalition Provisional Authority on behalf of Nour USA Ltd., a local company that has won contracts potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars to provide security and to equip forces in Iraq. The National Journal quoted a Nour executive as saying the Cohen Group "introduced us to people in the U.S. government who were involved in oil-industry security."

Where the government disclosure form asks it to identify "Specific lobbying issues," the Cohen Group's filings on Nour say: "Exploring overseas business opportunities.""

"Water is the new oil" - Maine's Liquid Abundance

2008-02-28T10:20:00.000-08:00

Alex: I've long believe that quote referenced in the title.

Everybody talks about Maine's quality of place as a top asset, but I personally believe that not enough - not even close to nearly enough - has been done in regard to the relationship of Maine's natural resources, sustainable economic growth and development and prosperity, and the maintenance while going forward into that 21st century economy of Maine's traditional values.

Think about the worldwide economic and geopolitical ramifications of oil, and then realize that oil is not a necessary primary condition for basic life as water is, and then ask yourself which is truly more valuable as a resource.

We cannot be penny wise and multi-millions (at a minimum!) foolish!!!!!

Water: the next big thing - TurnMaineBlue.com

Nine Page Maine News Interview With U.S. Maine Senate Candidate Tom Ledue

2008-02-27T05:53:00.000-08:00

See also:
91 previous Maine News stories on the 2008 Maine Senate Race
and
Updated: The Best of Maine News - Maine's Top Politicial Leaders Etc.

Nine Page Maine News Interview With U.S. Maine Senate Candidate Tom Ledue
Maine News: Tom, why are you the best candidate for U.S. Senator from Maine in the
2008 contest?

Tom Ledue: I am the best candidate because of the quality and strength of both who I am and of my message, its scope, reach, and ideas. The plans and ideas that I present are fresh and strong, aimed at changing the political status quo, built upon principles that will help us reclaim our greatness as state and as a nation:

- The Common Good
- The Interdependence of All Americans
- Fiscal Responsibility
- Partnership with the American People
- The Promise of our Ideals

I am bringing forth a broad scope of integrated, consistent and coherent thought. I am not a two, five or seven issue candidate. I am running on multiple ideas and issues that will require assertive, slightly impatient and visionary leadership that demand change; I have not set out to make a marketing plan to get elected. Rather I have asked with my team: “How are we off course as a nation and how can we best set a new course for Maine and the Nation?” I am not playing it safe vying for a hollow political middle. Rather, I seek to bring concrete, common sense issues and solutions to the table that will make a difference. I have brought forth very specific ideas in every policy area.

The reach of my platform is wide. The common sense of Maine that I bring forward will appeal across party lines. There is no aisle to reach across. We are all in this together. My message is based upon the promise of the ideals of our country and not based upon traditional political thinking. Fiscal prudence and social justice are not mutually exclusive – in fact they go hand in hand to build a strong nation and a vigorous economy. Somehow Washington has decided that we need to sacrifice our economic security and national security to fund an economy that relies on corporate imperialism, war, waste, finite reserves of fossil fuels, and the exploitation of people and places around the world economy. I just don’t believe that is the best way to maintain healthy capitalism and it certainly is not the best way to invest in the foundation of our people or in the future that puts the American Dream within reach of every American.

Washington is broken – if we do not change the players, the game will remain the same. As a parent of four young daughters and as an educator who has worked shoulder to shoulder with Maine people for over twenty years I offer a different kind of experience than that of career politicians. I see our problems from the trenches of trying to serve Maine people in our communities and from the perspective of trying to raise a family in these challenging times. I will represent the people of Maine in the United States Senate with a commitment to keep the needs of our people and our great country at the heart of every day and at the heart of every decision, steadfastly immune to the political and corporate pressure that will seek to corrupt that commitment. There is no time for business as usual.

Maine News: Two of your opponents, including the incumbent, are well known, generally highly regarded, longstanding political figures. In comparing yourself to them, you've stated,
> http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080214/GJNEWS03/777017923/-1/SANNEWS, "In an interview with the Sanford News, Ledue said his ideas and framework for making decisions are preferable to Collins' and Allen's styles. Collins is "powerful" when it comes to reacting to issues, he said, but not when it comes to leading the public away from problems before they occur. Allen is a "good man," Ledue added, but he is an "incremental" leader."

Can you provide details in regard to how specifically these differences that you view manifest themselves, providing examples in the context of the duties of a US Senator from Maine?

