Pete duPont Taken to Task

Hendrik Hertzberg, of the New Yorker, takes a few shots at former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont on his blog today. In "Pete du Pointless," Hertzberg reacts to du Pont's op-ed in the News Journal in defense of the electoral college.

The title is a slightly cheap shot, as is this bit:

You may or may not remember Pierre S. du Pont IV, the high-born former Delaware governor who briefly ran for President in 1988 under the plain vanilla—well, French vanilla—name of Pete du Pont.

The rest of the piece, however, is a fairly workmanlike deconstruction of du Pont's arguments against the idea of a National Popular Vote plan to replace the electoral college. DuPont trots out an impressive herd of statistics. Hertzberg hobbles, harnesses or stampedes them, one by one.

I don't pretend to the same level of electoral erudition as these two, but I can't help thinking that there is some merit in simply electing the president based on which candidate gets the most votes. The way we've been doing it has had decidedly mixed results lately.

Dig Me. I Voted.

I have sent in an absentee ballot for the Democratic primary election here in Delaware. I'll be away for the whole week that includes the primary. This is the first time I've ever submitted an absentee ballot.

I had only three races to vote on: Governor, Congressional Representative, and Insurance Commissioner.

I don't choose to tell you who I voted for; if you are also a Delaware voter you can make up your own mind.

Word Clouds of the DNC Speeches (Some of Them)

I've been creating word clouds of some of the major speeches from the Democratic National Convention. That's Joe Biden's speech at right.

I'm using Wordle, which I've been having a great time with this summer both here and in a newsletter (PDF) I created for work. Word clouds present the most frequently used words in any body of text. They are often sorted by frequency of use, with the most used words in the largest font.

So far, I have created the following word clouds:

• Michelle Obama's speech on 8/25/08
• Hillary Clinton's speech on 8/26/08
• Bill Clinton's speech on 8/27/08
• Joe Biden's speech on 8/27/08
• Barack Obama's speech on 8/28/08
  

I find these things kind of addictive.

All Politics Is Local?

There's an interesting on-line discussion this week on several sites about a race for a state representative seat in Kansas. Sean Tevis, an IT guy from Olathe, Kansas, is running for the 15th District seat in the Kansas House.

He's a Democrat challenging a several-term incumbent Republican and he's making a strong on-line pitch that includes an xkcd-style infographic about his reasons for running and his fund-raising approach. Told he needs to raise $26,000 for the run and that the traditional approach is to find 52 people to donate $500 each, he has decided to try instead to get 3,000 people to donate at least $8.34 each. And his web site is set up to do just that.

This approach has attracted notice on several web sites nationally, including on metafilter, where Tevis has been a member for many years. He didn't post the link himself, but he has joined in the discussion and seems to be listening to criticism and suggestions from the many commenters. There's a lively discussion which is generating some contributions and is helping Tevis refine his thinking on some issues.

My interest increased when I looked at the District map and realized that Tevis is running to represent the downtown portion of a town that my great-great grandfather helped found, where my grandfather was born, and where I still have some distant cousins.

As of this morning, he's almost half-way to his goal of 3,000 contributors and he's now known to a wider, and growing, group of politically interested voters. Not all of them, however, are local.

Delaware Candidates' Web Sites In Focus

The politics-watching blog Political Realm takes a look this week at the campaign web sites of Delaware Senator Joe Biden and his republican challenger, Christine O'Donnell.

The entry is part of the site's "Web Grades" series, which has been looking at campaign sites since spring of 2007 when they reviewed the sites of the many contenders in the presidential primaries. Interestingly, those reviews, more than a year ago, gave top marks to the web sites of John McCain on the republican side and John Edwards and Barack Obama on the democratic side. Maybe there's something to this internet thing after all?

When I started reading this entry I found myself worried that Ms. O'Donnell, demonstrably younger and therefore potentially more hip than Senator Biden, would take the prize for best campaign web site. But I was pleased to find that the Biden site took the prize with a grade of B to Ms. O'Donnell's D-minus.

Neither site includes a campaign blog, which the Political Realm folks called a disappointment. Both had multimedia content, though Sen. Biden's site was considered stronger and more complete. The Biden site also outshone the O'Donnell site in social-network features.

One might question the objectivity of the Political Realm reviewers; they do not claim to be a non-partisan site. However, despite the fact that I am proudly-partisan myself, I do think they take an even-handed approach to reviewing political web sites. They are reviewing the sites themselves and not the candidates. And the criteria do appear to have more to do with communication and interaction than with policy or position.

