Ryan Waggoner » Politics

Please take a moment to tell Congress to stop SOPA and PIPA

Ryan W. — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 18:55:29 +0000

Yesterday, I had the privilege of addressing an audience of hundreds of people to tell them about my startup DailyPath, and how we’re using the power of the Internet to help thousands of users learn and accomplish new things so they can build a better life.

I’m very excited about DailyPath and the opportunity we have before us, but there’s a powerful group of lobbyists and corporations out there that have backed two bills in Congress that represent an incredibly grave threat to the free and open nature of the Internet. You have probably already heard of these bills: SOPA and PIPA. If these bills pass, it will give large corporations the power to squash new startups like mine before they really get started, destroying job growth, economic activity, and amazing innovations for millions of Americans.

If you’ve already taken action and contacted your representatives to voice your opposition, thank you. If you haven’t, please take a moment to do so now. Google has a great guide on what you can do, as does Wikipedia. Wikipedia, Reddit, Wired, and hundreds of other very-high-traffic sites are blacked out today in opposition, and Google and other sites have posted requests for help in opposing these pieces of legislation.

Finally, it can often seem that bills like these are abstract and it’s hard to see who they’ll help or hurt, so here’s something to make it more concrete: my name is Ryan Waggoner, I’ve made my living via the Internet for the last seven years, and these bills will eventually wreak havoc on my livelihood and the future of my company.

Please help me stop them. It’ll take you a few minutes, but it’s incredibly important. Help us stop SOPA and PIPA now.

Ken Rudin and the Beauty of Mastery

Ryan W. — Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:52:28 +0000

This is kind of a weird post, but I’ve been really impressed by this guy recently, so I thought I’d share. I listen to a bunch of different podcasts, including a few from NPR. Ken Rudin is a political editor who appears on “It’s All Politics” and on a weekly political segment on “Talk of the Nation”. Listening to him for just a few minutes will demonstrate that he’s knowledgeable, but where his mastery of political history really shines is in the weekly trivia question.

Every week on the political segment of “Talk of the Nation”, they pose a political trivia question. These questions are often very specific and obscure, I think to make it hard to Google. For example: “When was the last time that a political party gained control of a state legislature in the same year that the state’s university went to the NCAA playoffs?” And yes, that was an actual question.

So people call in and try to guess the answer. And what’s amazing to me is that Mr. Rudin apparently knows the history of every single political race in this country, ever. Seriously, he knows the history and life stories of candidates who ran and lost in obscure house races before he was born. These people probably don’t rate a Wikipedia entry, but he rattles off the stats and history without hesitation.

What’s more impressive to me is that he’s not at all partisan. I truly have no idea how he would vote in an election. He simply presents the facts and tells both sides of the story. His grasp and recall of the political arena are that much more impressive when you consider that he’s not there to promote an agenda, but because he loves the subject.

I bring all this up just because I really admire people like Mr. Rudin and I love observing mastery and great skill in action.

I don’t know that Mr. Rudin will ever read this, but if he does: I tip my hat to you, sir. You clearly love what you do and have worked very hard to master it, and that’s inspiring to watch.

Who do you admire for their mastery of a skill or subject? Extra points for being someone obscure.

What the $1.5 trillion Federal budget deficit taught me about time management

Ryan W. — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 07:31:01 +0000

I was listening to NPR today and they talked to a writer from Newsweek (whose name I didn’t catch, unfortunately) about this year’s $1.5 trillion Federal budget deficit. Everyone says we should fix it, but we can’t come to any sort of agreement on how. Since the vast majority of the population receives some benefit from the Federal government, either in the form of services or in tax benefits, balancing the budget necessarily involves pissing off very large constituencies, which is why few politicians seem to do more than talk about balancing the budget.

Then the Newsweek writer said something very interesting: large budget deficits are what you would expect to see in a democratic society that lacks a strong sense of priority and purpose. Instead of making the tough choices about what to fund (and what to NOT fund) based on what’s really important to us, we try to fund everything, and end up doing it all halfway and running up a huge debt.

I instantly thought of time management: don’t many of us play this same tired game with our time? We don’t want to make tough choices about what to cut from our time budget, so we juggle too many things while trying to “have it all” or “do it all”, and end up doing a bunch of things poorly, falling into mediocrity, and running up a deficit of time, money, or both. Just earlier today before hearing this story, I was contemplating my attempts to juggle too many projects and struggling to know which, if any, of them I should give up. This idea made it much easier.

