Hah! That was a pretty fun lollercoaster ride. Again Again!

Points a plenty for a Wayans Bros movie reference.

I’m a huge fan of sadly no! and of atrios and I’d like to point out something that is quite important to this “debate” about anonymity: it has a long and honorable tradition in repressive political systems and, of course, was used by the founding fathers in their early debates and writings. But in addition, as to the actual “writing” its not the writing itself that is necessarily at issue, its the overall spread of topics. One of the things I like about atrios is the particular things he covers and their placement in the blog–think of it as a more complex harpers index. The fact that atrios sucessfullly hits on the topics that people want to think about/discuss on a daily basis makes him very, very good at understanding his readers and giving them what they want in terms of stimulation. I don’t even really notice how short some of his posts are, because the depth/interest is found in the link or in the comments.

And you are so right about the wayans bros.

“”personally attacks” public figures (whatever Andrew might have meant by that,)”

Seriously? You have no clue what Sullivan might be referring to? This from someone who just suggested that Sullivan open a blog at milkyload.blogspot.com?

Puh-leeze. You might disagree with Sullivan, but don’t pretend that Atrios has not used his knowledge of Sullivan’s personal life to attack his arguments. If Atrios’ personal identity were also known, he would be open to the same line of attack. You don’t have to be a mind reader to understand what Sullivan said.

Your otherwise spot-on attacks to Sullivan’s hypocrisy are blunted by your homophobia. Too bad. I suggest taking out the ultra-un-funny frat-boy jokes and sticking to the point.

Oh great, now you’re going to think I’m timshel’s hand-puppet. I’m not.

[anonymity] has a long and honorable tradition in repressive political systems and, of course, was used by the founding fathers in their early debates and writings.

Indeed. Long live Publius!

As for Atrios, in less than two years he has managed to host a blog whose readership is at least as large as Sullivan’s, solely on the strength of his writing.

I am an Atrios loyalist, but I think you may be misstating the draw of his blog. Billmon at Wiskey Bar is a great writer. The strength of Atrios seems to be his investigation. His writing isn’t usually remarkable. He is usually pointing his readers to breaking stories that he has found. His ability to quickly discover these stories daily and in the mass quantity is unparralled. I think that’s why his site is so valuable and popular.

But, he usually doesn’t write that much. When he does write, it is thought provoking commentary, but not usually spectactular writing. Not the kind that would draw attention and “solely” account for his readership. Maybe his investigation is inextricable from his writing. And, maybe when you mention the “stength of his writing” it includes his investigation skills. But, even so I think you may have overstated. I don’t mean to be contrarian, but that’s my take on the appeal and draw of Atrios.

Oh great, now you’re going to think I’m timshel’s hand-puppet. I’m not.

No we’re not.

This from someone who just suggested that Sullivan open a blog at milkyload.blogspot.com?

Well, we didn’t say we don’t personally attack public figures. Atrios is, by all accounts, just a guy with a blog, which we (and others) find interesting. Knowing that his name is William Bill (or whatever) from Philadelphia would change little. The only substantive comment raised by Sully was Atrios’ alleged non-criticism of lefties, and even that wasn’t accurate.

are blunted by your homophobia

Let’s not confuse Sullivanphobia with homophobia.

There is a history of anonymous political commentary.
Considering that some progressive bloggers have been personally threatened i think it is a good idea. And it is certainly less hypocritical and Stalinesque than Sullivan’s policy of cherry picking comments written bout his blog.

And, maybe when you mention the “strength of his writing” it includes his investigation skills. But, even so I think you may have overstated.

Kop: We agree and should have been clearer. As it is, “writing” to us includes information gathering/investigative skills, etc…, and not only “great writing” (as one would mean about Rittenhouse Review.) Our point is that what Atrios posts (and not his pre-blog reputation and outside blog exposure) drives his traffic, something we don’t believe to be the case for Sullivan.

