Anonymous Blogging

I mostly agree with James Joyner on this, though I enjoy a little bit of drama at times - for fun, if for no other reason. But I've never been in a position in which I felt it necessary to remain anonymous here for fear of personal or professional consequences. And it's a long accepted practice, for better or worse. That a writer at a site like NRO would stoop to outing an anonymous liberal blogger is, hopefully, far more a discredit to Whelan and NRO, than it is trouble for said blogger. Were it up to me, Whelan would be gone as an NRO blogger. I think it somewhat revealing when so called professionals start looking like the children out here, as opposed to the more traditional amateur bloggers. It's likely one reason why many started blogging and reading blogs back before so many alleged professionals decided they had to catch the wave.

I’ve blogged here under my real name for over six years and prefer to read and link bloggers who do likewise. Signing my name to what I write makes me think twice and the active realization that others whose arguments I’m engaging are real people also tends to make me more reflective. (Frankly, the blog might be more interesting if my writing were less tempered but I’m ultimately more interested in dialogue than drama.)

Comments

[Brian]

What Mr. Whelan is not taking into account is that the action that he took makes him look incredibly petty and disgraces his own employer because he chose to use them to exact his revenge.

This whole "outing" business works both ways though and we've seen it from liberals plenty of times. The goal is to throw your name out there and hope other yahoos start googling every bit of information about you in hopes of sending letters or making calls to an employer to either get you some sort of censure or rebuke that for some reason could not be made in a corresponding blog post on the merits of an argument. If there is no merit then why bring it up in the first place? In the end, you've given more attention to the so-called "idiot" / "coward" and, by virtue, more negative attention to yourself than by ignoring it as Mr. Whelan is now discovering.

To be anonymous, you had and have to understand that the Internet makes everything forever. Long after you've burned out from wanting to express your opinion, future employers, love interests, nosy neighbors and the clinically insane can track down the most intimate details of your life and possibly controversial opinions that you put out there of your own free will.

I say the answer is more anonymity. Too often these days, the conversation that needs to be had is not even being brought up out of political correctness. The democratization of the means to publish your ideas has evened the playing field from the formerly respected feudal lords of Journalism and Opinion.

Anonymity was good enough for The Federalist Papers and it's good enough for me. But if I say something between now and when I die that changes the course of human history (for the better), I may want credit.

[Norbert]

If you're running a sports related Fan Blog or a How To Knit 101 website, it's not as big of a deal if you choose to remain anonymous... but when it comes to legal or political blogs, there's way too many people who are agenda driven, stalking horse types that I don't think you should remain anonymous, especially if you enjoy clashing with people online. If you can't stand behind what you're typing with your real name then maybe you should re-examine what you're typing.

I blog under a pseudonym at fan-related sports blog... but anyone who skips using the comment form and bothers to email me gets at least my first name in the reply.

[D. Aristophanes]

Norbert - 'stalking horse types' are found out over time, and not much time. Publius blogged with a pseudonym for years, developing an appreciative audience on Obsidian Wings. Not possible if he was an agenda-driven tool -- he would have been found out and his audience would have abandoned him.

Are there people who hide behind anonymity to make hit-and-run posts intended to muddy the waters and derail useful debates? Sure. They're called trolls and experienced Internet readers can quickly identify them. As Dan says -- and I say this as somebody who rarely, rarely agrees with him -- anonymous blogging 'is a long and accepted practice'.

I blog anonymously because I enjoy expressing my political views pretty vociferously, but my professional life requires I present myself as less partisan and certainly in possession of a more civil tongue than I use on the blog. It's a simple requirement of the marketplace in which I work.

[ThomasD]

Funny I'd say blogging at OW for five years makes you a textbook agenda driven tool.

Snark aside, this was not deep cover and the guy was blogging - a most public act. Anonymity is something you, and you alone are responsible for maintaining. Depending on the cooperation of others is not part of the rules.

Pissing someone - anyone - off is especially not wise behavior when you are attempting to remain anonymous.

The military has a saying - tracers work both ways.

[Jana]

"Anonymity is something you, and you alone are responsible for maintaining. Depending on the cooperation of others is not part of the rules."