I don’t want my life to resemble the current Federal government: an on-going war of different priorities and interests, vying for attention, and creating a dystopian clump of mediocrity. So I cut two projects from my life today. Maybe they’ll come back someday, but they’re officially on ice for now, and I’m down to three projects or areas that I spend my time and mental energy on. I hope to cut another by the end of the year, but that’s all I can say for now.

Does excellence require focus? Are there counter-examples? And if it does require focus, why is it so hard for some of us to just do one or two things?

Why Sarah Palin’s reality show is pure political brilliance (and 3 things you can learn from it)

Ryan W. — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 02:07:06 +0000

I’m not a big fan of Sarah Palin, but this post is about her new reality show, not her politics.. It’s no great secret that Palin and politics are probably not done with each other. She’s relatively young, has a very dedicated following, and is probably the best hope the Republican party currently has for electing a woman President. However, outside of her base of hardcore followers, she has a big image problem with the rest of the country. I doubt Obama could have been elected without Palin, and the Democrats have never had as big a fundraising partner as Palin. They probably raise millions every time she mentions the possibility of a run in 2012.

But there is that pesky image problem, so what to do? Create a reality show, of course! The attention span of the nation is short and their memory is even shorter. Many people probably have a lingering distaste for Palin, but they’d struggle to tell you why if put on the spot. Her campaign antics from two years ago seem a distant memory now, so let’s get her back in the spotlight in a more positive way. The handlers who came up with this are brilliant.

If you haven’t watched the show, I encourage you to check out some of the clips. Watch it and imagine how it might strike the Republican base and conservative-leaning independents. I think it’s brilliant: here you have Palin traipsing around Alaska with her family, exploring the great outdoors, hunting, fishing, and going freaking dog-sledding, etc. She’s just loving life.

Most of what we see from politicians at the national level is carefully scripted and positioned to not piss off too many constituent groups. At the presidential level, everything is considered in terms of image and perception, right down to the color of outfits that family members wear. I think people get tired of this level of fake bullshit, so it’s refreshing to see the raw realism of Sarah Palin’s Alaska! After all, this is a reality show, right? No scripting here! Yeah…more on that in a bit.

Most of all, the show just makes her seem so likable. And I bet she really is; politics aside, I bet Palin is a perfectly nice person once you get to know her and spend some time with her. This show does a brilliant job of making her human again, showing her relationships with her husband and kids, her love of Alaska (and America), and not getting too close to any sticky issues. It shows her having fun with her family, something we can all relate to. It’s no secret that many people vote for candidates based on the emotional reasons or the charisma of the candidate, rather than policy positions. This show does a brilliant job of turning Palin into a fun-loving celebrity who loves God, America, her family, and the great outdoors. What could play better with the Republican base?

So what can we learn here?

1. Perception is reality

The great thing about a reality show is that it purports to be based on reality, but the show’s producers actually have the freedom to arrange, script, and edit to their heart’s content. If anyone out there seriously believes that this show is made of Palin’s family just living their normal life with a cameraman in tow, they’re delusional. This show is a strategic exercise in controlling the image and message of a candidate, and doing it under the guise of a “reality show” is another layer of brilliant.

2. Play to your strengths

Sarah Palin ain’t too hot with interviews. She appears less than brilliant on policy matters and complex analysis. And who can blame her; she has no formal training and virtually no experience. But what she can do talk about her family, love of country, and throw out enough Republican-friendly soundbites to make Karl Rove roll his eyes. Since she’s good at that and a large part of the country can relate to that message, let her focus on doing that. She doesn’t really need to talk about policy, because people don’t vote based on that anyway. People just need to like her.

Please note, this wouldn’t work for many politicans. Dick Cheney’s Death Star would be entertaining, but probably wouldn’t help him get elected.

3. Don’t give up

With the thrashing she took in 2008, many thought Palin would never be able to get elected for anything again. The feeling probably intensified after she resigned the governorship in 2009, but she’s still very much in the national spotlight, with a hit TV show and a bestselling book on the shelves. She wields considerable influence with millions of Americans and could easily go on to win elections at the state, congressional, or even Presidential levels in the next two decades. She’s only 46 years old, which gives her a long time to build up her base and rise to power. And let’s face it, she’s doing pretty well so far: she was only elected governor of Alaska four years ago, and before that the highest elected position she held was mayor of Wasilla, population 10,256.

Anyway, do check out the show. If nothing else, the scenery is beautiful, you betcha.