Sullivan’s lifestyle is only brought up because he focuses so much attention to it. Sort of like his gays younger than him should be monogamous and get married while he has been accustomed to other ways and so will never be able now to settle for one man.

I have never been to this blog before, but I am a Sullivan-reader with a grain of salt, as it should be with all political commentary. First, I follow a link to this website, and am caught by the use of the word “Eschaton.” This automatically makes me question the veracity of any person who chooses to publicize their website with a conspiracy-theory joke from a second-rate novel (yes, I did read the Illuminatus trilogy) I am also a little surprised by such venom being spewed toward Sullivan by someone hiding behind an identity.
It is easy to be brave and in your face when you don’t use your real name. Such passive aggressive behavior combined with the obvious paranoia displayed on the website highlights the fact that whoever Atrios is has some sort of personality disorder.

“Well, we didn’t say we don’t personally attack public figures. Atrios is, by all accounts, just a guy with a blog, which we (and others) find interesting.”

No kidding. I find Eschaton interesting, as well. But Atrios does use his knowledge of Sullivan’s personal life to attack Sullivan’s arguements. If you haven’t seen that, you haven’t read Eschaton.

Zaphod writes:
I have never been to this blog before, but I am a Sullivan-reader with a grain of salt, as it should be with all political commentary. First, I follow a link to this website, and am caught by the use of the word “Eschaton.” This automatically makes me question the veracity of any person who chooses to publicize their website with a conspiracy-theory joke from a second-rate novel (yes, I did read the Illuminatus trilogy) I am also a little surprised by such venom being spewed toward Sullivan by someone hiding behind an identity.
It is easy to be brave and in your face when you don’t use your real name. Such passive aggressive behavior combined with the obvious paranoia displayed on the website highlights the fact that whoever Atrios is has some sort of personality disorder.

“Zaphod”?

Pot. Kettle. Black. Repeat.

Yes, Atrios does attack Sully using personal information. But Sully has repeatedly made a political issue out of his personal life (or, to be fair, selected portions of his personal life, carefully edited to mask hypocrisy). If Sully makes an issue of his personal life, it’s an issue, and remains one whether or not the person discussing it wants to make an issue out of his or her own personal life. Unless one honestly feels that, in order to engage in a political discussion, one must reveal all vital facts about oneself, I just don’t see what the big deal is with Atrios’ anonymity. Did we demand that everyone discussing the Clinton-Lewinsky affair reveal their own sexual history? As we can all see, Atrios is plenty open to attack. And he can even be attacked on those aspects of his personal life that he has chosen to make public (Philly jokes, anyone?). Finally, whether or not Atrios’ attacks on Sully are fair would seem to me to be a separate issue from whether or not Atrios’ anonymity make them unfair. Although I happen to largely agree with Atrios’ take on Sully, one could totally disagree with it on the merits without condemning Atrios’ anonymity. Of course, that would take arguing the merits….

“Such passive aggressive behavior combined with the obvious paranoia displayed on the website highlights the fact that whoever Atrios is has some sort of personality disorder.”

Or, maybe he doesn’t want a freeper showing up on his doorstep. Ask anyone who has had a letter to the editor of any paper published if they get threatening phone calls or harassment.

Personal attacks against Sullivan would be inappropriate if his commentary wasn’t so self-referential. Sullivan has made it nearly impossible to separate his arguments from his personal life.

I like Atrios and have little use for Andrew S., but the anonymity complaints are valid. I’ve been in a zillion arguments about anonymity online, and I’ve yet to be convinced that it has many legitimate defenses. I think if we want a more open, accountable society — politically, economically, etc. — we have to hold ourselves accountable too. And Haloscan or no Haloscan, allowing yourself a pseudonym is dodging a pretty significant level of accountability. This whole thing about “people living in a repressive political system” is silly; left-wing bloggers are not being arrested in this country, and they’re not going to be. On the other hand, people being afraid to sign their names to contrarian or anti-establishment opinions only reinforces the sense that there is something to fear, and it makes other people likewise afraid. The best way to safeguard freedoms is to use them, and anyone exercising freedom of speech under a pseudonym is not exercising that freedom in full — and is even potentially weakening it, at least in the sense that it leads others to think that they might NOT have the right speak up without fear.

