Draper is the son and grandson of successful venture capitalists. His father founded the Draper & Johnson Investment Company in 1962 and served as both chairman and president of the U.S. Export-Import Bank.
His grandfather founded Draper, Gaither and Anderson, one of the U.S.’s first venture capital firms in 1958.
Timothy attended Stanford University, where he earned an electrical engineering degree before going on to get his MBA from Harvard Business School.
After spending a year at Alex, Brown & Sons (the oldest investment bank in the U.S., founded in 1800), Draper left to start his own venture capital firm with Jon Fisher and Steve Jurvetson.
Draper and Jurvetson are credited with coming up with the idea of advertising at the bottom of Hotmail messages, and the firm, DJF, owned 10% of Skype when it sold to eBay for $4.1 billion in 2005.
Early this year, Draper proposed an initiative to divide California into 6 separate states.
In support of his plan, he argues that the state is too big to be representative of its citizens or to be competitive economically:
“With six, you do get a good sense that you can drive 45 minutes in any direction and maybe be part of a different state and it keeps those states on their toes,”
he said while speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. If his plan is approved, each of the six states would have its own government, with it’s own elected officials and Congressional representatives.
Draper recently used Twitter to announce that he had submitted a petition with 1.3 million signatures to put his 6-state initiative up to a popular vote.
The plan definitely has its opponents though. Steve Maviglio is the spokesman for the OneCalifornia committee:
“This is a colossal and divisive waste of time, energy, and money that will hurt the California brand, our ability to attract business and jobs, and move our state forward together,”
he told the San Jose Mercury News. Many opponents also point out that even if Californians vote in favor of the plan, carrying it out would require an act by Congress.
Draper also has plans to expand the use of digital currencies. On June 27th, he won an auction to buy 30,000 bitcoins (worth an estimated $19 million) that were confiscated from the dark web’s illicit marketplace Silk Road by U.S. Marshalls.
He plans to use the bitcoins to help start-up bitcoin exchange Varuum increase the use of dgital currency:
“With the help of Vaurum and this newly purchased Bitcoin, we expect to be able to create new services that can provide liquidity and confidence to markets that have been hamstrung by weak currencies,”
Draper said through a statement from Varuum.
As for the six state initiative, the signatures on the petition are currently being verified before an official date for the vote is announced.
The first column of numbers shows total executive orders. As of now, Obama is at 182. Since 1900, only two presidents, Gerald Ford (169) and George Bush senior (166) have signed less total executive orders. However, both of them only served one term.
The second column of numbers shows average executive orders signed per year. Obama is currently at 33.58 orders per year.
That’s lower than both Bush Sr. (31.5) and Gerald Ford (68.92). Both were conservatives who advocated small-government.
In fact, it’s lower than any president since Grover Cleveland was in the White House from 1885-1889. He averaged 28.25 executive orders per year during that time (he averaged 35 during his second term from 1893-1897).
If you want to attack Obama’s executive orders, attack their content, not their numbers. You can check them out on whitehouse.gov here.
NOTE: A number of websites seeking to take advantage of the executive order myth (like Western Journalism and Four Winds 10) have posted lists of Obama’s worst executive orders.
The problem is, the orders they list are from 10990-11921. That means they were signed by John F. Kennedy during the Cold War.
It rescinded executive order 13233 (signed by George W. Bush) which let former presidents and even their family members declare “executive privilege” to block public access to White House records for pretty much any reason.
Last wednesday, the Environmental Protection Agency published its final risk assessment for the chemical trichloroethylene (TCE).
The assessment found that long-term exposure this chemical (which is used as an industrial solvent by artists, car mechanics, and dry cleaners among others) can cause a number of serious health issues, including cancer.
It probably doesn’t sound surprising that the EPA would review the health risks of a potentially harmful chemical. After all, the agency was created to protect the health of the citizens and environment of the United States by writing and enforcing regulations.
It is surprising however that this is their first assessment in 28 years. So why the long drought?