Absolutely correct. Bravo.

Firing Whelen? That would be silly. Most assuredly, this is driving traffic to the site, which is good for NRO, not bad. It's the same thing Dan does when he chooses to engage in these hot-button inter-blog kerfuffles that he's wont to participate in (in the past with Jonah Goldberg, more recently Rod Dreher).

[Paulk]

>Firing Whelen? That would be silly. Most assuredly, this is driving traffic to the site, which is good for NRO, not bad.<

Exactly. But this is small potatoes. Just think of the traffic he could have generated to his site by posting pornography. Think of the hit counts! I'm sure his bosses would be nothing but pleased, caring only that people are coming, not for the reasons or the ethics involved in the posting.

[Elmo]

I've lived a colorful life. Quite vivid, dynamic, adventurous [though yeah, has slowed somewhat at the mid-century mark (smiley face here)]. Got plenty of skeletors jangling round my closet. And unless I was actually writing a book, for cold hard cash, monet, picasso .... I prefer my privacy. My anonymity.

I don't live in a cave, I don't speak in circles or riddles. Mostly ... I prefer to keep my virtual life, and my atomic. Separate (the internet is oft overated).

Signed, still play real records, on a real turntable, in the real world.

Signed me, Elmo (and one day, I really will add a (non-recognizable) photo of me, to my high traffic blog :-)

[Adjoran]

It seems to me the lad wanted to use his anonymity to throw mud and misrepresent and distort the positions of others. This is not some noble endeavor of exposing public corruption which might justify anonymity at least in some way.

What "fear of retaliation" does this fellow have, really? Last time I checked, being a lying far-left bomb-thrower would tend to endear one to most law school faculty members, and conservative lay people are far less likely to mail profanity-laced diatribes to a leftist's employers than the other way around.

The hypocrisy of the left on this issue is, well, typical. The self-righteous posturing of some on the right is no less so.

[Doctor Science]

Riehl, I am baffled by your conflation of "anonymous" and "pseudonymous", a confusion that appears to be widespread. Do you honestly not see that they are not the same thing? You aren't anonymous at all, you have a consistent pseud, just as the Federalist Papers' "publius" or "George Eliot" or "Mark Twain" did. The fact that it may be tricky to get from "Riehl" to your physical address doesn't prevent you from accumulating a reputation and building up "trust networks" with other people.

I've posted about what actual anonymous blogging looks like here:
http://doctorscience.blogspot.com/2009/06/outing-publius.html
What you (and publius, and most of your commenters) are doing is not what I'd call anonymous at all -- what makes you say it is?

[Dan Riehl]

For the record and those who don't read closely, I didn't say Whelan should be fired. I stated what I would do. There's a fine but important difference. The fact is, many of these "save my print edition" blog sites don't give a flip about pure blogging, or bloggers. And many of them wouldn't enjoy the readership they get without the rep of the publication behind them.

It's an open forum, they're allowed to be here. But I wasn't thrilled when the trend started and I often remain less than impressed.

[John G]

I cost my wife a $24,000 per year account once when I got involved on some local NY politics. It had nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It just involved a botched real estate tax reassessment. One of my wife's accounts, that received state money, immediately dumped her when I managed to get picked up in all the local press. They were afraid the connection would hurt them with various politicos.

This was before the days of blogs. I set up a website to do it.

Of course that 24 grand hit me in the back pocket also. So, you see, there can be very real negative consequences. Whelan had no way of knowing what the guys circumstances were. Unlike Whelan, this guy is not paid to write his blog. Whelan didn't care if he might hurt this guy's job.

Unless the anonymous blogger was way over the top there was no reason to out the guy. Whelan would have many opportunities to answer the guy whether he be "Publius" or "Blevins". As far as I can tell, Blevins' crime was to disagree with Whelan. He hadn't called Whlean a child molester of anything. Whelan posted on NRO today; he said "Blevins desired to be unaccountable—irresponsible—for the views he set forth in the blogosphere". Well yeah! There actually are people who would feel the wrath of employers, accounts, neighbors, whatever and choose to guard their privacy to avoid this pain. My god, why do so many people who post comments on blogs and news sites use fake names? Many simply cannot afford to be punished for their views.