Republicans are much better at politics than Democrats

Ryan W. — Sat, 04 Dec 2010 05:44:59 +0000

There’s a reason that most countries seem to become more liberal over time: the message sounds better. Democrats have a huge homefield advantage: who doesn’t want free healthcare and streets free of guns? Who wants to say that they’re not for helping the poor, minorities, and the environment? The liberal agenda has the built-in advantage of sounding really good in a soundbite.

And yet Republicans keep winning on many of these issues. Why is that?

I’ve recently discovered The West Wing, a masterful piece of political television that I was too young to enjoy or understand when it first came out. The show follows the administration of US President Josiah Bartlet, who is a Democrat. It’s a really engaging look at the politics that go on in the White House. Obviously, it’s fictional, but previous White House staffers say that it’s a realistic portrayal of what it’s really like. The show premiered in 1999 and covered a wide array of hot-button issues at the time.

What’s so fascinating to me is that more than a decade after this show was filmed, many of those same issues are still being fought about. Gays and lesbians still can’t serve openly in the military, we still haven’t ratified the nuclear test ban treaty, we’re still fighting an utterly ineffectual war on drugs, we still don’t have comprehensive gun control, etc, etc. My point is not that we should or shouldn’t have any of those things, just that it’s interesting how little has apparently been done in the last decade, and how prevalent all these issues still are. Democrats don’t seem to have been able to move the ball forward at all in the last ten years; why not?

One of the other things that strikes me about the show is how crucially important tiny minutia can be, from when a piece of news is released, to who is invited to a meeting, to the exact language used to announce something to the public. These tiny details may seem insignificant, but they add up to something substantial. Could Republicans just be better at these kinds of details?

The amazing radio show This American Life recently had a segment about the political process and how Republicans are more skilled at it. One of the things they said in the show is that Republicans are just more organized and on-message. Apparently every morning, a talking points memo goes out to influential Republicans at all levels of government: local, state, and federal, with the issues for the day and the language that the Republican strategists and leaders want people to use. This is why The Daily Show can do those segments where they show 15 different Republicans saying the exact same thing in the space of four hours. It seems funny to the show audience, but it’s actually a brilliant strategy. Most people only pay attention to the news and politics with 7% of their attention, so when they hear a bunch of people saying the same thing over and over, it starts to sink in.

A few days ago, Michael Hiltzik wrote a column in the LA Times complaining about how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and business leaders won’t shut up about the “uncertainty” of the economy, and how taxes must be cut to reduce “uncertainty”, how healthcare reform and financial reform are causing too much “uncertainty” in the market, etc. But here’s the thing about the “uncertainty” meme: it’s working.

I was in the car today, listening to an economic segment on NPR and I heard an interview with a small business owner talking about how he’s been interviewing people again, but he hasn’t hired anyone yet. The interviewer asked him why he hasn’t pulled the trigger on anyone, and this regular guy who owns a little factory in Iowa said this:

“In one word: uncertainty.”

Beautiful.

Seriously, if you haven’t seen it, check out The West Wing. And if you’re going to advocate for or against any of the political positions mentioned in this post, don’t bother.

Will taxes be higher or lower in the future?

Ryan W. — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:53:59 +0000

I’m no economist, so bear with me here. I’d always assumed that because of the US government’s propensity to incur unfunded liabilities, tax rates in the future would have to go up (making Roth IRAs and Roth 401k’s a better bet) to keep the economy from collapsing. However, a story I saw today about Google’s complex international tax avoidance strategy got me thinking.

Google’s international HQ is in Dublin, and fully 88% of Google’s international revenue goes through Ireland, which has fairly low corporate taxes. This is no accident: the Irish know that probably several percent of their workforce is only employed because international corporations are setup there for tax reasons. So lower taxes can be a great way to invite foreign investment, stimulate the economy, and most importantly: create jobs.

Big deal, right? Anyone who takes macroeconomics knows this. However, what I think is interesting is the long-term outlook for human employment over the next 50 years. In case you didn’t notice, technology is taking over. We have robots doing a wide variety of tasks that humans used to do, technology makes one human as productive as five used to be, and there’s a lot of industries where even fewer humans would be employed if it wasn’t for artificial barriers to progress (unions, for example). But eventually those barriers will fall as well, due to simple economics. I read somewhere that some economists theorize that many of the jobs lost during the recession will never come back. Corporations didn’t really need those people anymore, due to technological efficiency, and used the recession as a good excuse to trim the fat. Regardless, it’s not hard to see that as robots and other technological advances become more widespread, we’ll need fewer employees, particularly in the blue-collar industries.