I like Atrios, as I said. I’d like him a whole lot more if he had a name.

For the point is the debate

I spent a bit of time in bed last night trying to formulate a response to Andrew Sullivan’s challenge on the radio last night. Sully challenged Atrios to stop being anonymous and to reveal himself, partly because Sully complained that it’s impossible t…

Hey, if there’s anyone who goes around making personal attacks on The Creature From the Blog Lagoon, it’s me! I specialize in them. I revel in them. And they will continue unabated until that happy day when it breathes its last.

Still, the most devestating attack on The Creature is not to be found on the ‘net, but in the video documentary The Gift.

What a strong inducement:
“Atrios, you should really drop your pseudonymity so we can attack you personally.”

I like Atrios, as I said. I’d like him a whole lot more if he had a name.

We still don’t see why.

We agree that liberals (nor conservatives) are being arrested for their opinions — yet it is not fear of arrest Atrios (and others) mention but concern about angry people calling him, stopping by, etc… (Witness Tucker Carlson’s problems when Fox posted his home number. We find Tucker to be a giant hack, but we would never stoop to harassing him and his family at home. (The same holds if we ever came across Sullivan’s phone number.)) [Some of the posters on DU or the Free Republic seem to have much free time and a willingness to use it in ways that we find rather concerning.]

Why would knowing Atrios’ real name make him more “accountable?” We can judge his opinions on their own, and allowing comments lets those who disagree do so publicly (as have some with us here.) That strikes us as more accountable than your typical newspaper, magazine and many comments-less (or those with edited comments) blogs. (As for our shots at Sullivan, there’s not much we would add beyond what has been posted here and SullyWatch’s comments here.)

Zaphod… (yes, I did read the Illuminatus trilogy)… but did you read Atrios’s own comments
on where Eschaton came from? From his archive:

“It refers to a small passage in David Foster Wallace’s monster book Infinite Jest…”

You may want to rethink your conspiracy-theory
joke theory.

First, I follow a link to this website, and am caught by the use of the word “Eschaton.” This automatically makes me question the veracity of any person who chooses to publicize their website with a conspiracy-theory joke from a second-rate novel (yes, I did read the Illuminatus trilogy)

Actually, Atrios is making a reference to a different, rather first-rate novel.

Why are people getting all worked up over anonymous comments? The First Amendment doesn’t say “Free speech only if accompanied by a signed, sworn statement.”

The only place where anonymity is forbidden in the Constitution relates to trials – where everyone charged with a crime by American legal proceedings are given the right to face their accuser. If people want to get hotheaded about anonymity they should direct it at Bush and Ashcroft for their black eye on the American judicial system that they are running at Gitmo.

Or, one could lean classically, and decide that “Eschaton” means what it meant in New Testament Greek: “end things.”

Which is how I always took it.

As for anonymity: it does protect one from ad hominem attack, but it also makes appeals to authority (personal experience, reputation, etc.) irrelevant. If Atrios doesn’t say who he is, he can’t really relate his personal experiences to his posted opinions. Or, for that matter, natter on about his lifestyle, or any other personal topics.

Which, overall, is a plus. I agree that Sullivan being gay is irrelevant to Sullivan’s political opinions, even though Sullivan is the one who puts that into play by mentioning it on his blog. It would actually benefit Sullivan to post anonymously. Then we could more fairly assess his opinions, without filtering them through his public persona.

The aspect of Sullivan’s personal life that everyone seems to be referring is actually “Public”. Sullivan made it public. He wasn’t outed by “liberal” bloggers – that would have been taking advantage of personal knowledge about personal information. If Atrios wants to bring his/her sex life into a discussion about a political issue then I’ll say fair game as well.

IIRC, Atrios has stated that Eschaton is a reference to David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest.” In the book, it was a game of simulated warfare played on a tennis court.