This is Just Sad

The Washington Post has a story this morning on the increase in hate-group and white-power activity in response to the candidacy of Barack Obama. In Hate Groups' Newest Target, the Post reports that hate and white supremacist web sites are seeing more traffic and are giving the credit to Sen. Obama.

"I haven't seen this much anger in a long, long time," said Billy Roper, a 36-year-old who runs a group called White Revolution in Russellville, Ark. "Nothing has awakened normally complacent white Americans more than the prospect of America having an overtly nonwhite president."

I'd like to pause here, if I may, and marvel at the idea that someone can be "overtly non-white." Should he be more covert about his racial background? Would it be okay if Barack Obama tried to "pass" for white? I shake my head in disgust, but I have to admit I'm fascinated by the lengths folks will go to, and the pretzilization of the language that they will employ, to try to make a hateful point without seeming hateful.

The story notes the many hate-filled smears that have been floated on-line about Sen. Obama. There's no need to catalog them here, though I should note that they do turn up in the Delaware blogosphere from time to time.

On a positive note (though the term feels wrong in this context), the Post story does point out that the hate groups are also angry with John McCain "for his moderate views on immigration and his willingness to stick with the Iraq war."

And, the Post reports, they have a slight hope for a President Obama because, they feel, that could galvanize the hate groups into action and help them elect a president of their own (like David Duke, who ran for president in 1988 and got less than 1% of the vote). Or, they say, an Obama victory could be the final blow.

"Maybe people see him in office, and it's like: 'That's it. It's just too late. Look at what's happened now. We've endured all these defeats, and we've still got a multicultural society.' And then there's just no future for our viewpoint."

I think the white-supremacist movement is behind the times by a generation or two, frankly. The United States is already, and has long been, a multicultural society. It is what makes us strong. A President Obama would not be the end of "white-power," it would be the period at the end of the sentence that summarizes the historical footnote that was the white-power movement.

"Delawarisms" Get Some National Attention

One of the blogs of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has a piece today on some of the linguistic tics unique to Delaware's political scene. The blog, The Thicket, selects a few bits from a post this week by proto-blogger Celia Cohen on her Delaware Grapevine.

In Leg Hall Lingo, Celia offered a brief glossary to help watchers of Delaware's political antics keep up with the local dialect. Many were words and phrases familiar to legislature-watchers everywhere, but a few were new to the NCSL writer, including "Thurman's Office," "Body Parts People," and the "Big Head" committees.

The legislature is a community unto itself and, like any community, it has its own customs, its own norms and its own language. Ours is not the only one with its own words, The Thicket offers a neat little lexicon: Sine Die and Other Vulgarities.

RIP: Mayor Al Stango

I've lost another Mayor, I'm afraid. Al Stango, who led Lewes for (I think) 24 years, passed away over the week-end at age 93. We lost Mayor George Smith, who followed Al in office, in 2005.

Al Stango was Mayor when I first moved to Lewes in 1987. He ran a tight town. Al was in charge and he was not shy about it. But he was effective.

When I first came here I was a reporter and news reader at a local radio station. I quickly learned that a fill-up at the Mayor's gas station on the way to work was a great way to get a fresh morning's story. Al would come out and pump your gas and if you had a tape recorder, or a curious ear, he was perfectly willing to tell you just what was new in the city of Lewes.

Al Stango was a big part of why I fell in love with Lewes. He was a character and I am thankful I got to know him.

New Jersey's Best Editorial Cartoonist Draws in Delaware

I was pleased to see a positive profile of the cartoonist Rob Tornoe in the Wilmington News Journal today. Mr. Tornoe draws for a New Jersey political web site (politicker.com) but was raised partly in Delaware and lives in Newark. He may draw New Jersey, but he's one of ours. And, I am a fan. His RSS feed has been a part of the "art" category in my Google Reader set-up for a while now.

The profile, 'Equal opportunity offender', traces the 30-year old's young career and his slow migration into the center of the political spectrum, where he has developed a skill at skewering politicians on the left and right with a balanced, if jaundiced, eye.

The News Journal includes Mr. Tornoe's take on the Obama-Can't-Bowl flap, for example. I am a left-leaning cynic, so this cartoon's critical look at GW Bush's war and tactics, and the foolishness of the press, appeals to me. But I note that the cartoon also pokes fun, if gently, at Mr. Obama himself.

I grew up politically on the cartoons of the great editorialists like Oliphant. Theirs was a form of encapsulated commentary that included humor and an understanding of the absurdity of life and politics. Mr. Tornoe is a part of a new generation that is carrying that tradition forward but adding new tricks and twists.

