Back when Bustle launched, the Internet exploded that Bryan Goldberg– a young Rodney Dangerfield who previously built a site for armchair quarterbacks— would dare to take on a women’s site as his next challenge.
The rage machine was in such tilt that Goldberg would up buying back his shares from one investor.
Amid all that hand-wringing, it seemed lost on many pundits that one of the most successful women’s media sites in the digital era, Refinery29, is also run by two men. Those two men– Justin Stefano and Philippe von Borries — were our guest at last month’s PandoMonthly. They’ve raised some $ 80 million to date and are one of just six content companies valued north of $ 100 million.
In the clip below, we talk about how two dudes who met at 16 wound up leading a women’s site that was– in fairness– also co-founded by two women, who don’t share the CEO title. We also talked about the distinct challenges of raising money if you are a female founder, versus a founder of any gender building a company for women…
The Syrian refugee crisis is turning into a gigantic mess for all of the countries in Europe that are involved. Now, the terrorist attacks in Paris bring to the forefront the need to properly screen refugees before they can enter a country. Considering that the United States is one of the countries committed to taking 200,000 refugees, knowing how to screen them is extremely important. Hillary Clinton had the opportunity to tell us all how she would do it and she decided against doing so.
Here’s a video that we made discussing this issue followed by the transcript if you’re one of those who prefer to read it (of if you just don’t like my voice):
As a conservative, it’s easy for me to watch the Democratic debates and shake my head with nearly every answer that is given. That’s the nature of divisive politics today as both sides tend to love what their candidates say and hate what their opponents say. With that said, I heard a question on the CBS News debate that caught my attention and actually made me excited to hear the answer.
Following the Islamic State’s terrorist attacks in Paris, CBS rightly changed the direction of some of their questions to address the important issue. A question came in from Twitter that I’d love to get an answer on from everyone, Democrat or Republican. The only candidate who got this question was Hillary Clinton and she answered it in a very Clintonesque way. Here’s the question:
#DemDebate With the U.S. preparing to absorb Syrian refugees, how do you propose we screen those coming in to keep our citizens safe?
Pretty straight forward. As one post I read pointed out, this was really an opportunity for her to knock it out of the park. It was practically designed for her with her experience at the State Department and it’s the type of question that President Obama must answer immediately. It may be the first time in two decades that I really wanted to hear something of substance from Clinton. I should have known better.
“I think that is the number one requirement. I also said that we should increase numbers of refugees. The administration originally said 10. I said we should go to 65, but only if we have as careful a screening and vetting process as we can imagine, whatever resources it takes.”
Okay, so now it’s getting a little scary. Whenever a Democrat invokes their favorite catchphrase of “whatever resources it take,” that means that they’ll take as many resources, AKA tax dollars, as they can get their hands on and still figure out a way to squander it. Nevertheless, at this point I braced for the substantive answer to this extremely important question.
“I do not want us to in any way inadvertently allow people who wish us harm to come into our country. But I want to say a quick word about what Senator Sanders and then Governor O’Malley said.”
Wait, what? Seriously? Did Hillary Clinton just invoke the bait and switch to effectively not answer the question she was given but rather change gears to a talk track that she had practiced with her campaign team? What about screening the Syrian refugees? That’s a very current and very important immediate need for this country.
The defense budget, which she’s about to discuss, has been set until the Presidential election is over and done with. We need to figure out right now how to prevent the tragedy in Paris from happening in an American city. She dodged it. She shamefully dodged a question that could have very easily been her defining moment in the debate. I guess in a way, her inability to answer it did become her defining moment in this debate as well as being a prelude to her Presidency if the American people chose to buy in to her rhetoric and misdirection. Let’s finish with her military babble response.
We do have to take a hard look at the defense budget, and we do have to figure out how we get ready to fight the adversaries of the future, not the past. But we have to also be very clear that we do have continuing challenges. We’ve got challenges in the South China Sea because of what China is doing in building up these military installations. We have problems with Russia. Just the other day, Russia allowed a television camera to see the plans for a drone submarine that could carry a tactical nuclear weapon. So we’ve got to look at the full range and then come to some decisions about having more streamlined and focused defense budget.
Look, I understand that there’s a lot of pressure being on stage and in front of a television audience of millions of people and she didn’t have weeks to memorize a canned response since the refugee crisis came back to center stage the night before, but certainly she could have offered some solution. She’s been doing this for three decades, including four years as Secretary of State. If any Democrat had the credentials to give us a real screening process that would address this issue, it should have been her.
As I said before, I’m a conservative, but I’d like to give some free advice to my progressive listeners out there. I don’t agree with Bernie Sanders or Martin O’Malley’s policies, but both of them are exponentially more trustworthy and honorable than Clinton and at least in the case of Sanders he’s much more intelligent and better prepared to handle the role of President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is an ethical mess and has demonstrated complete incompetence in her time as a politician. While part of me is foaming at the mouth at the prospects of her being the opponent in the general election, the honorable part of me hopes that you will all wake up and realize that she is not the person you want representing your party in any form or fashion. Thank you for listening.