Also, what are the specific actions, votes or decisions of your opponents that have led you to the above conclusions?

Tom Ledue: A United States Senator must have a clear and transparent vision of the direction that he or she intends to help lead our country. For both of these candidates I see a lack of a clearly defined vision of how we can move forward as a people to capture the promise of our ideals for all people. I do not see either of them as champions of the politics of the possible. Rather I see elected officials who have settled into styles of leadership that either maintain the status quo or inch forward when it is perceived as a good time to do so. Their leadership styles are not transformative. Our Nation is at a critical point in its history. We need transformative leadership, leadership that is in a hurry to protect and promote the inalienable rights of all Americans. We are ill served by leadership that fails to invest our tax dollars in our people while serving special interests instead, or leadership that fails to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

While dealing with problems as they arise is important, dealing with issues before they become national problems is more important. For example, my education platform is based on the goal to find effective ways of offering comprehensive and effective education for everyone. This begins with preschool and sees our students through high school, to college and beyond – as far as they need to go to be as productive as they can be. The size of one’s wallet should not determine educational access. Senator Collins makes news when she sponsors legislation to give a $300.00 tax credit to teachers. While this is great and it helps a lot of people, it is a small gesture. We need leadership that will pursue a substantive vision that will create real change, investment in our people that will support them so that they can support themselves and contribute to the common good.

In a reactionary style, Senator Collins deals with problems as they arise and then offers band-aids or stop gaps to fix them. One example is the energy crisis that we face. This is not a new issue, and we have been aware of the insecurity caused by over reliance on fossil fuels for at least forty years. In recent months Senator Collins has trumpeted her support of LIHEAP. This is an example of managerial leadership applying small bandages when needs become acute enough to get attention. While LIHEAP has served as an important safety net for many Maine families this year, it was only necessary because of the lack of visionary leadership in years prior. Susan Collins has had over eleven years to work towards our energy independence and failed Mainers when she failed to vote for S.AMDT.784 that would have pushed the country to reduce oil imports 40% by 2025. Such a measure in combination would cut worldwide demand significantly, thus dropping prices in the short term. Combined with other efforts to promote wind, solar and geothermal energy it would have done much to provide true security and for our country and our pocketbooks.

In addition to energy security, Senator Collins' work in homeland security has been troubling at times. Her support of the Patriot Act in addition to her introduction of S. 1959, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007” in the Senate makes me think of the Red Scare from the last century. The language of this bill is so vague, that one could argue any politically minded group of citizens with dissenting opinions and a desire for change could be targeted. Combined with her support for the Real ID Act, an unfunded mandate that fails to protect privacy while potentially leading to more identity theft, I fear that we are on a course for a brave new world where people are less secure and have less freedom.

Congressman Allen has filled his role as a Representative in a safe fashion. I am sure that there is reason for doing this in the sometimes-venomous atmosphere of the present day Congress. While I am also sure that the atmosphere in Washington has not beaten the passion for Democracy out of all of our Congressmen and Congresswomen; I think it has left many of them always looking for the safe ground. I am not sure if this is why Congressman Allen refuses to hold the executive branch accountable and support impeachment hearings. Playing it safe will not safeguard the rights and freedoms that so many of our servicemen, servicewomen and the great leaders of our past gave their energy and in some cases their lives to build and ensure for us. I will fight to restore the vision of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution with insistence upon proper checks and balances of power. I will be more assertive in developing legislation that serves the common good, even if it initially seems that there is not enough support for success. I will use my position as a Senator to bring forth ideas that need to be heard, from redirecting some of our military spending to increase our energy security to redirecting subsidies away from corporate giants and toward our local communities.

Maine News: According to a recent press account in Foster's Daily Democrat, http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080201/NEWS0104/217527883: "Thomas Ledue, a Sanford Democrat, has raised between $15,000 and $20,000 so far, according his campaign manager. Ledue did not file with the FEC until after Dec. 31, so he was not required to file a fundraising report for the last quarter, Doak said."

Will you be able to raise an amount of money to be seen as a viable candidate by the media and others, and if so, how will you do so?