So in the future, I think international competition for jobs will be fierce. So fierce, in fact, that it will dwarf the concern over social safety nets like free healthcare, retirement, unemployment, etc. No government will be able to pay for those things if half their workforce is unemployed, so they’ll be much more likely to cut taxes to attract foreign companies and create jobs.

Well, that’s what would make sense anyway. Then again, we just spent a trillion dollars (that we don’t have) to stimulate the economy. How’s that going for us? So yeah, maybe we’re all just screwed.

If Mr. Smith went to Washington today, what would happen?

Ryan W. — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 12:20:59 +0000

My dad and I had an interesting conversation last night about how an individual can have a positive effect in a system where systemic corruption is present, without succumbing to the pressure to compromise. We got on this topic because we were talking about Congress, which seems from the outside to be an incredibly brutal and corrupt cesspool of political backstabbing, wheeling and dealing, and protecting special interests to the exclusion of the citizenry. But the question is: are they all just corrupt people who decided to become Congresspeople, or does the institution of Congress incentivize well-meaning people to turn into backroom-dealing criminals? If you’re the “Mr. Smith goes to Washington”-type, how do you possibly get anything done? Congress seems a hard place for idealists. It’s all about quid pro quo, who has the purse strings, who has the dirt, who has the power. Politics in the worst way possible. It’s amazing that anything gets done.

Regardless of how it started, it seems the natural progression of such a system of power where some corruption takes hold is that honest folks don’t want anything to do with it. So the people it ends up attracting are the ones who are attracted to the power and the corruption, which only makes the problem worse. Incidentally, I think a lot of the same things are true about any position of power. The police are a stellar example. As a police department deals with criminals all day long, they gradually start to adopt a subconscious belief that all citizens are criminals on some level, and an “us-vs-them” mentality begins to set in. They overstep their bounds, they violate people’s rights, and then they try to cover it up. The worse things get, the more they attract the kinds of people who want that sort of authoritarian power for the wrong reasons, and things just continue to spiral down. And just like with Congress, you can have checks and balances, but corruption is a difficult thing to have a systemic check against, because by definition it’s a usurping of the system.

So there’s the question of how you deal with this on a societal level, but also just the personal level. Power is not inherently bad, and what do you do if you’re an honest citizen with good intentions who wants to represent your fellow Americans as a Congressperson? You’re desperately needed, but how will you actually accomplish anything when you get there? The entire system forces you to choose to either compromise and play the game, or get nothing done. How does an honest individual avoid this conundrum?

The only real answer I have for the politics question is to cultivate influence outside of the realm of politics that can still be expended within the political sphere. Money is the best example of this, though fame might work equally well. Mayor Bloomberg seems an excellent example of this; with a personal net worth of > $10 billion, he has the money to avoid fundraising and ass-kissing (for money) completely. Is this the ideal scenario? Not in the slightest; it’s disconcerting to think that maybe we live in a world where you have to be either rich, unethical, or ineffectual (though you can certainly be all three). But maybe that’s the world we live in, and if it is, denial won’t get us any closer to change.

Disgusting.

Ryan W. — Thu, 12 Aug 2010 05:34:06 +0000

I’m not always as up to date on the news as I should be, and something caught my eye today that has probably been in the national news for months, but had previously escaped my attention. The issue in question? The Ground Zero Mosque.

At first I wasn’t sure what the controversy was, and I read through some articles trying to understand, before I realized that people are literally just upset because a mosque is going to be built near ground zero.

Oh no! Anything but that!!

Seriously, this is the world we live in now? I was surprised to learn that the majority of Americans are against the mosque being built there, and that even the majority of New Yorkers are against it. What ever happened to religious freedom? I was under the impression that America was founded in large part to escape these kinds of ridiculous attitudes. This is like being upset that some Japanese people live near you during WWII. Oh wait…we actually rounded those people up and put them in camps. Some things never change.

Stuff like this is why I don’t read newspapers or watch TV news. It’s too depressing to be constantly reminded that I share my country with such ignorance and stupidity.

Stay classy, America.

