So after reading bits of Dr. Crazy's blog, she really got me thinking about our online personae, and not just on blogs. When I created my own blog for the class, I didn't bother to come up with a pseudonym, I just post under Kristen. I figured that my in-class contributions would pretty much echo what my blog was said, so there wasn't really an alter-ego being created. I suppose I could have had fun confusing people by being one person in class and another online, but chose not to for a variety of reasons.

And yet, like Gabe, I like posting under my own name. Now, I don't really have anything to protect at this point that my blog might threaten, but I think that also has to do with the intended utility of a blog. For my own sake, it serves me better to be publicly accountable for what I've written. It doesn't make me less raw, I just think more. It makes me try to develop my argument better, I try harder to maintain a decent and painless style of writing.

Sometimes, there will be posts like this one which are more emotional than intellectual, but that's okay on this space because I don't feel (at this point) that I've misrepresented myself. I'd welcome anyone to come up and talk to me in person about what I've written here. I don't feel the need to force people to comment solely on my blog, admiring or despising from afar under their own pseudonyms. It seems too easy to just smile knowingly as people chitchat by the watercooler about you, or be invisible and protected if the comments are disparaging. If you've got so much to say, why shouldn't you allow people to talk to and about you freely?

This may not apply to people like Dr. Crazy, because, as she's said, hers is an alter-ego. She doesn't seem to believe the blog represents her completely, just a part. There really is no other way to allow discourse that isn't filtered through her blog, because that's the only level the alter-ego exists on.

And then there are the people who have so many alter-egos, you'd think they have a personality disorder. I won't even go into that, because for the most part I think it's a load of rubbish and I'm not about to waste your patience venting.

P.S.

I'm sure you've all seen it already, but Colin's assessment of the bipartisan future is hilarious.

So where do we go from here?

"As the extent of the shift of power in Congress and state capitals around the country becomes increasingly clear, Americans want to believe that the country has turned a page, that the election's decisive verdict in favor of change will elicit a different course, not only from the victorious Democrats but also from the defeated Republicans in Congress and the White House." - Edward P. Haley in his article "Replacing Rumsfeld: an opportunity missed" published 11/012/06 in the San Francisco Chronicle

It's true. I really want to believe that, I'd really like to.

It's only been a wee 5 years since I started following contemporary politics, and yet, since I can remember, imagining a bipartisan future was equivalent to believing that communism actually worked. Nice in theory, a joke in practice. If anything, the shift in Congressional power just signals a reaffirmation of the checks-and-balances system, which has been been somewhat undermined by the Bush administration's abuse of the executive branch. I wouldn't go so far as to say that America as a whole has turned a page. When Haley says Americans want to believe that, he really means liberal Americans.

Speaking of liberal-conservative-independent...

I've always known where I stood in the lib-conserv gradient. But as a student who doesn't really have much of a hand in policy-making, that stance matters little compared to the one taken by a certain senator. Or not, since I find it hard to figure out exactly what stance that is lately. Independent-Democrat, to me, seems like an oxymoron, but then again I'm only an English major. And we all know rhetoric and labels really don't mean anything in the grand scheme of politics.

I'm hoping everyone can tell that my tongue has burst through my cheek.

It's easy to make fun of Lieberman for a lot of things, but let's take another look in relation to the new Democratic face of Congress. I'm not sure Lieberman stands as the best example of this bipartisan ideal; most of the time he seems like he's just trying to save his own neck. But in the absence of anyone else, he'll have to do. Wouldn't the embrace of bipartisanship mean trying to satisfy as many Americans as possible, so that more people are happy with legislation than ever before, and the country could be considered more unified, or at least better represented by its government domestically and internationally? If his new brand of politicking inspires his peers, and leads to more compromise between parties, then he might be on to something. In this most recent election, Connecticut, by sticking with Joe, might be championing this new approach.

Too bad it's only good in theory.

