I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately. Strange to realize that three months have already passed since I first got the idea to start an online journal of my thoughts … a blog. I don’t remember where the idea even came from or how I ended up using WordPress’ software, but I have to admit – scrolling up and down the screen – there is a tiny sense of pride in how it has developed.

There was no method to the madness and I started out making a lot of mistakes that are now a pain in the ass to fix. For one thing, I still hadn’t looked at many other blogs so I didn’t know what all my options were or what I wanted my own blog to look like.

A pattern that I have noticed – and I am for sure no exception – is that when someone first starts a blog or website, they try to fill it up with as much flashy, shiny junk as possible to distract the reader from the obvious: that there is no content, no actual reason to visit. For example, all those little slideshow-like pictures on the other pages of this site. Some people have written to tell me they’re “cool,” but they are cool in the way that hypercolor shirts were cool in the 80′s. That is, not so cool. Really all they were was a quick way for me to make something (of really poor quality, overly contrasted, and pixelated) which would stand out on a page that basically says “I have started to make a website.”

So now my goal is to add more content and better formatting while taking away the junk. My favorite blog of late – Karenika – has given me a lot of food for thought when it comes to design and “blog philosophy.” ( I can’t believe I just wrote “blog philosophy”) Karenika is the blog of Karen, a Turkish New Yorker who recently moved to San Diego. It is updated daily, with a photograph, a comment about the photograph, and at times an (often short) post of her thoughts or life. Karenika is the shining example of the “less is more” adage. While my bio page still lurks around with barely a paragraph and a completely unrelated photograph that was nothing more than me trying to learn how to use a program, hers is creative, thorough, and informative. You understand enough to get a sense of where she is coming from and are left sufficiently intrigued to keep coming back to her blog every day. (the images are worth it – especially if your a San Diegan)

In her page about why she writes and what she likes to write and read on blogs, Karen says she’d rather learn about individual lives, individual thoughts and reflections, then hearing the same top ten news stories rehashed. Re-stating what has already been said is a tempting way to keep a blog. It’s easy (cut and paste), it gives you an authoritative sense of power (like a newspaper editor you get to decide what news makes it on and what gets left out), and people always want to share what they read with friends and a blog is an easy way to do so. But at the same time – it makes us play right in with what Chomsky and other media watchdogs have warned us about for years – very narrow, one sided media soundbyte frenzy. Chomsky puts it in a way that makes it sound like: They (whoever they are) want us to argue in depth about very narrow topics like “was it the ETA or Al Qaeda?” in order to keep our discussions away from the more important and encompassing themes of “why is there a rise in terrorism, exactly what are they against, what can be done to make a more peaceful post-Soviet world?” For me there is something slightly exagerrated about the degree of conspiracy between media moguls, government politicians, the FBI, and CIA in Chomsky’s argument. I think more than anything, media magnates want to make money and they know that soundbytes and trivial arguments sell better than six hour PBS specials about the history of American involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq. They know that the average American would much rather argue for 5 minutes – over a budweiser with some friends at a bar – whether it was Al Qaeda or the ETA rather than talk until five in the morning about what are the roots of both organizations and what they are after and how a resolution can be reached.

I subscribe to the New York Times online. Unlike Chomsky and so many of the NY Times’ critics on both sides of the spectrum, I think that it is the best source of news and political discussion in the United States. From the first to the last page (or byte in my case) there is an overwhelming amount of quality information and opinion … but, usually you have to search for it. It is telling in how they format their daily “Today’s Headlines” email. First there are the Three Top Stories with catchy headlines and provocative one line summaries underneath. Then there is a Quotation of the Day. That is all that fits on your computer monitor – you would have to scroll down to see the other sections and stories, which I have a hunch most don’t do. And even if they did, the email only contains about half of what you could find at the site or in the newspaper. So with three short summaries and a quotation of the day, the NY Times is already constructing an outline with which we will fill in and around with the rest of the soundbytes we hear throughout the day to make hallway conversation with.

Here is a telling quotation of the day from this past Saturday morning when most Americans first heard of the Madrid terrorist attacks:

“It doesn’t matter who’s to blame. They are all a bunch of terrorists. One does it for God, the other because they think they have a purer blood line.”
Jesus Miguel Gomez, at a demonstration in Madrid.