It is good to see. And fun to read.

I Like it When Jon Stewart is Serious

For example, this evening as he wrapped his review of Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia:

"And so, at 11:00 a.m. on a Tuesday, a prominent politician spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults."

The Wall Street Journal posted the text of the speech as prepared for delivery. It's worth a read, given that none of the news shows are likely to play the whole thing.

Is This Who We Have Become?

I heard a story the other day that troubles me. Actually, it is more the reaction the story provoked that I find troubling. It says something about our tendency towards a "mobocracy."

The story was told to a group of civic leaders. It was about an issue before an elected body here in Delaware. The teller had been advocating an unpopular position to that elected body in a room filled with a raucous crowd in opposition. He reported that there was one person there who he knew agreed with him, but that person was afraid to speak up because of the vocal crowd.

He finished the story and the group all laughed. Open discourse on a public issue was stifled by fear of a mob and we found that funny.

It reminded me of some of the stories that have come out of the Indian River School District religion lawsuit. Families wanting to speak on an issue to the school board that is supposed to represent them were afraid of an angry mob.

It also brings to mind the very strong reaction that many folks had a few days back to what appears now to have been a doubtful report of anti-Islam/anti-Obama statements by an elementary school teacher. When folks thought that report was accurate, there were calls for direct, and rather stern, action against a school teacher. Subsequent reports that call the original into question got much less attention.

Are we a mob, ruled by our passions? That is not who we are meant to be. Yet recent events suggest that we may be on our way to becoming that mob.

I hope not. At the very least, I don't think it is funny.

Election Fun #2

The News Journal held an on-line straw poll today in preparation for the Iowa Caucuses.

On the Democratic side, Barack Obama edged-out Delaware's own Joe Biden by two votes. They were followed closely by Ms. Clinton and more distantly by John Edwards and a few other fellows.

On the Republican side, Ron Paul scored what looks like a decisive victory over Rudy Guiliani, followed by John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney was in fifth place. The Ron Paul win may be tainted by (very slight) hints of astro-turfing; someone posted the poll to Digg with the following note:

The Wilmington News Journal is sponsoring a virtual caucus for the state of Delaware. Ron Paul is trailing Rudy... let's make it happen!!

In the comments that followed, several supporters posted information on Delaware ZIP codes, which might have been useful in fooling the News Journal's polling system. Of course, this may only have been an attempt to get Delaware e-voters involved, and there's nothing to say that other candidates' supporters did or didn't try the same thing. But it looks a bit funny.

And let's not forget that there were only 4,696 votes cast. We probably shouldn't take this very seriously.

Election Fun #1

I was (only a little) surprised to find out today that there is a link to this blog from an unofficial "Mike Huckabee President 2008" blog. The Feedjit traffic feed widget I installed recently showed a click-through today from a post on that blog listing Other Bloggers on Mike Huckabee. That post is from last February. I had included some praise for Huckabee back then in a brief collection of some things I liked about some politicians.

I wonder if readers who've come here from there have had a look around the rest of the site and been horrified to find that I am, indeed, a left-wing, progressive liberal? I am, you know.

I did like what little I had heard from Huckabee at that point; he sounded like a reasonable fellow. There was never more than the slimmest possibility that I would have voted for him, though. And as the race among the Republicans has heated up, his rhetoric and positions have become more traditionally right-wing and evangelical. So...

But I do like him on a personal level.

Jud Bennett Got Me Thinking...

Note: This is a re-posting of a comment I made this morning over at First State Politics. Jud Bennett posted a Jud's Rant that touched a chord and led me to get some ideas out that I'd like to share here as well. I have done some slight re-writing, and added links, to help this stand on its own. Thanks for the inspiration, Jud!

I mostly agree with Jud Bennett's post this morning at First State Politics: How to make Blogging truly legitimate?

Frankly, I hate published anonymity, especially when people take mean spirited shots at others or about any significant issue.

I have made similar arguments in the past, but I have come to think there may be a legitimate place for what I think of as "somewhat anonymous" blogging.

The problem with forcing people to blog as themselves all the time is two-fold. First, it is forcing people to do something, which I'm not crazy about. And, second, the cloak of anonymity may, in certain circumstances, work to our advantage as readers.

I am not a Libertarian, though I place value on some libertarian precepts. I don't think we should have complete personal freedom tempered only by common sense and decency. Let's face it, some people are assholes. Some people are stupid. Some people are violent. Some are all three. There should be some laws and societal controls to help us temper our nasty habits.