Tom Ledue: Raising money is no easy task. One always hopes to first raise the level of dialogue so that principles and ideas are the substance of the headlines. And it is encouraging that in a recent NY Times poll, it does seem that most people do not want constant reminders of the “horse race” reporting that focuses more on money and the “polls of the day.” That said, we do need money and we have formats for doing fundraisers – we will plug in as many as we can each month while getting our message out to as many groups and areas as we need to. Right now the goal is to win the primary and that is our main focus. We will also look to the Internet to raise money but more importantly to raise awareness of issues and the substance that we offer. If people offered us either $100 or 10 hours of work, we would want the time more than the money. Of course, both would be nice, but spreading the word and getting each person to bring 2 or 3 more people to our campaign would be a huge victory. If our campaign wins with the least amount of dollars spent, we believe that statement would go a long way to restoring the hope of governance by the people instead of government by the people with the most money.

Maine News: Your website, http://tomledue.com/, has some nice features. Can you detail some of them?

Tom Ledue: Thank you – that is indeed a compliment coming from someone as experienced with the technology as you appear to be.

“Meet Tom” provides readers with a quick introduction to my life complete with a variety of snapshots of my life that provide context for my candidacy.

“Goals and Issues” is the great strength of the site because of the coherence and common sense of the ideas presented within it. All of our policy ideas are packaged into four goals and each goal is supported across all major policy areas.

The principles and framework sections offer a clear vision for the voters to evaluate. This is important. People can read the framework of thought that I am committed to.

As good as the site is now, we are still evolving different aspects. One feature that will be live shortly is what we call the Ledue Local button. This will utilize a fairly new Web 2.0 application. We believe this will be the first political campaigns to use such methodology. In some ways it will seem similar to a campaign-centered Facebook or My Space environment. It was built for the educational community and it allows for expansion on ideas. We invite people to contribute their thoughts here; the usual protocol of decorum will be maintained and expected, but we really want people to weigh in on our policy directions. We want them to tell us their stories, compare what is going on in their lives to what we are offering and see if our solution fits or needs adjustments. This is a conversation that we want to begin now and our goal is to keep it going throughout the campaign and beyond.

Maine News (Alex Hammer): On your "Why Tom" page, http://tomledue.com/?page_id=13, you discuss
your view in regard to a deterioration of conditions in Maine necessitating an "uncommon vision". A similar concern that Maine's challenges require new vision led me to run for Governor of Maine in 2006: This Great State. On your "Goals / Issues" page, http://tomledue.com/?page_id=7, you state in part:
"Tom Ledue's Campaign is guided by an unrelenting commitment to the common good and will propose policy decisions based upon three guiding principles:
- Interdependence
- Partnership
- The Promise of Our Ideals
We utilize these principles to address four broad policy goals to lead us in a better direction."

and on your "Principles" page, http://tomledue.com/?page_id=8, you write in part:
"A Foundation for Action: The Common Good
Core Principle One: Interdependence
Core Principle Two: Partnership
Core Principle Three: Promise"

Tie this together for us if you would. What should people walk away with to remember? Where does it come from? What is unique?

Tom Ledue: What is unique and what I want people to remember is that there is a framework of thought and a plan presented here for how we can reclaim our greatness as a country.
These thoughts were gathered and forged by a group of ordinary citizens concerned that our country is not headed in the right direction. That work led to my candidacy. Nearly all of this work was created by volunteer effort. No marketing or polling specialists were consulted. We did not concern ourselves with what democrats want to hear. Rather, we asked, “What are the problems? What change needs to be made? How do we get there? What makes sense? “ The thoughts we forged and the thoughts upon which I build my candidacy are of national significance.

I want people to take away that there is a large disconnect between the federal government and the people struggling to keep their bills paid. When people ask about why property taxes are going up so fast or why the state has to cut services due to shortfalls, but the federal government has the money to dole out a $150-200 billion “stimulus package” – no one is shouting about the disconnect. Taxes are used to provide the infrastructure that allows companies to grow and create jobs and make the country strong. When capitalism is allowed to work in its simple form; a need is identified and filled by a supplier who is compensated by a consumer, communities thrive. What we have now is a system that creates false needs to maintain the status quo for those that make the most money from it. (Start of underline) If we simply changed our investment priorities as a nation to prioritize investment in our people and communities we would find that we can create a country in which all of us can have the opportunity for the American Dream (end of underline) rather than the deep despair felt by a great percentage of our people.