Again, I know this from personal, painful experience. One of the reasons I don't blog (I'm conservative) is because of the further financial pain I could cause my wife, and I.

I also sent an email to the editors of NRO suggesting that Whelan be dumped.

[Doctor Science]

I see now that I was confused -- "Dan Riehl" is not a pseud, but a RL name. My question remains, though: why are you referring to "pseudonymous" as "anonymous"? Do you truly think they are the same thing?

[Dan Riehl]

"Do you truly think they are the same thing?"

No, I get your point on the language. But I see no practical difference in this and most cases in which a blogger chooses to remain anonymous by using a pseud. I believe in blogging under one's real name is best. But it isn't for me to judge everyone's circumstances. And it certainly isn't Whelan's. The worst of it, given it's Whelan backed by NRO is this looks like a goliath versus David thing. A dumb move all around by NRO.

[Justin]

What's lowbrow about Whelan's outing of Publius is that it was simply a cheap shot. Publius' real life identity has nothing to do with the exchange that provoked it, it was simply an attempt to hurt a critic by inviting unrelated damage. What Whelan did is akin to mentioning in a debate that his opponent's wife has a drug problem--it's immaterial to the debate but personally damaging to the opponent.

[Doctor Science]

I see no practical difference in this and most cases in which a blogger chooses to remain anonymous by using a pseud

A pseud is neither anonymous nor Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)
so I actually don't know what you mean by "remain anonymous by using a pseud".

Pseuds are social identities that can gather reputation and trust. Anyone who has to detach from a pseud has to lose the trust and reputation that identity has collected. When I say this is "not anonymity" I'm not just arguing semantics, I'm saying they function in different ways.

I believe blogging under one's real name is best
-- from this it follows that the "best" blogging is that which is detached and impersonal. Blogging about one's child-rearing experiences, for instance, by your standards cannot be the "best" blogging, because it is usually unwise to blog about one's children under a real name.

[Neely]

When a blogger holds him/herself out to have specialized knowledge and takes another person in the field to task, it places the credentials of both at issue and the reputation of the latter at risk. Whelan had every right to expose publius and place his credentials on view for those following the controversy.

I also agree with the comment: ""Anonymity is something you, and you alone are responsible for maintaining. Depending on the cooperation of others is not part of the rules."

It also seems indisputable that the anonymous blogger is posting comments for which he is unwilling to be responsible.

[Justin]

A further point on pseudonymity: It doesn't matter to me, as a reader, if a blogger uses his real name or a continuous pseudonym, because in both cases all I have to judge the blogger on is their posting history. Over time, a pseudonymous blogger builds up a credible (or not) history, and that's all I have to judge them on, just like a 'real named' blogger. The difference between these and an anonymous blogger is that the pseudonymous/real name bloggers have credibility that they're risking each time they post.

[Brian]

What is this "responsibility" you all keep speaking of?

Somebody has an opinion. They publish their opinion. They have a comments section that is a de facto place for other people's opinion.

And if they give it they are to be "held accountable" for it? So says the hanging judge. No different than the state officials hounding Joe Wurzelbacher for asking a question in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It's the same logic that has people arguing in favor of all kinds of civil liberties infringements. Why are you afraid to have police stationed at your home? If you don't have anything to hide then you don't have anything to worry about, they say.

If you don't want to have your life turned upside-down for leaving a comment on a website or asking a question of a candidate who happens to be asking you to your face, then you should just keep your mouth shut.

Really. You need to think about where you're going with that reasoning in the Magnificent Age of Obama where they are talking about websites not being protected speech if you're "misleading" people about some of his more ambitious socialist endeavors.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/46708442.html

[J.M. Heinrichs]

1. "Discretion is the better part of valour". It is useful for putative 'pseudonymous' 'ankle-biters' to think of this in advance.
2. A progressive lecturer at a progressive law school, who blogs on a progressive blogsite, should not need to hide his light under a bushel; unless that bushel symbolises his progressivity.

Cheers

[Hyman Roth]

When liberals police their own and behave ethically, I'll obey the Marquess of Queensberry rules. But they don't. So I won't. If they want to cry like little bitches about it and point the finger at someone, I'll direct them to a mirror. How many conservatives get outed for various things? Where is Riehl's (and his commenters') outrage over that?