This is part of why we have religion. This is part of why we have government and laws. This is why we have etiquette and shame.

But speech is not violence, or fraud, or thievery. Yes, there are many many anonymous dickheads on the internet who spoil discussions, deface news stories, and probably could use a good thumping. But we are not really hurt by their actions. Annoyed, yes. But not substantially harmed.

Meanwhile, there are people who can say things anonymously that they cannot say as themselves. Often these are things that are important and useful. Some may fear to speak before their employers or families. Some may also be so painfully shy as to be unable to participate fully as "themselves." And a little fogging of on-line identity helps us remove the old filters of race, sex, and nationality that can sometimes stand between a person's words and our understanding of those words.

There is an honorable history of anonymous (or pseudonymous) publication; the pamphlet Common Sense and The Federalist Papers spring to mind. There are others.

Also, while I may not know exactly who "Disbelief" is when he is at home, or who "LetMyPeopleKnow" is (though I have some suspicions), I have come to know them through their comments on blogs and the News Journal web site. There are many people I have "met" in this way on-line. When I see their comments they fit for me into a pattern and a history of discussion, and so I can make sense of their ideas (or know to discount them).

Some of these folks are people whose comments I read with interest; while I may disagree with them, I have respect for their thoughts. Some others I know, from past experience, to be trolls, fools, or jackasses. The point is, I can make a judgment, based on past knowledge. So, while I couldn't pick them out of a crowd, I do know who they are, on-line.

This is different from those who comment as "Anonymous." The postings of these people, who lack even the courage of a consistent nom-de-web, I hold in lower regard. Except, sometimes, an "Anon" will throw-in a very funny one-off line that makes me smile. (An exception? That rule must true)

I've written before about my personal credo, distilled from years of thought and study: "Try not to be an Asshole." (It looks like I tempered my language a bit in that posting) I try to let this guide my time on-line. I also use it as a yardstick against which to measure the comments of others.

We all have to make a choice about how to handle our on-line identity. I have chosen to always post and comment as Mike Mahaffie, or mmahaffie. Across all of the web. And, despite temptation from my dark side, I have not broken that vow since I made it (to myself) several years ago. Others have chosen and stuck with usernames (handles) and have established on-line identities under those names. I think there is a legitimate place for this approach.

I spend time on an on-line community called MetaFilter, where there are more pseudonymous users than not. The community of users, as it grows to know these people, learns who to trust, who to ignore, and who they should bother to argue with. When someone tries to "troll" a thread (start a fight, derail the discussion, etc.), they are fairly quickly quieted, either by being ignored (the best approach) or by comment-moderation (a fairly rare, but sometimes needed, form of policing).

Sometimes, they succeed in starting a fight and the community relearns an ancient lesson: "Don't feed the trolls."

We are human, and there will always be name-calling, mean-spirited insults, and deep, deep stupidity. It’s part of who we are. When we come together in communities, though, we tend to temper what is worst in us through all of the ancient mechanisms of community: mutual support and understanding, deference (and challenges) to wisdom, and the power of shame and disapproval. These mechanisms are different, on-line, but they are there.

So, while we should deplore the trolls, we should also avoid getting into needless fights with them. We must expect better of ourselves, and of others, but we lead best by example. Try not to be an asshole.

Our politics just now are very contentious. There will be fights. Let us try to make them about issues of substance. Here’s a rule we might try to agree on: any posting that uses pejorative terms about a political opponent (personally or as a group) should simply be ignored.

Think of all the blogs we would no longer have to read.

Philosophical Posts

A couple of philosophical posts out on the Delaware blogoscape have me thinking this evening.

Delaware Libertarian Steve Newton has a thoughtful and well-written post that I think outlines one of our national challenges rather neatly. Steve has found a new thing to say about the issue of immigration.

When I see a mass of illegals running for the border on CNN, that’s one thing.

When I see a fellow parishioner hold up a baby for christening, that’s another.

Exactly. We don't want uncontrolled immigration, but how can we not find fellow feeling with families who only want to live, work and worship here?

Meanwhile, Reverend Tom Starnes has a sad piece posted on the News Journal's Delaware Talk Back site. Tom had long resisted the often-repeated thought that "9/11 changed everything." But our nation's use of torture, of domestic spying, of imprisonment without trial have changed his mind.

So, yes, I concede the point: 9/11 has changed us, and not, I fear, for the better. My hope, and, yes, my prayer is that we haven't crossed too far over that line that has, except for a few blotches on the record, distinguished us as a free people and a moral leader for the whole world.

