Although I have been an active participant on the Internet for the past 17 years, I have never "blogged" in that time.  At least not in the official sense of having a "blog" and maintaining the content.  Frankly, I found the concept quite narcissistic and was turned off to the idea.  Not that I do not possess a good amount of narcissism myself.  I just didn't feel compelled to put it on display for others to criticize.  

As the popularity of the Internet gained momentum, there was a lot of excitement as to the potential grassroots applications to be explored.  Concepts such as the development of a global community  to bridge the gaps in perception and understand of differing cultures was common.  Another was the democratization of national discourse.  The public would no longer be limited to receiving information pushed on them through one-way communications such as TV and radio or relying on simple letter writing campaigns to their representatives to express their views on government representation.  Now the public had, at their disposal, the means to directly connect with like minded individuals and create coalitions with more influence than the individual.  Access to great deal of information was now available to form educated opinions and hold institutions and individuals accountable.  Cost effective means were possible for discourse between individuals of all backgrounds to discuss issues.

It was a nice dream..... In some cases it may have even been realized.  But what appears to have evolved is less a form of open community and accountability and more of a fracturing into volatile echo chambers where participants are more interested in hearing what they already believe rather than seeking out information on its merits of accuracy.  I am guilty of this myself.  Who doesn't want to prop up their views.  It is far more comfortable to believe that we are on the right side of an issue than to question it.  And comfort is exactly what is being offered.  If one article states a view contrary to our own views, we find one that supports it and call it right.  

I am fascinated with the breakdown in online discourse that I read today.  Maybe it is the detachment that is created by computers and cables that promotes this degradation in civility.  Maybe it is the anonymous nature of many of these sites that allows people to say things they normally wouldn't say in person.  Whatever the reason, it seems to be getting worse.

When I worked for one of the first online communities, The WeLL, there was an unofficial motto that most members knew and many reiterated: "You own your own f***ing words."  What was meant by this was that user profiles were available to all members and anonymity was limited.  They were accountable for the words they posted and could not hide behind a wall of anonymity.  Very spirited debate still exisited, but it seems to me ,looking through the lens of retrospect, that there was far more civility involved.

This site (blankstare.org) was created for a number of purposes.  The first of which is my own obsession with the world of politics and a strong belief that for democratic goverance to succeed, people need to be informed and involved.  Otherwise we no longer have a democracy and turn over the reins to the powerful elite (which, I would argue, is where we are heading).

The second reason is that I have decided to use this opportunity to turn this into a graduate school project that looks at online discourse.  I will be applying several theories in sociology and rhetoric to web design and analysis.  It will be an ongoing project that may not have and end, but I am sure will produce some interesting results.

But mostly I just wanted a place that I could attempt to foster the kind of environment that I believe is necessary today and an alternative to what I judge to be a broken system of self serving echo chambers that is perpetuating greater division amoung people.  This works well for the elites in charge, but it doesn't serve the people of the republic well.

As disclosure, I will admit that my political ideology falls closer to the liberal end of the spectrum.  But as with any ideology, one lable is insufficient for capturing one's belief structure and value system.  For example, I own guns and am critical of what the unions have become.  That being said, I want nothing more than to encourage multiple perspectives and discussion.  What I insist on, however, is that these discussions adhere to certain guidelines.

1. Keep comments civil

2. Refrain from personal attacks

3. Stay on topic

4. Back-up assertions with data (or at least admit when it is based on opinion)

This post has already gone too long and I am certain most will not read until the end. 

Please feel free to make comment and suggestions.  This is a work in progress and I need your help to make it work.

Thanks