And, sticking up for/carrying water for a racist, sexist imbecile like Sotomayor is a poor choice of battles. She gets overturned 60% of the time; or, for those of you playing at home, flipping a coin would be more accurate in deciding a case than relying on Sotomayor. What would it take to make Publius/Blevins NOT jump to her kneejerk defense? A murder conviction? Sorry, Publius/Blevins, I am fresh out of sympathy for you.

Being a short-sighted, self-important tool with an unrealistic sense of fair play is what cost McCain the election. Keep acting like McCain and you will keep losing like McCain.

Yes, I use a pseudonym; and yes, I am bigger than U.S. Steel.

[SM]

"That a writer at a site like NRO would stoop to outing an anonymous liberal blogger is, hopefully, far more a discredit to Whelan and NRO, than it is trouble for said blogger."

I don't get the reasoning there. I comment anonymously, and with the understanding that nothing I say is really anonymous. If Blevins really thought he was "protected" in some fashion by his non-existent anonyimity, then he is even dumber than he seemed.

I've seen various lefty sites which specialize in outing what they call "racist" right wing bloggers. You can imagine how expansive their concept of racism is.

[Dan Riehl]

"Where is Riehl's (and his commenters') outrage over that?"

Try reading here when it happens and you'd read it. What a foolish comment.

[SM]

I agree with Hyman Roth that people the right seem to spend far too much time seeking out instances in which they may prove to the left how wonderful and principled they are by shooting one of their own. It's a weakness of the the entire Republican party.

Meanwhile, we're still waiting for a single prominent lefty blog to say that Obama's relationships with Ayers and Wright are totally unacceptable.

[Jasper]

"And, sticking up for/carrying water for a racist, sexist imbecile like Sotomayor is a poor choice of battles. She gets overturned 60% of the time; or, for those of you playing at home, flipping a coin would be more accurate in deciding a case than relying on Sotomayor."

FWIW, she's written hundreds of opinions and been overturned THREE times, so 99% or more of the time her opinions are not overturned. And in cases that go before the SC, the reversal ratio is actually higher than 60%. Criticizing her for that aspect of her long and documented record is ignorant on all counts. Congratulations.

Furthermore, Sotomayor's extensive record on the bench shows that she is in fact not a racist, or a sexist, or an imbecile, although a lot of her "conservative" critics appear to be proud of being all three.

[Elmo]

Ultimately, it's the spirit of integrity, that Dan was alluding to? (not speaking for mr.). I do think getting bogged down in the same swamp (as da lefties), not a place I'd like to hang out [witness much of my early blog life .... PJM/OSM lack thereof (integrity re: Kenton Kelly)].

And ya know what, didn't read a single word bout the kerfluffle under discusssion (other than this thread and post). We aint them. Hopefully we won't become.

There indeed are people on the net, who have no compunction about gumming up the works. Literally destroying entire web communities, with their 'contribution'. I recall a hobbyist site (as in not political), that was plagued by a vulgar mannerless bore, endlessly. Whose proprietors eventually phoned up the individual's employer. I was appalled. Though ultimately, had no sympathy for the vile lout.

Big picture/forrest/trees .... as in the Geneva convention and Mo's bug squad.

Dying for principle alone? Falling on the sword for a pyrrhic victory? The world is changing, has become far, far too complex. And our lives ARE in jeopardy. Citizens, even bloggers. Each individual need trust their inner compass, and their belief in that which is moral, is righteous. I have no sympathy for individuals who would slaughter a Rabbi and his wife, in their house of worship. And then proceed to desecrate their remains, by mutilating their genitalia (stop me Obie, from stereotyping Islam! Ya steaming pile).

Lefty bloggers? Who gives a flying f*ck at a donut (lay with pigs, and you will get slopped). This new media thing, we know not where it's going. We ride the virtual wave ....

Onward!

[Hyman Roth]

380 opinions, Jasper; and of the 5 that went to the Supremes: "Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed..." Who knows how sloppy and wrongheaded the other 375 are. New Haven v. Ricci [published unsigned, by cowards who knew they were wrong on the race issue] will be the next overturned decision. Pushing Sotomayor's failure rate to 66%.