As for me, I will confess that the news of late out of Pakistan, where military ruler General Musharraf has recently suspended democracy and imprisoned his rivals, has me wondering "could that happen here?" I think not. I think that that would be fairly unlikely to happen here, and I take some comfort in that thought.

But a few years ago I would have said that the idea of that happening here was completely absurd. Now, I think, it is just unlikely.

And that change, from "absurd," to "unlikely," is a sad measure of how we have changed.

Time to Turn the Page

New York Times columnist Tom Friedman makes a good point today: 9/11 is over.

9/11 has made us stupid. I honor, and weep for, all those murdered on that day. But our reaction to 9/11 — mine included — has knocked America completely out of balance, and it is time to get things right again.

I think he's right. We cannot forget, but we mustn't endlessly dwell on 9/11. It's starting to change who we are, and not for the good.

Banned Books Week

Gulliver's Travels by Jonathon Swift
Originally uploaded by hatcher.library

The week of September 29 through October 6 is Banned Books Week. This is a week when those of us who read should remember those books that folks, for a wide variety of reasons, have tried to take out of our hands.

The list is long and diverse. Would-be censors right, left and center have all challenged books. The urge to stifle thought that we don't agree with is universal; we all have a duty to combat that urge within ourselves.

It is interesting to note that more than "banned" books, we now speak of "challenged" books. These are books that someone is trying to keep us from reading, either by banning or by raising an un-holy stink about them.

The American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom points to this quote from Ray Bradbury (author of Fahrenheit 451):

You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them.

Thus we see campaigns that complain loudly about certain books. They may or may not call for book-banning, but they all can lead librarians, teachers, parents and readers to shy away from certain books. And that is not good.

"Hello, Daily Delaware"

The person (or persons) blogging on Daily Kos as Delaware Dem has started a new, Kos-style Delaware political blog: Daily Delaware.

This should be interesting.

I've been toying with going back to more political content here, but I can't find much interest in myself to write about political things. It may be that we're too far from the actual primaries. And yet, I'm growing sick of the partisan bickering that has taken over so much of the political blogosphere in Delaware of late.

There's still a sense of camaraderie among the red and blue bloggers in the First State, but I'm seeing cracks. It feels like we're starting to stray from examining and solving problems towards "gotcha-style" stories and name-calling. Maybe I don't trust myself to rise above it?

In any case, I do take an interest in what's being said, even if I'm reluctant to wade-in very much myself. So I'll add Daily Delaware to my blog-roll and to my Google Reader and see what develops.

Sometimes Jon Stewart Isn't Funny

Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart interviewed author Stephen Hayes who has just published a biography of Vice President Dick Cheney and is an admirer of the Vice President. He makes an argument that Mr. Cheney is a straight-shooter and the kind of honest leader America needs more of. (I don't know how to avoid this awkward sentence ending)

Jon Stewart, as most folks know, is not an admirer of the Vice President. For most of the interview, he maintained his usual act of the polite, but sarcastic skeptic. Towards the end, though, when he asked why Cheney and the Bush team as a whole insists on attacking and denigrating those who question their war, rather than engaging in open and honest debate, Stewart drops his act and speaks from the heart.

"...stop making the rest of us feel like idiots when we question their strategy in the war on terror..."

"They've seemingly gone out of their way to belittle people..."

"They keep saying that we don't understand the nature of this war. And critics keep saying 'we understand the nature of it; you've been doing it wrong.'"

"I think there is a real feeling in this country that your patriotism has been questioned by people in very high-level positions. Not fringe people."

By this point Stewart is simply speaking as himself. At the end, he makes an attempt to return to his usual persona and goes out of his way to thank Hayes for his appearance.

Media Matters has more on this interview. There were several issues involved and they have more details on some of the personal attacks that Jon Stewart has faced.

But to me, this is one of those wonderful moments when John Stewart drops his clown act (which I like) and speaks with devastating honesty. He did it when he nailed Crossfire back in 2004.

I realize that the Daily Show satire is informative and affective, but I'd like to see him speak this way more often.

Happy Fourth of July

Tom has posted the text of the Declaration of Independence over at TommyWonk. The Fourth is always a good time to re-read this document and reflect on why and how our nation came into being.

This year, it's more than ever true.

I thought about posting earlier this week on the commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence. It does, after all, symbolize the state of our nation today.

I couldn't do it. I'm too depressed about where we've come to. I'm exasperated. I'm angry.

And yet there is a small germ of hope. People do protest. People do speak up. We may yet return to the ideals expressed in memorable prose 231 years ago.

Happy Fourth.