Journal Response:

Deliberative Democracy and Difference
By Mark Kann
Design by Alessandro Ceglia

The article Deliberation Democracy & Difference is a complete definition of what it means to have a deliberation of democracy. Mark Kann, the creator of the article uses the internet as his example. He demonstrates in the beginning of his article why the internet is an opportunity for citizens to communicate and deliberate in a forum free from the barriers of sexuality, race, stereo types, etc. I couldn’t help but think romanic thoughts about the opportunity the internet does create while reading Mark’s article. I do believe it to be a magical place where anything is possible. I truly feel the internet embodies America with it’s opportunities. However, I believe Mark uses it to demonstrate just how emotionally charged people are even in-spite of removing major barriers like sexuality and race.

I think Mark Kann’s main point through the article is to demonstrate how people cannot deliberate of deep rooted issues like religion and truth. People are stuck on their differences. He examines both the good and the evil that is derived from these dot.com forums. The corruption he claims is the lack of human respect. A internet forum cannot take the time to deliberate and find common ground if people are not restrained. There must be rules and respect in a discussion if the group is to reach a conclusion.

I believe there is a definite benefit that is possible if people where more serious about taking control away from formal institutions and political leaders. The dot.com sites have created the opportunity for this to become a reality but we are not rational people and I think Mark explains why.

Mark outline the exact steps that need to be taken to take back America and our rights as citizens of the world. He started by showing us how it was once, and how it could be again. However we must follow the steps if we want to deliberate about democracy, but he continues to have the reader participate in a series of exercises. What I took away from them was that these issues cannot seem to be discussed with rational thinking because the belief structure of people today is so diverse. What seems ok for one person, is a complete abomination to another. For example Mark uses gay marriage as an exercise. On one hand a believer of God would argue that it is wrong, whereas not all people believe in God or a God. It is issues like this that makes stops citizens from being able to be rational about things and issues. One feels the other is wrong. Here is the problem.