I've really enjoyed blogging on Posterous. But the system has encouraged more "what Erik's doing" blogging as opposed to "what Erik thinks about" blogging.
Of course, in addition to the new system, I now have a new job as the Executive Director of a non-profit, and that makes me a little more reticent to spout off. If I express that I am glad the City Council passed the Mixed Use Center update (as I am) am I jeopardizing having a potential City Club member join because they disagree with me?
Most EDs of non-profits stay out of this issue by simply not writing daily about their opinions on a blog.
But I feel like there's got to be a different way. In fact, the mission of City Club is "To provide a nonpartisan forum that brings people together to explore issues and ideas affecting the South Sound community." At its core, City Club is there for debate, for exploration, and for talking about new ideas.
I don't want to shy away from that.
I learn from blogging. I write, "I like that Tacoma is increasing urban density because of A, B, and C." and then someone chimes in and says, "here's the reason you're wrong on C." And that forces me to reconsider. I may not be swayed, but I'm open.
I wish I could cite my source, but I recall a piece of wisdom about "honing" and "flaunting" ignorance as a way to learn. Essentially: you can learn a lot by being proven wrong. Not that I like being proven wrong or seek it out, but I try to approach arguments with the willingness to be proven wrong.
I don't know how this will go exactly, and I'll probably take it a little slow at first. But I'm going to start wading back into some opinion-blogging.
Wish me luck!