As we talk with people around the state, we know that more and more people are recognizing the insanity – especially since more and more people are falling behind. Maine is not creating the jobs it needs to participate in the global economy. Indeed our nation is lagging behind in the new, clean and green economy that the rest of the world is taking the lead in. Even China refused US cars until US automakers agreed to more fuel-efficient standards. There is a real lack of common sense at our federal level – common sense that says the greed of our system cannot be sustained. Every action or inaction we decide upon has impact on the rest of the planet. By recognizing this interdependence we can build relationships and use best practices in all areas where challenges exist to reduce needless suffering across the street and across the globe. Our society is broken in its foundation to provide for the commonwealth of all citizens. Here, in the words of Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations: No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed and lodged.” Working together toward a vision that promotes the promise of our ideals for all of our people, we can create a stronger, more secure and and more economically sustainable nation.

Maine News: If you were US Senator from Maine, what is the first five things that you would do for the state, and why?

Tom Ledue: 1. I would work to empower Maine people by:
Providing health care for all by expansion of the currently available programs or private insurance for those who are happy with it. With a long term (5-7 year) goal of expansion of best practices to create a universal system that emphasizes preventive and primary care relationships for everyone.

2. I would work to strengthen Maine Communities by shifting our national subsidy priorities toward local, small business that are the lifeblood of local economies. In doing so we can support local solutions for critical problems especially through the support of
- Community based agriculture,
- Local clean energy production to begin on our journey toward energy independence,
- And local industry that relies on local resources, adding value to those resources in our home economies.

3+4. I would work to develop a stable and sustainable economy by:
Gradually requiring fair labor and green standards for all imports.
- Work to eliminate the exploitation of foreign workers and resources to bring “ cheap” goods to our markets.
- Level the playing field for US manufacturers.
- Assist in reducing our growing trade deficit.

Working to dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels by supporting clean power generation and committing to cut our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050, on pace for 10% in three years.
5. I would work to assert collaborative international leadership by:
Working to leave Iraq as quickly as possible while meeting our responsibilities there. We cannot maintain our presence in Iraq indefinitely. We have to withdraw our troops in the near future. We must honor our moral responsibility to help stabilize the country enough so that it will not fall into deeper chaos, violence and potentially genocide once we do leave.
- We must immediately work with the international community to replace any substantial need for American Troops with a multinational force of peacekeeping troops.
- We must make it clear in the international community that we are committed to find a way to stabilize the country (start of underline) within a limited time frame and use of resources. (end of underline)
- We need the assistance of the international community to create conditions in Iraq in which its people and the region can build a stable and secure future.

Maine News: How should a US Senator be judged?

Tom Ledue: Any elected official should be judged by how well they uphold the charge of their office, The Constitution, and how well they take the lead in issues that effect the people who put them there – by this I mean the voters not the donors. It is important to respond to crises as they arise, but the best leadership is leadership that serves to anticipate pitfalls and problems and acts quickly to prevent the crisis from causing damage. There is much talk about potential crisis’ on the horizon – many of these are not news and yet we are left with a crisis of political will to address them head on.

Maine News: In "Tom's Journal", http://tomledue.com/?cat=9, you wrote in part in your Jan 23 entry,
"The opposite of Greed is Justice
The opposite of Anger is Compassion
The opposite of Ignorance is Enlightenment
The opposite of Cynicism is Hope
The opposite of Complacency is Action"

Being in the blog business, an important question for me is, will you continue a blog if you are elected US Senator? In a more general sense, how would you structure your communications with your Maine constituents. What would be the intended purpose(s) of your communications?

Tom Ledue: Between our blog and our Ledue Local conversations we hope that the communication never ends. Communicating with our fellow citizens and with the state and local politicians is the only way we can be certain we are addressing the needs that Mainers prioritize. Keeping a Web log is new to me but as long as people find a value in it, we will keep it going.

Maine News: What is the intended purposes, also, of your blog now during the campaign?

Tom Ledue: Democracy depends on active participation in dialogue. The blog and our website is one tool for dialogue. We believe that every conversation has the potential to make our collective intelligence richer; we are all lifelong learners. The role of all of our communication will be to find and share examples of justice, compassion, enlightenment, hope and action that will lead to better answers for all of us.

Maine News: What have been the most surprising, and also the most memorable, campaign experiences so far and why?

Tom Ledue: There have not been many surprises. There have been many great memories. My favorite was talking with a group of old timers in Rangeley when one very stately man looked me in the eye and said, “Imagine what it would be like if we sent someone to Washington that we could really talk to.” This tone had been replicated in most places that I have been. There is a huge gap between the people and their government and my candidacy offers a hope of bridging that for people.