Sorry, Jasper, your attempt to mis-state the facts will not work.

As to her legal acumen:

"Writing at The New Republic, [That's a liberal publication, Jasper!] Jeffrey Rosen offers a reason:

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants."

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html

I hope you did better when you selected a family physician, Jasper. Because you can't spot substandard lawyers very well. Or, maybe, you care more about putting a leftist on the Supreme Court than you do about putting competent lawyers there...?

[Hyman Roth]

""Where is Riehl's (and his commenters') outrage over that?""

"Try reading here when it happens and you'd read it. What a foolish comment."

Sorry. Was meant to be more of a rhetorical statement on the level of outrage in denouncing bad behavior than a literal accusation.

[Jim Durbin]

Joe the Plumber had his files brought to national attention not just by the person poking through them, but also by the media and bloggers.

Carrie Prejean had her parents' divorce papers sought through.

Conservative speakers at campuses are hounded from their speeches, sometimes by mobs, sometimes by pies in the face.

ACORN thugs line up on buses and head to executive homes with the press in tow.

Karl Rove's house is surrounded by protestors.

Bush administration lawyers are threatened with sanction for policy differences with the new administration.

Conservatives put Support our Troops stickers on their car instead of Bush or McCain stickers because they're afraid of having their cars vandalized.

And those of us writing on the right get our fair share of phone calls, spam lists, and attempts to publish our home and business information for daring to speak out loud.

Donating to a political cause will get your name up in lights.

Attending a conference will get you listed as a right wing toadie.

Having a Ron Paul sticker gets you on a domestic terrorism watch list.

This isn't tiddlywinks - it's a war. And we've sat on our hands for too long. I learned long ago that if you let a bully pick on you, he keeps going until you force him to stop.

The problem with Reynolds and Joyner is they blog from a place of relative safety. If the only people who can write freely are tenured academics, lawyers, and the left, than we have no country left worth defending.

There aren't that many committed leftists writing. Many of them are paid to astroturf, and many of the others are paid by leftist organizations to create the illusion of numbers. The sooner we expose them and track them down, the less damage they'll do to the country. Politics has always been a contact sport in this country.

It's time we accepted that, and quit apologizing for outing those who seek to recreate the country in some secular progressive vision. They go after our jobs - we need to go after theirs.

[Elmo]

Oh sh*t ....

"The problem with Reynolds and Joyner is they blog from a place of relative safety. If the only people who can write freely are tenured academics, lawyers, and the left, than we have no country left worth defending."

I deleted OTB from my blogroll, some time back (still hang wit da rodney). After James deleted a comment of mine, for asterisked laguage ("f*ck"/directed at the AP). I have no patience for such nonsense [in the context of your (above/excised) words, felt compelled to throw in another two cents].

Blogging as bloodsport? I always felt virtual whack-a-mole was entertaining enough (when left and right bloggers happen to be on the same platform, at the same time). Me, I'll save my atomic fire for the moment whence it actually be required (as much as I adore lefties on the net). Doesn't mean I'll never cross the rubicon, just doesn't currently interest me. I'm content (for the time being), to let the left have the field to their self. We'll see what time brings?

If it hadn't been for a "neutral" site, and the generosity of a particular blogger. Might never have made the gradual journey (from left to center to right, some seven years ago).

[komplex]

Hyman Roth,
Are you aware you are basing your opinion of Sotomayor on a bunch of anonymous, unidentified, unaccountable sources?

[Hyman Roth]

Liberal magazine "The New Republic" is anonymous, unidentified and unaccountable?

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I'll call the people at Webster's and have them update the definitions.

I dunno, komplex...I think maybe you want a liberal on the Supreme Court, and you will say or do anything within your power to help make that happen.

[Greg Q]

1: If "Publis" had kept his comments at a professional level, instead of going for personal attacks, he might have had a case. He made it personal aginast Ed. Ed returned the favor.

That's justice.

2: When left-wingers started "outing" people who donated to Prop 8, in some cases costing them their jobs, what was "publis'" response? Did he say "he, leave those people alone"? Did he attack the "outers"? No? Then he doesn't get to bitch when it's done to him.