Enter the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the legislation which created the EPA in the first place 38 years ago. A loophole in the legislation basically says that any chemicals invented before the law was passed are considered “safe until proven otherwise”.
According to the EPA, that means 62,000 chemicals we regularly use today are essentially un-reviewed. In the press release, the EPA calls for a modernization of the law.
In a recent blog post, Jim Jones, EPA assistant administrator of chemical safety and pollution prevention, said:
“The American public shouldn’t have to wait 28 years between … chemical risk assessments… As the old adage goes, you have to walk before you can run.”
But without the lobbying power of large corporations or political super PACs, the EPA lacks the political leverage to force Congress into giving it the resources it needs to actually review the thousands of chemicals all around us today.
In just the first four months of 2014, Dow Chemical, one of the U.S.’s largest chemical companies, spent a whopping $5 million on lobbying, around $2 million more than they did in the same period last year.
The EPA did announce, however, that it will be reviewing the risks of 83 chemicals that have already been identified as potentially harmful to our health.
The bottom line is that long-term scientific studies on the effects of different chemical substances are expensive, and that money simply isn’t there for the EPA, mostly because it’s really not something the average American is worrying about on a day-to-day basis.
Let’s make sure we don’t let this extremely important issue get drowned out by the howling of partisan politics that has made Congress virtually useless these days.
Nicholas Rubin is a 16-year old self-taught computer programmer from Seattle, Washington. He is also the inventor of Greenhouse, a new browser plugin that let’s you know exactly where politicians get their campaign funding from.
When the plugin is active, the names of House or Senate members on any given webpage are highlighted. All you have to do is hover your mouse over the name of a politician, and a box will pop up showing all the industries and groups that contributed funds to their campaign, as well as how much the politician got from each sector.
The box also shows you what percentage of their contributions came from small donors (contributions of less than $200), and let’s you know whether or not they are in favor of reforming our relatively seedy campaign finance system.
Here’s the statement that Nicholas released with the plugin:
“It is my hope that providing increased transparency around the amount and source of funding of our elected representatives may play a small role in educating citizens and promoting change. If you use the extension when reading about a Congressional vote on energy policy, for example, maybe you’ll discover that a sponsor of a bill has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil and gas industry. Or maybe you’ll learn that the top donors to a member of Congress who opposes tort reform are lawyers and law firms. I use data from the last full election cycle (2012) and plan to update it as more relevant data becomes available. Special thanks to OpenSecrets.org for providing access to that data.
The motto of Greenhouse is: “Some are red. Some are blue. All are green.” What it signifies is that the influence of money on our government isn’t a partisan issue. Whether Democrat or Republican, we should all want a political system that is independent of the influence of big money and not dependent on endless cycles of fundraising from special interests. The United States of America was founded to serve individuals, not big interests or big industries. Yet every year we seem to move farther and farther away from our Founders’ vision.”
I must say this is one of the best ideas I have ever seen to combat against the influence of special interest groups on our political system.
For years, politicians have pretended to personally care about issues when, more often than not, the truth is that they were bribed by that industry (through campaign finance) to make decisions that would help the industry.
I don’t think this will make politicians At the very least, it will make politicians think twice about where they get their contributions from.
You can download the Greenhouse plugin for free here. (NOTE: because of the plugins popularity, Greenhouse’s homepage was down when this story was published, but I’m sure they will have it back up and running soon.)
The world we live in today is very much absorbed in the here-and-now.
Modern technology has given us access to a virtually infinite amount of information, and social media allows us to keep up with all the latest news in realtime.
To compensate for this overwhelming amount of information, we’ve drastically reduced our attention spans. Driven by the fear of missing out on some amazing video or juicy piece of gossip, we skip over people who post long statuses and skim over headlines instead of reading full reports.
Twitter based their entire business model off of this phenomenon, creating a service that forces people to express themselves in 140 characters or less. Our unwillingness to to be patient on the internet is causing an increasing number of very real problems.