“Zaphod”?

Pot. Kettle. Black. Repeat.

Yeah, really. Nobody using a pseudonym from such barely-coherent lowbrow dreck as the series that name is stolen from has any right to talk about anybody else’s pseudonym or sitename.

Anyone who takes recourse in anonymity to protect himself against personal attacks obviously has a personality disorder. Hoooboy

We are Atrios!

OK I ‘said’ this at Eschaton and I’ll say it here too: Isn’t it long past time we all stopped paying so damn much attention to Sully? As SN points out, he’s an attention whore. Let’s starve the fuckin’ troll. Denouncing Sully’s idiocy is like denouncing creationist idiocy. It’s so fuckin’ self-evident, it’s pointless to point it out and he enjoys the attention, which is the whole point of what he does anyway.

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME! I’M ANDREW SULLIVAN! I’M A GAY REPUBLICAN! LOOK AT ME!

[dean]
yeeeeearrrrrgh!
[/dean]

Great post, S,N! You really ripped Sully a new one. I don’t know Atrios’ precise reasons for remaining anonymous, but they may include (1) fear of repercussions on his day job (he may work for an organization that would not want its name associated with a liberal, Bush-bashing blogger) and (2) fear of harassment or worse by Freepers. Don’t dismiss the latter as silly; after Eric Blumrich let the Kucinich campaign use one of Blumrich’s anti-war flash videos, the “Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler” (a right-wing blogger) posted Blumrich’s address and a map to it, and said what a vile person Blumrich was and that he wouldn’t mind if Blumrich met with a violent end. A lot of nutjobs out there, and it seems most of them like Bush and don’t have a high tolerance for those of us who don’t.

This little cat fight is entertaining, but where is the substance? So far no responses to Sullivan?s challenge that I can see. So this seems to come down to an issue of credibility. At least we know who Sullivan is and has a printed record. Who is Atrios? Why is he/she hiding behind his/her anonymity? If you don?t have the courage to stand up for your convictions, than they are either not held very strongly, or feel that are embarrassing to be known. Either is not a basis for credibility.

Because Andy is openly both Catholic and gay, that immediately raises the question of consistency and clarity of thought. So does being Republican and gay. Catholic doctrine and GOP practice diminishes gay people more than anything any blogger says and does.

Michael Signorile has probably been harder on Andy than anyone, for these and other reasons, which seem hypocritical, or at least calls into question Andy’s judgment.

There are numerous gay people writing in the blogosphere who get slammed for their sexual lives by those who disagree with them, but with Andy, most of it comes from the duality of his sex life and the ideologies he supports, which don’t exactly support him on that point.

I’ll grant that some of the slaps at Andy are cheesy and sophomoric and often unecessary when not making direct reference to the ideologies I mention. They don’t bolster a critique very often.

However, on the question of Atrios’ ananymity, I can think of many valid reasons to choose that (such as pursuit of tenure if he’s a college professor).

On the point that Andy raised, I think he’s quite wrong, because there’s a number of writers/editorialists from Wapo and NYTimes that Atrios has factchecked before. I’ll leave it up to him to mention some, if he wishes to, though, because it’s his battle to fight if he chooses to.

One other point I’d make though (and I wasn’t hired to say this) is I’ve always felt that by comparison to the enormous amount of financial support Andy gets from the Right, Atrios receives far less from progressives. So I’d encourage folks today to make a demonstrable show of support for Atrios in this debate by using the Paypal button on his site TODAY. He obviously works very hard at this craft and certainly deserves to see that clear sign from his readers.

To use his own words: “Go! You know what to do.”

Why would knowing Atrios’ real name make him more “accountable?”

Why does signing your real name on a tax return or a lawsuit or a voter roll make you more accountable? Why do a lot of people (me included) get bothered by the overuse of anonymous sources in political stories? And, despite the example of The Economist (which, I would note, is anonymous only as far as the individual pieces go; the names are on the masthead, and you know who’s running the show), why would most of us yowl if the New York Times and Washington Post drop all their bylines? Why is it standard practice at any public hearing, from school boards to state departments of transportation to testimony before Congress, that the first thing any person giving comments do is state their name and address?