Maine News: What else would you like to say to the people of Maine that we have not asked you?

Tom Ledue: Let’s redefine homeland security. By focusing on local solutions to local problems, with the help of redirected Federal dollars, we can build warmer homes, local energy supplies, safer food and water supplies, stronger educational systems that better meet local demands, and a healthcare system that keep us all strong. If we expand our thought towards our neighbor, across the street and across the globe just a little, we can all sleep better at night. I once heard Sen. George Mitchell say – and I paraphrase – that “if a person is able to pick up a paycheck on Friday, they are less likely to pick up a gun.” If we are building our economy in the true fashion of capitalism, then we can all share the great wealth of our work. Knowing that all of these things can be accomplished without going into further debt will make us more secure as a nation. In Maine – far too many people are suffering. The chief reason they suffer is because of policies of inaction. Most of these people are from the vulnerable populations – the elderly, the young, and the mentally or physically impaired. The true measure of a society is in how it treats its most vulnerable citizen. (start of underline) We need to recognize that we have more than enough wealth to invest in adequate foundations for all of our people and our communities. We simply need to reassess how we use that wealth. We must put away the injustice of inaction and replace it with dignity and compassion. (end of underline)

Hillary Clinton at the University of Maine - The view from outside, turned away, in the cold

2008-02-09T07:29:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton at the University of Maine - The view from outside, turned away, in the cold
By Alex Hammer

Update: Hillary Clinton also appeared in Lewiston.

I am writing this during Hillary's scheduled campaign event at the University of Maine Recreation Center. But I am not inside watching the event.

I, and perhaps 1,000 others, were turned away.

And not politely either.

I'll explain...

I showed up to attend the event at The University of Maine around 8:50. The event was scheduled to begin at 9:30, and already there was a long long line. The line was moving as people were entering, and by around 9:15 there was only around 25 people still ahead of me in line. But around 1,000 behind me and still arriving to line up.

We were all waiting very patiently in the cold. I was excited and looking forward to seeing Senator Clinton in her UMaine campaign event. I'd never seen the Senator before.

And I still haven't.

Around 9:15 -- and it was handled very poorly -- no apology or niceties, no coordinated approach -- just a single burly man (Hillary staffer?, he never identified himself or had any identifying material he was wearing that I could see) walking down the long line - swiftly - saying that the event was "at capacity" and that no one else would be let in.

Very poorly done.

Let's consider for a minute the planning of this event. I realize I suppose that the University of Maine needs to showcase it's new elaborate, gorgeous and expensive Recreation Center - but why would Hillary (and the University) schedule an appearance in a building - the Senator's only campaign appearance in the State - in a site with such limited capacity space (and I have no idea whether admittees inside could sit or were forced to stand, as I never made it in).

It makes no sense. Unless you consider what may be the obvious. Hillary could go anywhere in the entire state (and she could do more than one appearance also). Why would she select such a small venue? Well, I'm not privy to her campaign, but one of the first rules of political events is not to select a site where there will be a lot of empty seats, hence the candidate appears unpopular.

Unfortunately, in this line of thinking, appearances trump consideration. The event becomes about the attendees serving the purposes of the candidate, rather than the candidate serving the people.

My guess, as this UMaine appearance is Hillary's only campaign event anywhere in Maine (as far as I know) is that people likely traveled from all over the state, or at a minimum considerable distance, to be able to attend. How many out of that large group that were so gruffly turned away had traveled some distance to see her? (I had traveled only from Bangor, but had dressed up and been really looking forward to the event).

Perhaps this would be a good time to add that I think I now better understand the term "on the bus" (I've written for The Huffington Post "off the bus" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-hammer) . After we were told we could not enter, later on the crowd still remaining was dispersed so a large bus could enter. It said "Press" and was given direct access. There's room for all of them (although they arrived long after us), and they don't need to wait at all!!

In regard to the University, my guess is that Alfond arena would hold many many more people.

The police were not friendly either from what I witnessed. They, and all the government officials walking around (e.g. TSA on their jackets) all were (I guess) so busy even though none interacted with the large crowd outside that I could see!

