everytime one of these asswipes publishes someone's
private ctc info, then there should be some way to publish
the offenders ctc info also. jackasses like malkin, coultergist,
billo, beck, limpballs and hannity should have all their ctc
info including home address accessible to so people can
response in kind to them.

does anyone know where we could get this info so we can
publish their addresses and ctc on the webb each time they
try to smear or harm someone?

it would be helpful in stopping them.

I don't get the anonymity thing either. I'd publish my name and address here but I don't believe anyone would care! So now that the news is out and Ed Whelan is still a dick how to move on(?). Hmm.

It's a battle of ideas we're talking about here, not a battle of names. There is no reason NOT to put a pseudonym on a blog post, and many reasons to do so. Publius was in a position that his blogging could have cost him his place in the law office in which he worked, or the job as a non-tenured law professor. Maybe you don't know what happened to Ward Churchill, someone who was attacked in his professional life because of the politics he espoused under his real name in his private life.

What I see here is Whelan- who attempts to lend credence to his arguments through the sheer weight of his name and former postition in the Bushco administration- embarassed because his arguments were completely obliterated.

Perhaps Whelan should have been publishing anonymously all along.

*name please*

:-)

in an interview last week, she wanted to start a revolution, thought it would happen. May be nuts, but it's political.

a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

You need to end the last sentence in your fourth paragraph.

Actually, we do, and should, care about things other than the words. People's positions and motivations matter. In fact, they can be more important in some cases than the words themselves.

I didn't realize how ambivalent I am about this issue until I started reading this thread.

There are obviously good reasons for people to seek anonymity. Publius' jobs, clients, students, and family are all reasons why he could reasonably want to remain anonymous. On the other hand, anonymity can be used irresponsibly. I don't read Obsidian Wings, so I'm really not familiar with his writings, and certainly don't assume that he has ever used his anonymity in a way I would find objectionable.

I make occasional comments on a few blogs and do so anonymously. My identity seems irrelevant to what I write, since, at best only a handful of people ever read or react to what I write. If I were to start my own blog, I doubt I would feel right doing so anonymously. We get very upset with the MSM's use of anonymous sources, because we know that who is speaking and what his or her position is does matter. It's an important part of the context of any discussion.

There is a genuine difference between "an anonymous administration official" and "Dick Cheney." The same goes for "a knowledgeable former State Department official" and "Liz Cheney." When Publius began blogging he had good reasons for wanting to keep his real identity secret given the subjects about which he intended to write. If he had been blogging about something non-political, or if he'd held a job with no political overtones (these days, I'm not positive that exists), he probably could have put his real name on his blog and said his piece.

One assumes that when people write their own blogs they want to be read. Further, they would like to be influential. It would be nice if identities didn't matter, but unfortunately there is an awful lot of dishonest discourse in this country and knowing who an author is should help readers decide how much credence can be placed in the author's words.

In general, I have no problem with an anonymous blogger. If I read the blog and decide the words have value and credibility, I'll continue to read without worrying about who wrote them. However, when a blogger begins to criticize individuals, I'm likely to become a more interested in who is doing the criticizing. Sadly, without knowing the identity of a blogger, it isn't always possible to judge the value of the commentary. I imagine most of us have, at one time or another, experienced the desire to know who that anonymous source really is. My guess is most of us tend to care more when the opinions are ones with which we disagree with or the information undermines or weakens our own positions. It's easy to have confidence in sources who agree with us.

The problem here is that people who reveal their names and positions can be punished for their ideas -- or others close to them can be penalized. That's because we don't really value the free exchange of ideas and we don't believe people should be free to express their ideas without repercussions. Publius' position is not unusual. How many of us have held jobs where our freedom to speak honestly was limited by the risk of losing that job or the next promotion? I've been a public school teacher in a district that was both extremely conservative and damaging the lives of its children every day of the school year. I couldn't not speak out, but neither was there any way for me to remain anonymous. I spoke out. Needless to say, things didn't work out well for me, but I had to face reality -- someone needed to speak out about what was happening and anyone who did would be punished for it. I made my choice and I'm no longer a teacher.

That may be the choice that Publius has to face. Admittedly, now that his identity is known, there may be damage that can be done to him retroactively. If he continues to blog, he may have to be careful what he writes (although I would argue that anyone who blogs should automatically be careful what he or she writes -- that's part of responsibility), and he may have to avoid some issues.

It would be nice if that weren't so, but it is the reality that people face every day even when they have no hope of anonymity.

The tragedy here is not that Publius was outed, but that anyone feels the need to speak anonymously. Since I don't foresee that changing (in the next millennium or so), it leaves us with some tough decisions.

Ultimately, I think everyone's opinions are worth more with their real names attached. Publius may have to decide which is more important to him -- blogging or an academic career. Of course, he shouldn't have to make that choice, but, as I said, those kinds of choices are more the norm than the exception it's just that we often don't recognize that.

Note: The kind of outing that Malkin is famous for is purely vindictive and meant to intimidate and silence opponents. It is the same thing that Operation Rescue does when it publishes the identities and addresses of clinic employees. It's cowardly, vicious, and should never be condoned.

Note 2: If I didn't make it clear, I should add that there are times when anonymity is good -- when ideas are presented without authorship so that those ideas can be weighed simply for their own value and not have the critique depend on personalities, histories, and identities. Hence, my ambivalence.