3: AS other's have mentioned, teh Left has decided that politics in America should be a blood sport. I think that's a bad idea. but so long as they're going to go after the Carrie Prejean's and joe the Plumber's of America, then every one of them deserves to be nailed to the wall, too.

Yes, that's ugly. But letting it go only one way is even uglier.

[Dan Riehl]

"Was meant to be more of a rhetorical statement"

Okay, but since you brought it up - when that lib blogger was outing gay Republicans, I posted that I'd be tempted to bitch slap him if I ever met him. Took no end of grief from the Left over that. Anyway, that made your comment strike me as particularly ill thought out.

[Hyman Roth]

"Okay, but since you brought it up - when that lib blogger was outing gay Republicans, I posted that I'd be tempted to bitch slap him if I ever met him. Took no end of grief from the Left over that. Anyway, that made your comment strike me as particularly ill thought out."

Yeah, that part of it was. That's why I apologized.

I'm just a little steamed that so many "conservatives" are jumping on Ed Whelan for outing an anonymous troll who called him a "know-nothing demagogue" and a "legal hitman" (to quote from Publius/Blevins posts).

[The Crafty Trilobite]

Greg Q, SM, Hyman, and others: publius is not "The Left." He's one blogger at a group blog. The headliners there, as you would know if you checked your facts before sounding off, are a mixed bag of conservatives and liberals; so are the commenters. Also, Publius is not obliged to state an opinion on whatever your personal outrage du jour happens to be.

SM, I'm a pretty long-time liberal, but I have never seen one of these "out the racist" sites you mention. Care to provide a link so we can all see whether they have any real political substance or are just a bunch of whiny troublemakers who happen to be into playing victim based on their race rather than, say, their politics or religion? Are any of these sites you object to within two links of publius's blog? Or are they just, you know, a bumch of completely unrelated crazy, mean people? In short, what the heck do they have to do with publius?

And Greg, publius got about as personal as anybody in a bs session at a college dorm does - he called "b*llsh*t on some dumb statements by Whelan. It was blunt, but it was not "personal," it was about Whelan's professional product. "Personal" was when Whelan turned that intellectual debate into something with real-life consequences. I think you're smart enough to see the difference. Turn it around. Would you like it if someone who disagreed with you at work started passing around upskirt photos of your wife/girlfriend/daughter?

Greg, you also ask:
When left-wingers started "outing" people who donated to Prop 8, in some cases costing them their jobs, what was "publis'" response? Did he say "he, leave those people alone"? Did he attack the "outers"? No? Then he doesn't get to bitch when it's done to him.

Or...maybe it just didn't happen to be one of his issues until it happened to him. Have YOU ever spoken out publicly against rape? Well, then, surely you "don't get to bitch about it" if someone rapes you. Right?

As to
teh Left has decided that politics in America should be a blood sport. I think that's a bad idea. but so long as they're going to go after the Carrie Prejean's and joe the Plumber's of America, then every one of them deserves to be nailed to the wall, too.
Yes, that's ugly. But letting it go only one way is even uglier."

Your world kind of started in 2008, didn't it? Here, I'll help you out. Go to wikipedia and look up COINTELPRO, the Committee To ReElect The President, and Tailgunner Joe McCarthy. Try googling J. Edgar Hoover + Martin Luther King. Then come back and talk about how "teh Left" made politics bad.

[Mr. Furious]

Greg, Whelan is a paid professional writer/blogger for a publication. He used his column to exact personal, potentially damaging revenge on a critic. How is that in any way proportional or "justice?"

The specific information revealed by Whelan did absolutely nothing to bolster his case. He simply could have said, "I happen to know Publius is law professor, so he should know better...blah, blah"

He revealed Blevins name, occupation and place of employment. For nothing but spite.

Blevins might keep his job, tenure, etc, but this has an impact on him in the classroom. Impacts his students, and the education they recieve.

All so Whelan could have his moment of bravado.

As to Whelan's supposed boast of courage for using his real name—which as I mentioned he is PAID TO DO—I notice he doesn't allow comments on his blog. Or even a way for readers to email or correspond with him...

