Traveling from downstate to upstate

I have a couple of thoughts based on things that have been in the paper lately, but I will save them for tomorrow. In the meantime, I will write a quick entry about how I think I'm beginning to understand, at least slightly, why there is a rift between upstate and downstate. I'll focus on driving, since that's something everyone above and below the canal is used to.

As I've mentioned more than once, drivers downstate are a little slower and tend to drive the speed limit on both lanes of the highway. After being down here for a few months now, I probably have started driving slower as well. Upstate, however, the drivers are maniacs. I was up in Wilmington over the weekend to enjoy the Patriots-Giants game with some friends up there and upon getting on 95, I was surprised at how fast people were going (and I was still going faster than the pace of traffic).

What was funny, to me anyway, was that I thought to myself that downstate drivers aren't nearly as reckless. Granted, some of these nuts were probably out-of-state, but still. Fast downstate is like 60 in a 50, as compared to 90 in a 55 upstate. Thankfully, I adjusted quickly and was able to get to my destination without any incidents. It's no wonder that most of downstate drivers appear to never want to travel beyond Kent or Sussex County. And now, I see why it's no wonder that upstate drivers hate the way downstate drivers drive and vice versa.

Tomorrow or next time I'm going to write about this Lockmeath and Wal-Mart intersection and why Dover should think about closing off more intersections and move toward a more limited access thruway system. And why the Levy Court or city of Camden needs to adjust the intersection within the Camden Walmart property.

Tags: driving in delaware

Counterpoint: There is value in anonymity

This letter to the editor appeared in the November 28, 2007 edition of the Delaware State News on page 8. It appears to be a direct counterpoint to another letter to the editor (posted in its entirety here). My personal views are more in line with this author's. Maybe he will chime in and give his thoughts since he beat me to the punch in the paper.

There is Value in Anonymity
Andrew Alea, Dover, Delaware

Having followed the growth of internet communications, I read with interest Judson Bennett's letter ("Require bloggers to name themselves," Nov. 22). I, too, wonder how effective and influential anonymous speech or this "blogging phenomenon" can be. One conclusion is certain: there is value in anonymity.

In exercising my "worldwide expressions of opinion on the Internet," I respectfully disagree with Mr. Bennett's written points, particularly with his general belief that all anonymous commentary represents cowardice. Granted, some anonymous comments are inflammatory and generally uneducated. Others reflect more reasoned thought and value. In the end, all are merely exercises in public speech. Whether they are in so-called "anonymous Delawarean" blogs or by Delawareans or other citizens in anonymous or signed comments (either printed or online), the comments are afforded protection under the First Amendment.

I am neither going to attempt to give a history lesson on the freedom of speech, or give as an example the eighteenth century papers, published under anonymous pseudonyms, that received mass public attention in support or against ratification of the U.S. Constitution. Certainly Mr. Bennett did not mean to include those persons as "gutless phonies," although I am sure his position existed back then as well. Rather, I will simply quote from the U.S. Supreme Court in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission to support my point of why his view is too narrow: "The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible. Whatever the motivation may be, at least in the field of literary endeavor, the interest in having anonymous works enter the marketplace of ideas unquestionably outweighs any public interest in requiring disclosure as a condition of entry."

Mr. Bennett's efforts at creating a more productive discourse by prohibiting free speech in these new "literary endeavors," while perfectly within his right to do so, misses the point behind the practice. Signing your name to something does not equate to legitimacy any more than by using a pseudonym. Any reader of online commentary recognizes the value differences in commentaries that are fraudulent, libelous, or otherwise uninformed and spiteful with those that are not. At the very least, if Mr. Bennett (or anyone else) is offended by or disagrees with a published comment, he should post the counterpoint on the same forum, which should publish it. Otherwise, the public has only one opinion and Mr. Bennett's hope for a "level of true legitimacy and a high standard that would be honorable and respected" has no hope of existing.

The point of anonymous free speech, according to McIntire, is to protect "unpopular individuals from retaliation-and their ideas from suppression-at the hand of an intolerant society." Mandating disclosure, as Mr. Bennett proposes, overlooks the value of anonymity.

Tags: andrew alea blogging letter, anonymous speech protected in delaware

Point: Require Bloggers to Name Themselves

This commentary/letter to the editor was printed in the November 22, 2007 edition of the Delaware State News on page 7. In a two sentence summary, Judson Bennett argues that the only way for blogging to achieve a level of true legitimacy is for bloggers to identify themselves in their posts and commentary. According to Mr. Bennett, any anonymous blog or post (by virtue of its anonymity) is crap. I disagree, mainly because the implication of his position lumps this blog into the mix, despite my attempts at insightful commentary.

