Polis Under Construction

A few hours ago, Obama’s campaign manager sent out an email suggesting the campaign was close to announcing a running mate, and inviting their entire email list to be notified when this is announced.

You can read the letter here.

The notification part is what interests me.  They obviously want everyone to know about the decision, without having to wait for the news to filter through the press and the hardcore “I check his site every day” supporters, perhaps hoping for yet another burst of donor support.  They even go to the extent of offering an instant text message update.

That in itself raises interesting possibilities.  Obama’s campaign has built itself up through the use of email lists meticulously collected at rallies from supporters who signed up for more information.  These lists are refined and correlated with users who visit the site, donate, and volunteer.  Reportedly, they now boast one of the best datasets on Democratic supporters that exists, data that can be used to aid other campaigns.

Now, they’re going to have millions of phone numbers.  Millions of cell phone numbers possessed by those young people most difficult to target in polling, least likely to have a land line, and most likely to support Obama.

Of course, the backlash to a campaign that did anything untoward with this information would be horrendous.  But since 7:17 PM, the Obama campaign has been compiling what may become one of the most valuable lists in politics.

Talkorgins.org, U. of Berkeley, and the National Academy of Sciences has put together what they title “A Survey of Public Understanding of Evolution.”  It’s quick, easy, and offers the possibilty of a look at the data when it’s all wrapped up.  Go to it.

I’ve noticed murmurs for a while that the major problem faced was public perception/inaccurate conceptions of evolution; this looks to be the newest way to respond.

I’ve been blogging, off and on, for a while now.  I enjoy it a lot; it’s great to put words out there, find little pieces of information, and watch people flock to them.  There’s a reason I keep coming back.  Of course, there’s a reason I keep leaving as well.

I’ve tried several times.  Originally, I treated it as an anonymous, personal space.  I mixed anecdotes and subtle references to offline friends with generic political opinion.  It was fun, but it didn’t really keep me interested.  It takes a certain level of arrogance to think that others want to know your minutiae, and political opinion is easy to find online.

So I tried again.  I’m fascinated by politics, especially on a macro level, and the interactions it has with society.  I stripped out a lot of personal navel gazing and dug for stories that seemed to receive less attention, looking for patterns.  The series of public protests that occurred in the Ukraine, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, and Burma were remarkable to me, especially for their limited successes in Ukraine, Lebanon, Kyrgyzstan, and recently Nepal.

But massive public participations heralding a possible rejuvenation of democracy only happen so often.  If 2-3 posts are going up every day it’s too easy to devolve into the same old echo chamber much of the blogging community seems to be.  There are excellent blogs, and I enjoy reading several regularly.  But, it seems that too often a blog becomes little more than a news aggregator; collecting and distributing bits on cute animals, technology news, and (US) politics with personal opinions attached.

That, I think, is what ended my blogging in the past.  We already have news aggregators, better ones than a one man blog could ever be.  And I have an inherent distrust of the packaging of opinion as a unique product.  If that is all that a blog is adding to a story it ripped from the New York Times (while criticising the media for hiding the story), I don’t see why I shouldn’t go there instead, unless the blogger adds some special experience or perspective.  If I’d rather read a primary source, how can I expect readers to come to me?

For the most part, the blogging community, though, apart from a few high profile writers, does little more than pass around stories grabbed from someone else.  There is a reason that people like Lessig, Doctorow, Mankiw, Scoble, and Drudge have the success they do.  They either have the experience to provide perspective or information that can’t easily be found elsewhere.  A blogging community that revolves around a few high profile sources does not live up to its claims that it democratizes media.  Access is certainly far better when anyone can get online and publish, but that benefit is lost if everyone is posting the same thing.

This isn’t the way it should be. Read the rest of this entry »