It’s true that freedom of speech extends equally to anonymous and non-anonymous speech; if it didn’t, it wouldn’t be true freedom. On the other hand, there are plenty of things that are legal but not necessarily healthy. It bothers me that some of the liveliest, most intelligent, most challenging discourse in the society is being carried on by people who are afraid to sign their names. (Or who at least give the appearance of being afraid, whether fear is the real motivator or not.) The blogosphere does lots of interesting things, but it also collectively demands a lot: of the media, of politicians, of all manner of people. It is hard to call for accountability in others when you aren’t willing to take the first, most basic type of accountability yourself. And sure, just knowing a name is only a start. Personally, I like to know more for context: for example that Glenn Reynolds is a law professor in Tennessee and also a sometime musician, etc. But a name is a starting point, and it’s an important one.

I also agree that comments pages are good. In my ideal world, blogs would have both: names and comments. And thanks for your blog, I enjoy it. I just think this is an issue that too many anonymous bloggers wave away because they don’t really want to own up to it.

Considering that Sullivan just linked to and quoted Tacitus rather recently, I’d say his aversion to anonymity isn’t that deeply felt. Really though this is a giant red herring. There seem to me a number of perfectly valid reasons why Atrios chooses to remain anonymous–even the most basic one, that he wishes to have his private life remain separate from his more public endeavors is completely understandable. It’s his choice to do so, so get over it. It’s not like the republic is going to rise or fall over the fact that some bloggers choose to remain anonymous.

It’s not like the republic is going to rise or fall over the fact that some bloggers choose to remain anonymous.

Yeah, and rivers aren’t poisoned by any one drop of mercury either.

I guess Jesse Mayshark is ready to burn his copy of Animal Farm.

Andrew “like ’em raw and wriggling” Sullivan uses his personal gayness + Republicanness as both a buttress for his arguments and as an attention grabber. To say then that the aspects of his personal life that he uses publicly to support his arguments and get attention for them are off the table is like saying that his arguments cannot be discussed fully.

I’m sure that was part of what he had hoped when he decided to weave personal details into his arguments as support.

I like Atrios and have little use for Andrew S., but the anonymity complaints are valid. I’ve been in a zillion arguments about anonymity online, and I’ve yet to be convinced that it has many legitimate defenses. I think if we want a more open, accountable society — politically, economically, etc. — we have to hold ourselves accountable too.

I have one big problem with that. For all the fears of writing anti-establishment prose and whether or not enduring freeper hate mail or having a suspiciously timed tax audit is valid, I would like to toss in what I think drives some of us to protect our pseudonyms (and to be perfectly clear, there is a big difference between anonymous and pseudonymous): risk to livelihood. It’s one thing for a writer to understand that their editors are going to stand by them and that their livelihoods aren’t threatened by expressing their opinions, or maybe someone has a more menial job and their superiors couldn’t care less what they have to say about the government, but a lot of us work in companies or have businesses that could be threatened by a even one freeper sending a half dozen links of our more outspoken work to key management, advertisers, accounts . . . Hell, I didn’t realize until a year ago that the owner of our largest account (who I interact with regularly) had been a Republican state senator. I shudder much more at the thought that someone could send him a link saying, “This is one of your vendors” as opposed to a freeper calling me on the phone and telling me I’m a @*&%!.

Luckily for me, my law firm officially hates George W. Bush.

Why does signing your real name on a tax return or a lawsuit or a voter roll make you more accountable?