How brave.

[Greg Q]

The Crafty Trilobite,

1: Publis is a member in proud standing of the American Left. If he doesn't want to be tarred by the same brush as his allies, it is incumbent upon him to point out where he differs from them. The American Left has made a consistent habit of "outing" people (conservative gays, Prop 8 supporters, Joe the Plumber, etc.). When your allies consistently behave in a certain way, and you do not criticize them for doing it, you don't get to complain when it happens to you.

2: You know, before you go quoting history, you might want to have at least a slight idea of what you're talking about. "J. Edgar Hoover + Martin Luther King"? Hmm, let's see. What was the political Party of the Presidents while that was happening? Gee, could it be they were Democrats? Ah, but something bad happened, so clearly it has to be Republicans / conservatives' fault.

Joe McCarthy was an ass, and a buffoon. But there were Communist spies and fellow travelers in the US Government, and in Holleywood, and they did great dammage to America

You know the most contemptible, and saddest, thing about American Left Wingers? In their deranged minds, there's absolutely no difference between "protecting America from foreign enemies" and "gaining political power over domestic opponents". "President Bush wanted to spy on terrorists and their supporters, so it's ok for President Obama to force every American to give all their medical information over to the Federal Government" being just the latest idiocy to come from this delusion.

Beyond that, i don't give a flying f*ck who hurt who's feelings in the 1950s, 1960s, or even the 1970s. That sort of pathetic obsession with the past is a great way to screw a country up. I'm not responsible for what McCarthy did, and neither you nor Publis is responsible for what the Communist traitors and spies did.

But Publis has been around for a couple of years, and been happy to associate himself with the American Left. As such, his willingness to sit back and watch his ideological allies do harm to others can be considered when judging what's right to do to him.

Show me where he attacked the Left-wing scum who've been going after Prop 8 supporters, costing them their jobs / businesses, and maybe I'll consider some sympathy for him. Lacking that, he got what he deserved.

[Greg Q]

Mr. Furious,

"Whelan is a paid professional writer/blogger for a publication."

Yeas. So? This is the Web. You get read because people chose to read you, not because somebody paid you to write it. We're all equal here. To the extent that Ed is more popular that Publis, Ed taking notice of him gave Publis more attention, and thus helped Publis.

Ed smacked an anoying ankle-bitter who, lacking the ability to make a rational argument, decided to call Ed names instead. Publis deserved to get smacked, and got what he deserved.

"I notice he doesn't allow comments on his blog. Or even a way for readers to email or correspond with him...

How brave."

1: Wow, a willingness to provide a target for leftie trolls is now the definition of "bravery"? In what strange world is that?
2: I see your internet research / usage skills are as poor as your reasoning. You want to contact Ed? Try sending an email to "benchmemos@nationalreview.com"

[Dan Riehl]

"I'm just a little steamed that so many "conservatives" are jumping on Ed Whelan for outing an anonymous troll who called him a "know-nothing demagogue" and a "legal hitman" (to quote from Publius/Blevins posts)."

Many of us get steamed out here. I understand that. Still, I've been called all sorts of names by pseudonymous bloggers. Honestly, I can't think of a single time I cared enough to try and sort out who they might be. If anything, making the point that they had to hide to attack me seems the stronger line of attacking back. As for your apology - accepted, of course. Thanks. I didn't want you to think I was going on about it. Just wanted to make that point was all.

[Hyman Roth]

Poor Crafty Trilobite. All that pent up anger over the republican abuses of the past, yet not a peep for the many horrible things done by democrats.

Joe McCarthy? Uh, Crafty, the Rosenbergs were guilty.

What about Clinton and Paula Jones? Clinton and Juannita Broaddrick? Ooops, I forgot the 11th Liberal Commandment: "Rape is ok if the perp is a liberal."

Clinton firing all but one of the U.S. attorneys after taking office? Ok with Crafty Trilobite. Bush replaces 8 attorneys: liberal apocalypse!

Black Panthers with clubs scaring people away from polls on election day? No investigation into it by Obama administration? Fine by Crafty Trilobite.

Hypocrisy is ugly, pal.