I'm part of the press via this site, but I never try and "pull strings" as they say (I didn't mention being a press member to anyone while waiting outside the event). I had RSVP'd to the event, as Hillary's campaign had asked attendees to do (like that really accomplished anything as what happened this morning demonstrates, is the RSVP just a way for them to get more online contacts??) and in my RSVP I had mentioned Maine News and that I was interested in a press credential if that was possible.

Never heard back from the campaign.

I was given press access by the University when former Senator William Cohen came to speak:
My Interview With William Cohen - By Alex Hammer

and I appreciated that.

I previously have not been impressed, from personal experience, with Bill and Hillary Clinton:
Bill Clinton, Governor John Baldacci, and Alex Hammer
(I never heard back in regard to this either, despite follow-up)

although as mentioned I was highly excited about today's UMaine event (I'm not a Hillary supporter for President but I would very much enjoy seeing the leading candidates).

People were upset about being turned away. I heard one Mom consoling her daughter, maybe eight years old, telling her "Don't be mad".

It was so sad to hear that.

It made me upset at Clinton when I saw the unnecessary pain being caused.

About 15 minutes after the crowd was told no entry, about 100 individuals were still waiting, hoping against hope that they would be admitted (that's when I left).

It's pathetic, and it's sad.

Senator Barack Obama's event is this afternoon, at the Bangor Auditorium, a much much larger venue I'm sure (don't know the stats). He is known for drawing large(r) crowds, so we'll see whether he has done an adequate job, on his campaign's part, of forecasting and planning - i.e. whether people will also be turned away from that event or not.

(I do realize that Maine has only so many large facilities. Booking the Bangor Auditorium is about as good, I think, as one could reasonably expect).

This is President of the United States they are campaigning for. Hillary, in the way that this played out today, showed strongly - to my mind - that she is not worthy of that office.

While this is to some perhaps "small stuff", it nonetheless provides a window, perhaps, in regard to how individuals think, how they plan, and what their priorities seem to be.

Maybe she thinks she is too good for Maine. I personally believe we are too good for her.

Washington Post - It's Maine. Who's Going to Notice?

2008-01-15T07:05:00.000-08:00

Hat tip to: Maine Political News - http://mainepoliticalnews.blogspot.com/

Washington Post - It's Maine. Who's Going to Notice?
Excerpt:
"His trip didn't go unnoticed in Washington. A senior State Department official said he was "puzzled" by Bowen's appearance alongside Collins. "I wondered what he was doing," the official said. "This is the kind of thing we're taught not to do.""
(Washington Post link at end of post)
Also:
Senate 2008 Guru: Following the Races - Keeping a close eye on developments in the 2008 U.S. Senate races (Blog)
Excerpt:
"Maine: Stuart W. Bowen Jr. is the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. His office is under investigation by "the FBI and three other entities for waste and mismanagement." So, of course, he's gallivanting around Maine with Susan Collins..."

and

We Noticed - Collins Watch Blog

and

Kamen: "It's Maine. Who's Going to Notice?" - Maine Owl Blog

Washington Post Article Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003410_2.html

Senator Collins - I Found The Energy Culprit - By Alex Hammer

2007-12-17T05:43:00.000-08:00

See also: The Best of Maine News - Maine's Leading Political Figures, Etc.

Senator Collins - I Found The Energy Culprit - By Alex Hammer

Resourcefulness aside, Mainers struggle with rising energy costs as aid is overdue - Bangor Daily News

See also: Maine, LIHEAP, Iraq and $1 Billion - By Alex Hammer
and
SENATOR COLLINS QUESTIONS ENERGY EXPERTS ABOUT REASONS FOR RECORD HIGH ENERGY COSTS - PolitickerME.com

Bangor Daily News Excerpt:
"State administrators of the federal Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or LIHEAP, are also worried."I am very concerned about what is going to happen in three weeks," said Jim Baillargeon, director of energy and housing services at the Aroostook County Action Program.

Baillargeon works at one of 11 community action agencies across the state that process applications for the energy assistance program. He said his agency is processing about 60 applications a day.

"The phones are wild," Baillargeon said in a phone interview.