Consequently, I'll gladly debate the merits of this issue, and please feel free to post a comment for me to respond to if it's really a bigger issue than I think. Similarly, I'll gladly provide a link to his blog on this blog (turnabout, however, is fair play). Further commentary (although not the actual letter) is posted on this blog.

Require Bloggers to Name Themselves
Judson Bennett, Lewis, Delaware

The blogging phenomenon has reached a whole new level, and it is indeed addictive. It's a worldwide expression of opinion on the Internet, and it is interesting. I like it myself, and I do definitely participate. This remarkable situation definitely gives folks a venue to share opinions. However, I wonder how effective these venues are in changing people's minds, or if indeed they are truly influential?

The owners of some local Delaware blogs, Delaware folks like Dave Burris, Mike Mathews, Dana Garrett, Jason and others, are actually pure editorialists-interesting, amusing, irritating and provocative. They are much like weekly columnists in newspapers, with the exception of the comment sections. Herein lies the huge rub for me. When I write something, I do it as me-Judson Bennett. When I comment on someone else's blog, I do it as me, Judson Bennett. You know who I am and I take real responsibility for what I say.

Frankly, I hate published anonymity, especially when people take mean-spirited shots at others or about any significant issue. Those who write anything using a "handle" are cowards. Many of these people are, in reality, terrified, insignificant little pipsqueaks who make themselves feel 10 feet tall when they can say whatever they want, while hiding behind a pseudonym. I equate these jerks to some weak sister who gets behind the wheel of a car and suddenly becomes an omnipotent aggressive driver. Otherwise, they would be terrified to open their mouths, because in reality, they do not have the courage of their convictions.

When anybody writes something, they should be required to use their real names or not be permitted to blog. It's that way when someone writes a letter to the editor in a newspaper. The person's name, address and phone number are required by the paper before the comments are published. People who speak or write anonymously are fake, what they say is fake, and it should not ever be given any value or even be presented in the first place. In order to make blogging reach a true level of legitimacy, real names should be required in the comment section.

The bottom line is that those of you who comment, using your real names, are indeed courageous and legitimate citizens who deserve a lot of credit for speaking out. The rest of you handle-users are nothing more than gutless phonies who pump yourself up by throwing darts from the darkness. I challenge the blog owners of the world to make your operations absolutely significant by requiring those who log in to provide their real names before commenting. Indeed, then, blogging would achieve a level of true legitimacy and a high standard that would be honorable and respected.

Tags: judson bennett blogging letter, blogs should not be anonymous

Governor's avenue - worst drivers yet

I hate to be so cynical at this time of year, but I started taking Governor's avenue to get around the slower parts of Dover and it's the most ridiculous road I've seen yet in this capital city. Not only are the drivers nuts, they have the incredible penchant for stopping in the middle of the street, or cutting across the other lane to turn without any indication. As an added bonus, not only do you have to pay attention to that, you have to pay attention to any of the walkers who also just cross the street without seemingly paying any attention. It's a mad mad mad world.

Speaking of which, and this is going to be a separate couple of posts over the next couple of days, I finally have time to type in these blogging entries that were in the State News a few weeks ago. Since there is no way to access them, I figure it's in the interest of free speech and the State News's philosophy to provide additional access to them. I also tend to think that these "sound off" or "letters to the editor" aren't covered by any sort of copyright laws, but if they are, I'm sure someone will go out of their way to inform me.

Tags: dover drivers, delaware drivers

Desk drawer veto bill

I saw an article yesterday that merits a quick comment. I would link the article, but I can't figure out the State News's new website. They say they are all for free speech and free ads, but without any free substance, it's hard to say what type of audience they are targeting. Unfortunately, I couldn't find this particular article on the News Journal's (arguably equally as bad) website either, but I did find two blog entries about the desk drawer veto currently at issue in our capital: Delaware Watch and First State Politics. There's also some opinion article from the News Journal about the issue here.

My point about this particular article has nothing to do with the desk drawer veto but rather, a simple question of voting. In the article, it states (perhaps overly so), that "Sen. Ennis noted that he voted for a House bill in June - while he still was a member of the chamber - that would subject the General Assembly to [the State's Freedom of Information Act], excluding party caucuses." Does this mean he voted on the bill that passed in the House, and now (by comedy of coincidences) can now vote on that same bill as a Senator?

Granted, this is probably not the case, and I'm just throwing it out there as an interesting hypothetical. First, I am assuming that Sen. Ennis had voted on this bill while he was in the House, and it passed in the House before the Senate sat on it, and now it is still eligible to be passed in the Senate. If these assumptions are correct, and Sen. Ennis votes on it and it now passes by a narrow majority, isn't this sort of cut against the one man, one vote concept?