Hmmm, we don’t think that having a blog raises to quite the level of filing a tax return or a lawsuit. What exactly is it that makes The Economist (TE) accountable? Is it that you can find out the names of the editors (we think not,) or that if the quality of the product goes down readership will decline, along with ad revenue. If they (or we even) publish something libelous they can get sued. Their archives can be accessed by anyone who wishes to do so. (Ours are certainly more accessible than Sullivan’s.) If we knew the name of the editor(s) we still don’t see what it would change. Much of the time, we find TE interesting and well-written, and that’s enough for us. If the Post or the Times dropped all bylines, we would continue to judge them by the quality of the articles they present. Many of the bylines we see mean nothing to us — we’d rather see a short bio with no name than a name and no information about the person. Anonymous or not, conflicts of interest should be disclosed.

A few people read the poor excuse for commentary that is Sadly, No! and choose to come back or not. Having a name (and/or a personal story) attached is (ioho) all too often a way to give poor arguments a credibility they would lack on their own. The distraction that has become our suggestion for an anonymous Sullivan blog doesn’t change the fact that we doubt he would do even remotely as well without the ‘prestige’ of the name (and the story he brings along with it.)

We’ve (mostly) chosen to be anonymous here, the ‘anonymousity’ of the blogs we read matters little to us. To be completely candid, we might not be as reluctant as we are to use our full name if it wasn’t for the fact that Google would provide our address and phone number to anyone interested. Are the odds that anything would happen high? No, we think they’re extremely remote. Could someone with that information really screw us over? Oh yeah.

So while it’s only fair that people will sometimes react negatively to what we post (such as the individual who responded to our post about the Reagan dime with “fuck you”,) or that some of our sophomoric remarks will be construed to indicate we hold opinions we do not, we’re willing to meet you halfway. The comments (all comments, except comment spam which we do delete) are here, an email address is listed above. Yet we do think that Sullivan’s complaint was but a cheap gimmick aimed at Atrios (or SullyWatch.) We read both and find their arguments convincing much of the time and (almost!) always interesting. That we can’t say the same about Sullivan has little to do with him.

Luckily for me, my law firm officially hates George W. Bush.

One assumes the same holds true of your clients then?

Methinks the Sullivanites are just upset that their is no forum on which they can vent at Andy’s site due to his brave stance against allowing comments. It’s also clear that some are eiliding an anonymous byline with anonymous sourcing. For the most part, Atrios simply presents news and opinions from other sources and always makes that clear, usually with a link. When Atrios writes his opinion, that is also clear, never disguised as news as one sees at many sites such as NewsMax or Daily Dish. Most importantly, if we disagree with Atrios the comments are available for instant criticism and become part of the record of any particular topic. Atrios gets taken to task quite often, and he does not duck the challenge. My conclusion to all this is that Sullivan is wrong, owes Atrios an apology, and it is clear that Andy is just peing pissy and flailing desperately for attention.

Anonymity:

There are two very powerful reasons why anonymity should be available.

First is the “chinese” argument: not everyone lives in a place or a job where political freedom is absolute. Can you be a socialist on wall street? Can you be a libertarian in the army? Can you be a gay right’s activist in a small redneck town. The answer, of course, is “yes, but only if you’re willing to put up with a lot of crap”. What if Atrios’ boss was a die-hard Republican? How would his advancement look then? Maybe it would be OK, maybe not.. in any case, anonymity allows him not to worry about it.

The second reason is, quite simply, hate mail. Publish your email address and you will get spammed. Publish a thought not shared with 99% of the public and you will get spammed with lots of crap. Publish your real name and expect to get some of it in the mail. In an era where anthrax comes with a stamp on, maybe it’s OK not to say who you are.

The price of anonymity is obvious: it’s hard to get taken seriously in the first place, which is fine and fair. (You could be taking cheap shots, you could be lying, you could be posing as a straw-man, you could be posing as many people, etc..) but Atrios has already overcome that hurdle, and has gotten a deserved audience.

And, in the last year or so of daily Atrios-reading, I’ve never heard him make a personal attack on Sullivan.. only on his publicly stated views. (Some of which, admittedly, are about being gay.)

So you are touting the benefits of an anonymous political discourse, but half of your blog is devoted to gutter political advertising in order to generate money?