GovFresh – All the government’s social media feeds in one place

Ryan W. — Mon, 11 May 2009 03:18:22 +0000

A little over a week ago, my good friend Luke Fretwell stopped by my office to chat about this idea that he had to aggregate all the feeds from the social media accounts of the US Government in one place. Various arms of the federal government have been signing up for things like Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube at a rapid pace. Luke thought it would be cool to be able to follow all of those feeds from the same place. Intrigued, we sat down for a couple hours and put together GovFresh.com as an early prototype. We’re using WordPress as a framework for FriendFeed widgets, so it’s pretty light on features right now, but you can already see the potential. We spent the last week tweaking things here and there, but mostly just mentioning it to a few people on Twitter and what-not. Since then, our traffic has almost doubled every day and we’re trying to figure out what to do next (cast your votes here). I have to say, even I’m surprised at how quickly this is catching on, especially given how simple it is and how little time we put into it. Much of the credit goes to Luke for the excellent design and for seeding it to the right people on Twitter, but the moral of the story is the same: if you want to start something, don’t wait for permission or put together a committee, just do it. I’m excited to see what comes from this and I’d love to hear what you think. Tell me in the comments.

7 tips for talking about hot-button issues

Ryan W. — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:53:59 +0000

Over the last couple months, I’ve engaged in dozens of conversations about religion, politics, and other sensitive topics. The conversations have been online and offline and with people with whom I agree and disagree, in some cases vehemently. After some reflection, I wanted to point out a few things that I’ve learned can be helpful when approaching these kinds of issues. I’m still working on these, and my critics will be quick to tell you that I’ve still got a long way to go. They’re absolutely right. But you have to start somewhere.

Many will probably disagree with my fundamental premise, which is that dialogue is valuable and is the only true path to understanding.

1. Initiate dialogue with those you disagree with
Far too many of us avoid talking about the deepest and most meaningful issues of life, often because we dislike conflict, we fear not knowing the right answers, or perhaps we’re afraid of offending someone. Whatever the reason, the result is that many of us live in ideological bubbles where ideas are seldom challenged and beliefs are rarely scrutinized. There are many people who harbor deep feelings of resentment and dislike, even hatred, towards people who hold opposing viewpoints on religion or politics, but they have never actually had an open and honest conversation with those people.

2. Seek to understand the other side
If you approach these conversations with the goal of changing the other person’s mind, you’re almost certainly going to be disappointed. Now, I know that it’s unrealistic to go into a tough conversation on a controversial issue when you have a dearly held position and truly have an open mind. But do your best. Try and set aside the preconceived notions you have and really listen to what the other person is saying. It might not be as ridiculous as you thought. Even if you still disagree after hearing them out, you may find that you respect them and their beliefs more than you did.

3. Find common ground
When going into tough discussions with people we disagree with, we tend to focus more on what we differ on than what we have in common. This is a mistake, as it sets people as enemies when they may agree on many of the most important points of their positions. A good example of this is the incredible fracturing that occurs in most major religious traditions over the most trivial minutia, despite the fact that they agree on almost all the key tenets of the faith.

4. Keep your emotions in check
Emotion and passion are useful, but only when they are tightly controlled. It’s natural for you to feel something when faced with things you disagree with strongly, but if you let your emotions fuel your reaction, the entire discussion will be useless, and is likely to make things worse. Be calm and rational as best you can, and if you can’t, put the conversation aside until you can. This is one reason that discussing things online or via email is often more useful; each side can take the time to think things through carefully and let their emotions settle down.

5. Stay away from personal attacks
One of my favorite moments in all the debates leading up to the presidential election was when Joe Biden talked about how it’s ok to question people’s judgement, but don’t question their motives. I think this is great advice in general. The truth about liberals and conservatives is that they both love America and want to see Americans succeed and do well; they just differ somewhat about the best way to accomplish that. When you accuse someone of being unpatriotic because of a political belief, or otherwise impugn their character, you only do damage to your own credibility and character. Stick to the issues.

6. Admit when you’re wrong
You don’t think you’ve always got it figured out, right? You will be wrong. When you are, admit it, learn from your mistake, and move on. And take heart…finding out that you’re wrong is a great thing, because you’ve eliminated another incorrect belief from your worldview. Progress

7. Don’t get discouraged
The truth is that even if you follow the above (and any other great advice), you probably won’t see a lot of change in other people’s positions or in your own. People tend to hold many of these beliefs as a part of their overall identity, and getting them (or yourself) to think about them differently is challenging because they feel like they’re losing control over who they are at the core. But do not give up. I am living proof that rational discussion can change at least some minds. It may take years, but it can happen. And you might find that you change your mind on a few things, too.

I’d love to know if you think these tips make these kinds of discussions worth having, or if you have any others to share. Post them below…