The biggest value of the internet is that it gives us access to unprecedented amounts of information. But ironically, our predictability and quick emotions have created a growing industry of misinformation.
The trend is also affecting the so called “reputable” news agencies, which have rapidly degenerated to a point not too far above sleaziest of tabloids. The key word here is sensationalize. It’s so important I’ll give you the full definition (courtesy of my MacBook dictionary):
sensationalize |senˈsā sh ənlˌīz| ; verb: (esp. of a newspaper) present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy
So what are the two best ways to “provoke public interest and excitement” in our society today?
The first is pop culture. There’s an army of paparazzi all across the country just waiting for an athlete, musician, actor or other public figure to do something crazy, or dumb, or funny, or ya know… whatever honestly.
Reality TV has made us obsessed with these people, to the point where many people have to know what’s going on with their favorite celebs all the time. Hell, Samsung even made an entire app just for people to follow around Lebron James, who has a promotion agreement with the company.
The second way to “provoke public interest and excitement” is, unfortunately, anger. This anger is typically fueled by politically-poisoned social issues.
See, politicians have also realized that we’re not willing to put in the time to do any real research into what they’ve actually voted for and against in the past (to be fair, it’s tough for the average working person to keep up with), so their best tactic to get your vote is to get you mad.
Once the primary is won the real fun starts, because the candidates get to make you mad about stuff the things you’re most sensitive about: social issues. Guns, abortion, religion and education, gay people getting married. Most people have very strong views about these things, and these views are almost always closely entwined with our emotions.
Most people don’t vote for someone because they particularly like that candidate, they do it because they dislike or distrust the other guy even more. Get people mad about something that the other guy did some time in the past, and you win yourself votes.
Rather than basing our vote off of candidate’s long-term record, we base it off some random 30-second sound bite. And we wonder why Congress is so ineffective…
The media is complicit in this farce, because they know that discussing the issues that make us emotional will get them more viewers, so the news industry has become political polarized, with the major stations becoming more and more biased one way or the other.
Meanwhile, both parties are quietly screwing us all. Do you remember when we bailed out Wall Street after the housing bubble burst causing the recession in 2008? Well after that happened, legislation was passed letting investment banks know that the government would no longer bail them out for any risky investments they made (like the derivatives which bankrupted so many of them).
Well, late last year, the House of Representatives quietly repealed this provision, allowing banks to move their riskiest assets back into government-insured accounts. A few people reported it, but it went widely unnoticed for the most part.
Why didn’t it spark the outrage it should have? Because legislation, provisions and the general proceedings of Congress are on almost everyone’s filter of things not to read as we fly down our news feeds.
Need another example? How about the USA FREEDOM Act, which was passed by Congress after the Snowden revelations to end the NSA’s practice of mass collection of American’s phone records.
Well at least that’s what we were told it would do. But by the time it actually passed, the legislation was so watered down that it is virtually powerless to stop the mass collection of phone data.
Or how about our entire economic system, which is based off of the constant accumulation of debt?
When central banks set their interest rates super low, everyone borrows and spends a lot of money.
But when everyone realizes that most of the money being spent is money people don’t actually have, the bottom falls out.
That’s what happened in 2008. A piece of legislation designed to give more people access to housing ended up just making it very easy to give out home loans, even to people who banks knew couldn’t afford the payments.
But they gave out the loans anyways. Why? Because the government promised to pay them back for any losses. Banks went crazy giving out these toxic loans, and everyone started buying houses with money they didn’t have, slowly inflating the housing bubble.
Then one day, somebody realized the emperor had no clothes, and the housing bubble burst, dragging the economy down into a recession which screwed the average American pretty hard.
The banks, on the other hand, got bailed out to the tune of $1 trillion. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer. And this was definitely not the first time something like that happened. In fact, just 8 years before the housing bubble burst, we went through a similar downturn when the dotcom bubble burst.