Still Thinking (ouch)

So after tonight's discussion about ethics, advertising, and whatnot with blogs, I happened to wander over to my guilty pleasure Penny Arcade. For today's post/comic he brought up an issue that resonated with me not only because of the class, but because of my interest in publishing, which I hope to go into. He touches upon a poor review for a specific video game posted to a prominent gaming website, its subsequent pull, and the effect that it had on the editors. It made me think about the evolution of media and technology, and what would have happened if the article just came out in old fashioned print form. Never having read that magazine, odds are that I never would have heard about the review controversy, or even the game. But in the blogosphere, not only can I learn about all that, I can hear about the editorial process and response in a timely and direct manner that I'm less accustomed to hearing from a corporate-type production. Jeff Green's blog on the matter, and the subsequent responses, creates a really interesting account of how a journalistic 'my-bad' turned into a blogger conversation on editing, deleting, and apologizing.

REALLY OFFENSIVE

Digging around for some random funny blogs, I also encountered some really, horrible, gutwrenching ones. I know that's such a tease, but I'm not going to link because I think they should be left with as little attention as possible. Think generally, cruelty to animals, rape, racism, ransom.

This is why I turn to traditional media outlets more than blogs in order to get my fill of the outside world. I'm not going to have to see concoctions like that. There are regulations. Yes, I know in a way I am limiting my information intake, and that will give me a skewed world view yada yada. Is it really wrong to self-filter like that? Am I doing a disservice to the community in general if I do not address the very real (and frightening) potential of some of my peers?

What the internet as a whole, and the blogosphere in particular, have done, is make the circulation of such material a popular way of garnering attention. Dealing with it puts you between a rock and a hard place. Incendiary material of this nature doesn't deserve to be pushed into the limelight, but how do you make people care enough to get to the root of it without that attention? Or should you just let it lie and hope people have enough good sense to ignore it?

Freedom of Blogging and Freedom of Speech

I'm not about to go into the ethics of changing a person's post, because offhand I think it's practice that the blogging community should (and for the most part does) decry. More important, I think, is framing the rules of a particular blog, or whether or not that should be done at all.

I think people (bloggers being particularly prone) forget that while the blogosphere is NOT the real world, it does play a part in it. Blog flamers, MMORPG bullies (this is probably a terrible link), or even road rage - without a face, it's hard to remember the humanity. It's easier to revert to savageness in that state, or become a vandal.

If you don't claim to be someone worth paying attention to, then I guess you can be as much of a jackass as you like. But the very nature of blogging would suggest that you'd like at least a little bit to be in/famous.

This site that Brenda linked was a good jumping off point, I think. He tries to make the distinction between personal blogs and journalistic blogs. Many of the most popular blogs though, are simply purveyors of information, like those old-fashioned newsies, shouting at the top of their lungs. But now, there's no telling what stories they're selling, or for who, or why they're doing it.

Going back to the whole wikipedia debate, the same dillema is being played out. Wikipedia, pure and simple, is not an encyclopedia in the old fashioned sense (duh - but wait, I'm not done). It's an amalgamation of the collective knowledge that the community it attracts has put together. By trying to give it laws and police it, the Wikileaders suggest that it could be managed enough to be a credible source to curious minds. However, doing so undermines the nature of the collective effort - as if to say, "We value the promotion of the collectively understood truth, except for yours and yours and yours..." I get why, I hate trolls and flamers and idiot population in general too. But they're still part of the group. By taking the stance they have now, Wikipedia fails as a perfectly democratic outlet, and also a highly credible information source.

But I'm still going to read it.

Because it doesn't fail at being proponent of information. I'm of the opinion that you can only value freedom if you also value respect. And the thing is, a lot of people don't. So there is a need for rules. Even the most frustrating of arguments ought to be allowed in a public forum, so long as it is in a respectful and articulate form. Yeah, that's really subjective. But I also believe that there are people who are capable of making that distinction - it's just that finding them can be hard. I think these guys have done a decent job over the years, even if they don't get it right the first time. Blogs, in theory, should try and conduct themselves under the same general guidelines.