Congress has yet to approve money for the program for fiscal year 2008, which began on Oct. 1. President Bush vetoed a bill that contained $2.4 billion for the program a month ago (bold and color via Maine News) and the House failed to get the votes necessary for an override. Meanwhile, the program is operating at 75 percent of the funding level from last year until the new budget is approved. (bold via Maine News)
(link to Bangor Daily News article at end of post)

Alex: I have no evidence whatsoever to support this theory - it is totally conjecture - but I believe that the reason (or a reason) Senator Collins may not have held hearings in regard to waste or fraud in Iraq

DailyKos: Despite requests to investigate abuses, Susan Collins refused to do so

and maybe Senator Collins has come out with a statement about this but I haven't seen it,

after doing such a phenomenal job in oversight hearings in regard to abuses arising from Hurricane Katrina (that solidified her reputation in my mind and I'm sure others and provided her with high-profile exposure) is because going against the President to that degree (not that it would in fact be going against the President, but I imagine - again conjecture - that it could be very much viewed as such) could be seen as an act of disloyalty to a degree that there would be political repercussions.

Such as LIHEAP.

But President Bush has shown, to my mind, if nothing else that appeasement with him doesn't work. He just (not that I'm privy to any inside information, just my view from reading the papers etc. like everyone else) in my opinion goes ahead and pretty much (unless directly stopped) does whatever he wants (i.e. he seeks to do that).

I believe that Senator Collins is a moderate (public campaign support for Rick Santorum and Chandler Woodcock (one of my opponents for Governor in 2006) aside). And I think that she is a good Senator. But unless there are some significant facts that I am not aware of, I think she has done a marked contrast in performance in regard to oversight from Katrina to Iraq.

It's pretty striking.

SENATOR COLLINS QUESTIONS ENERGY EXPERTS ABOUT REASONS FOR RECORD HIGH ENERGY COSTS - Dec. 11 -PolitickerME.com
Excerpt:
"The Senate Homeland Security Committee Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations recently held a hearing titled, “Speculation in the Crude Oil Market” to examine whether speculation in energy markets has caused, at least in part, the recent spike in energy prices that has become a financial hardship on families in Maine and throughout the nation.

Senator Collins, who is Ranking Member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, has called on Congress to pass carefully crafted legislation to help monitor and curb speculation on futures markets that artificially drive up prices. She has also called for a national strategy to pursue the long-term goal of energy independence."
http://www.politickerme.com/senator-collins-questions-energy-experts-about-reasons-record-high-energy-costs-349

Also (Update, I just found this): I'm sticking it in at the end as it's from the Maine Democratic Party, obviously no friend of Senator Collins.
The collins record - big oil before mainers - December 12, 2007
Excerpt:
"In recent media accounts, including an op-ed appearing in the Bangor Daily News last weekend, Senator Susan Collins says she believes "it is absurd to expect taxpayers to continue to subsidize the soaring profits of the oil and gas industry." But when Senator Collins voted for the Cheney energy bill, she helped place the burden of a $14 billion giveaway to Big Oil and Gas on the backs of hard-working Mainers.

"While taxpayers foot the bill for this windfall, Senator Collins voted against bills to prevent price gouging to protect consumers and stop market manipulation by greedy speculators," said Carol Andrews, communications director for the Maine Democratic Party. "When Senator Collins votes, Big Oil and Gas win while Maine's middle class families and small businesses lose," Andrews said.

In her piece appearing in the BDN on Saturday, Dec. 8, Senator Collins wrote "now is the time to seek energy independence." Yet for 11 years, she rejected several opportunities to assert energy independence by voting for Bush-Cheney giveaways to Big Oil and Gas instead of consumers and freedom from foreign oil. "Senator Collins talks one way in Maine but votes the other way in Washington," Andrews said."
http://www.mainedems.org/CollinsputsbigoilbeforeMainers.aspx

And this from DailyKos (obviously no friend of Senator Collins either):
Rep. Tom Allen's bill will look into Wartime Contracting
Excerpt:
"Susan Collins was the first chair of the Senate's Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, whose duties include oversight of Federal contracting. But despite repeated requests from her colleagues to look into numerous media reports about cost over-runs, graft, theft and mismanagement, Collins refused to do so. She did not call even one hearing to look into what has cost our Treasury billions (to be fair, neither has Joe Liebermen)."
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/12/162225/29/813/421260

Bangor Daily News article link: http://www.bangornews.com/news/t/news.aspx?articleid=157799&zoneid=500Alexhscpub@aol.com

RE: Michael - Governor Angus King in New York
From:	hscpub
To:	info
Cc:	bensdad2 ; matthew.o.gagnon ; mhdrucker ; hscpub ; mstone
Date:	Thu, Oct 11, 2012 8:10 am