And right away this is our first impression of what Spaniards must think about the tragedy that took place in their country. That they are in agreement with George Bush, that all terrorists are the same, that their “reasons” are really nothing more than excuses for evil. “One does it for God,” obviously referring to Al Qaeda – now that is an interesting observation. It’s a great topic to start a great conversation – why is Al Qaeda killing people in the name of God? How does this differ from other religions that have killed in the name of God in the past? Is their a connection? Is there a theological difference between the Muslim philosophy of Al Qaeda and other “types” of Muslims. Is Islam becoming more conservative or is there a more dominant pattern of conservativism rising around the world? If this is true, why? What are Al Qaeda’s demands? What peace processes have been initiated and why have they failed? You will not find any of those questions nor their answers on the front page of the New York Times. But they will parrot conclusions like “they do it for God” without investigating into any of those themes or even citing books and researchers that do.

“the other because they think they have a purer blood line.” An equally interesting statement. The ETA is blowing up trains because they want autonomy from Spain because they thing their blood is purer. For many Americans, this is their first introduction into the “Basque Movement:” an ethnic group of Norther Spaniards with their own culture and language that has sought sovereignty from Spain for decades. (could be centuries – I am just as uninformed about the Basque) The statement “… because they think they have a purer blood line” insinuates that they are planting these bombs because of a fear that Basque women will procreate with non-Basque men. As I said, I’m no expert, but I find such a conclusion incomplete if not far-fetching. Who are the Basque? How and why were they incorporated into Spain? What is their history of resistance? What exactly does the ETA call for? What peace-making efforts have been made and why have they failed? Are the Basque an isolated and rare example of an ethnic group or minority violently reacting against their governement or is this just another example of the opressed rising up against a nationalist hegemony? What distinguishes the Baque of Spain from the Zapatistas of Mexico, the Mayans of Guatemala, the Kurds of Iraq, the Tibetans of China, the Chechyns of Russia, the Aboriginals of Australia, the Maori of New Zealand, and any minority of the United States or any other country? Have comparitive studies of minority resistences been done? What makes some violent and others peaceful? Is there a larger problem with Nationalism? Should countries keep seceding based on ethnic, cultural, and linguistic lines or should those things be forgotten in place of strong national identity? Or neither, should multi-culturalism be the focus, allowing for a plurality of cultures, beliefs, and languages with concepts of tolerance and respect receiving the most attention?

Of course these are all questions straight out of a Poli Sci 101 class, but they are questions that go unasked after we scribble out our finals, they are questions that newspapers would rather stay away from and which professors rarely have the time to write on because there is such university pressure to specialize.They are questions which are difficult to answer and even more difficult to discuss.

Finally, he’s getting to a point

Which is why a blog and a forum are such valuable tools to use to discuss such important questions. The forum especially allows for a place to articulately and respectfully lay out your thoughts, your opinions, your struggles, your questions. It’s a place to investigate what otherwise goes unsaid and a place to help each other answer the questions we have. (usually only to come to more questions)

So to answer the title of this post, that is where the blog is heading. In the years ahead I want to make it more journalistic. Not to re-hash the one line summaries that we all hear every day (there are a billion places to find those – some of the resources are listed under “Where I get my news”) but rather to dig deeper, to find the significance beneath them.

I’ve always had a two part approach to that process. First I read and observe and second I discuss. The blog is where I will write (and post photographs) about what I read and observe. And the forum is where I would like to discuss – not just my observations, but everyone who is a part of this. I want the forum to be a place of substance of significance. A place where conversations take place that make us feel alive, about the things that really matter to us.

Of course there is always a balance. We can’t be serious, museful, and investigative all the time – that can be exhausting … and boring. In fact, to those readers who don’t know me, they would be surprised to meet me in real life and see just how immanture, carefree and playful I am. I couldn’t begin to tell you how many people ask me (usually frustrated) “aren’t you ever serious?” Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

But this is my place to be serious, to be sincere, and to figure out what the hell is going on. I hope that you will help me.