More than likely, I am reading too into this whole article, and I'm certainly no expert on how bicameralism works in Delaware. In all likelihood, the Senate will simply pass another bill and avoid the gray issues. If my assumptions are correct, however, it certainly makes this much more interesting to follow. If I decide to form an opinion about the whole desk drawer veto issue, perhaps I will write about it at another point.

Tags: desk drawer veto, delaware local politics

Loockerman exchange closes

I heard on the radio this morning that the "world famous" Loockerman Exchange (also self-referred to as "the Lex") has closed its doors. Having visited this establishment a couple of times, I find this as no surprise. Rather than kick a man while he is down, however, I will point out what likely businesses would succeed in that prime piece of commercial real estate.

A few thoughts. First, there needs to be some sort of take out lunch place, like a Panera bread. I think even a local chain like Purebread Deli would do well. Or a Starbucks. In either case, part of that property would need to have that aspect to it in order to make money off the Dover lunch crowd.

I'll even tell you the key to success for any of these restaurants: Lunch under 60 minutes. Too many restaurants in Dover (the late Loockerman included) take far too long to serve your food. Most jobs don't appreciate taking lunch breaks that last longer than an hour (which includes driving). I thought that was a given, but there seems to be a shortage of restaurants in Dover that understand that concept. The non-exhaustive list, from my experience, includes: Lobby House, The Lex, 33 West, Smithers, and TGI Fridays, to name a few downtown. 33 West is the fastest of all of them by about 15 minutes (on a good day).

The second type of business that would succeed in the other half of this space would be a English pub, similar to Catherine Rooneys in Trolley Square or Kid Schellens. I also think an Iron Hill would do well down in Dover. My point is that these bars, unlike Lobby House or Smithers or Buffalo Wild Wings, could target a different crowd and capture an untapped market. Or they could segment the market. Either way, it's all about brand identity, of which the "world famous" Lex did not have.

While the article above cites to construction as costing them revenue, I find this excuse to be more of a red herring. The reason why that business failed is largely due to its business strategy (or lack thereof) and failure to understand the Dover market. I don't purport to say that I am an expert on these issues, but I do know that no business is going to work in that location unless it has multiple draws to get people to come back downtown at night. Parking is a whole other issue.

Perhaps if this new business worked with area businesses such as the Schwartz Center or Dover Downs, it could more effectively reach a more diverse market willing to part with both their time and hard earned money. I, for one, can't wait to see what business will try and succeed there next.

Winter weather sets in and slow drivers

Unfortunately, this weather doesn't do too much other than make my electric bill higher. I went down to the beach over the weekend to do some Christmas shopping and am amazed by the lack of shoppers (as compared to Dover, where it's easier to exit the mall on 13 and get on Rt. 1 south to go south than fight the lights.

Why is it that drivers passing on the right (as they should) don't speed up to pass, but instead, choose to go one mile an hour faster than the car they are passing, and hence, slow down everyone else who is trying to get to where they are going? Sometimes I wish I was in a marked police car so that I could flash my lights and get them to clear the roadway. Maybe that's what the Camden and Dover police (and state police for that matter) should be doing from 4-6 PM on major routes instead of allowing painfully slow drivers to impede the progress of one's ride home.

Nothing else this time other than a mild complaint about the weather. I have recently had the opportunity to check out the movie theater in Dover (at the mall) as well as the movie theater at the beach, and without question, the $9 at Rehoboth is far worth it compared to the $8.50 at Dover. There is no describing how terrible the Dover Mall Carmike theater is, other than awful.

Old Delaware Days

I've been pretty busy lately, but I did have a chance to go to the Old Dover Days celebration last week and got a brief tour of the Old State House grand reopening. Apparently it is going to be open to the public; it's a pretty historic building (as most buildings on the Green are), and I recommend visiting it to everyone. More about the building's history was written in an earlier article in the State news and on the State's history website.

Inside, the building has been restored to its original colors and you can see the governor's side, the old court, and the House and Senate chambers. There is also a giant painting of George Washington. Overall, I believe the historic society did a superb job fixing this up. Now, to get someone to reopen the Golden Fleece Tavern (either in its original location or somewhere near Legislative Hall and we'll be set. More information about the Golden Fleece Tavern and other historic sites around the Green are linked here.

My hectic schedule should be settling down again this week; I have plenty to talk about, starting with an interesting couple of blogging comments that were in the paper the other day. I still haven't found them online, but they appear pretty short, so I'll put them online soon and add my two cents in.

Tags: dover historic landmarks, old state house delaware