This constant accumulation of debt causes cycles of inflation and deflation, but they happen over a number of years, so most people are unaware of the cycles, preferring to discuss only how the market has performed in the past few months .
The European Union has gotten so desperate to get people to spend money that their central bank recently set the standard interest rate for banks to -0.1% (yes that’s a negative sign), meaning that banks will actually lose money if they try to hold onto their cash instead of loaning it out.
The bottom line is that history repeats itself because we allow ourselves to be so consumed in the present that we forget about the past.
We’re so obsessed with staying “current” that we have blinded ourselves to the long-term trends which are really hurting us the most.
It’s basically a massive societal drug addiction: we opiate ourselves with material things to help us avoid confronting the serious problems that we all face together these days.
Rather than trying to do something about these problems, we get drunk off retail and high off social media, feeding the cancers of our world, rather than treating them.
We need a collective awakening to these issues. Otherwise, one day very soon, we’re going to reach a point when these cancers are no longer treatable, no matter how much we pray for recovery.
I personally hate talking about the issue of climate change. I think all the dialogue around it has become a joke- just a bunch of regurgitated political talking points and sound-bites. Look, I understand that there is no such thing as “certainty” in science. But what we have is a group of politically and financially motivated people (the oil and gas industry and the mostly conservative politicians in their pockets) who are using a tiny bit of uncertainty as an excuse to ignore a major problem.
That isn’t to absolve those who claim to be champions of the climate change debate either. Every year I hear liberal politicians (Obama included) making big promises about passing legislation to slow climate change, and every year I see those politicians forget about their promises once they’ve won their spot in Washington. While some of them may be genuinely concerned, it’s my (possibly pessimistic) opinion that most of them use global warming for the votes, just like some conservatives deny it for the votes.
I don’t claim to be a climate expert by any means- that’s a claim very few people in this world can make. But when we live in a global, interdependent society, we simply cannot survive without a certain level of trust and respect for the academics who are our experts.
Could 99% of climatologists be wrong about climate change? Sure. Could they all be part of some massive conspiracy to tax carbon-emissions? Also possible.
But if you took your child to 100 doctors, and 99 of them said the child had a fatal disease, would you believe the one doctor who said the child was fine? Because that’s what we’re doing with our planet right now.
Sure, believing that one doctor may help ease our pain in the short term, as it allows us to pretend like there’s nothing wrong with our child as well as saving us the cost of treatment. But when the child’s body begins to break down and we’re helpless to stop it, we will be stuck wondering why we didn’t listen to the other doctors and try to save our child when we had the chance…
Taking real action to battle climate change will cost lots of rich and influential people a lot of their riches and influence, and (in my humble opinion) that is the primary reason why they’re relentlessly trying to convince us to listen to that one dissenting doctor.
No, that’s not a typo. The amendment to the National Defense Authorization bill was brought by Republican Representative David McKinley of West Virginia. It prevents the Department of Defense from spending any of its funding to assess the risks of climate and its implications on national defense.
Here’s how the amendment reads:
“None of the funds authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to implement the U.S. Global Change Research Program National Climate Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nation’s Agenda 21 sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.”
“This amendment will prohibit the costs of the President’s climate change policies being forced on the Department of Defense by the Obama Administration… The climate is obviously changing; it has always been changing. With all the unrest around the [world], why should Congress divert funds from the mission of our military and national security to support a political ideology?”
Just last year though, the Department of Defense published an evaluation of climate change in which they stated that climate change has adverse effects on infrastructure here in the U.S. and called the impacts of climate change abroad “threat multipliers”, because of their potential to exacerbate issues such as,
“poverty, environmental degradation, political instability and social tensions — conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence.”
Furthermore, this issue is not as politically-charged as McKinley would have you think. During the second Bush administration, Congress ordered a National Intelligence Assessment of climate change, which concluded that it was a serious threat to national security.
Even Tom Ridge, who served as Secretary of Homeland Security under Bush, admitted this week that climate change is, “a real serious problem,” saying that it would, “bring destruction and economic damage”.