These practices do not seem to fit together.

Re: anonymity

There are a lot of wackos out there. I am nobody of consequence, but in the past I have been harassed at home, via anonymous phone calls, over discussion of science fiction fandom on Usenet (in which I used my real name). If there are weirdoes who will get that worked up over something as trivial as SF fandom, you can be assured that there are weirdoes who will get that worked up, or worse, over something as important and as polarizing as politics. I learned my lesson back in the day, and so I use a pseudonym and throwaway/fake email addresses when I post on political blogs. Maybe that means I am “afraid to stand up for my viewpoints,” but I don’t consider blog-commenting to be a sufficiently-important activity to take the risk of being harassed by anonymous freaks.

Actually, the word “Eschaton” in the context of political/philosophical discourse was first coined (in modern times) by the philosopher Eric Vogelin, who spoke of millenarian movements “immanentizing the eschaton.” Look it up.

I have in the past received death threats from people offended by my opinions. While I sometimes state I will defend my opinions to the death, I’d rather not. Thus I publish my blog anonymously. Does that mean my opinion is invalid? Of course not. Ideas are valid or invalid based on their merit, not upon the identity of the person expressing them. That is why it upsets me that the Republican attack dogs appear only capable of attacking the person who expresses ideas contrary to their Great Leader’s agenda, rather than attacking the ideas of those people. (E.g., the whole “if you criticize our Great Leader’s policies in the War on Terror you are a supporter of terrorism!” meme). By staying (semi) anonymous I give them less target to attack personally, forcing them to focus on ideas.

Great post, SN! Way to nail the lying asswipe.

As I said on Atrios’ feedback page, bullies like Sullivan eventually implode; the strain of keeping up a false self is too great. Sullivan, of course, realizes this, which is why he’s terrified of Atrios. He’s projecting his own terror about his own lack of a self or true center, onto someone who chooses anonymity. Anonymity scares the narcissist, because he cannot manipulate/character assassinate the person so easily.

Keep up the good work.

Sebastian, all:

We know exactly why Sullivan changed his letters policy ? another instance of horrible hypocrisy ? and we will be blogging about it later tonight.

SullyWatch

I believe ad hominem attacks really do cheapen the debate, and I think people should avoid them.

Unless they’re funny.

And not about me.

Seriously, though, we’ve had to remove our polite little anti-war bumper sticker (“No Iraq War”) because our car kept getting vandalized. I don’t really care that some people strongly disagree with our opinion on the war, but it greatly disturbs me that they believe their disagreement gives them the right to do violence to our property. Depending on where you live, being anonymously liberal is not necessarily a bad idea, nor paranoid.

Of course, I choose not to be anonymous here because a) I doubt the car vandalizers from our area even know how to get on the internet past their own email and b) I’m not listed in the phone book and c) ego!

I drove a vw 411 to Picnic Days in Davis and my car was plastered with meat is murder stickers. Several trucks and SUV’s were vandalized across down the street as well.

But I guess vandalism is only for right wingers who support the war… Moron.

I still think it is funny that Atrios lobs personal attacks and insults while hiding behind a handle. At least it has turned out to be a profitable venture for him given all the gutter political ads he is spewing on his site.

If Atrios posted under the name “Scott Rheingold” or something a bit believable, no one would know it was a psudonymn, and this wouldn’t be part of the conversation. He could have done that and ducked the issue, but he’s been honestly anonymous.

I could have created a fake name for my own blog (and don’t think it didn’t cross my mind), but strangers don’t even believe my real name anyway so it seemed beside the point. Besides, I live far away, I don’t much worry about freepers bothering me. (How long did it take you to wonder whether “William Ericson” was my real name?)

(How long did it take you to wonder whether “William Ericson” was my real name?)

What’s so unbelievable about that name? Seems like a reasonable name to me. There was a guy in the class after me in law school called “Suk Wang.” Now that’s an unbelievable name. And the State’s Attorney of Cook County is named “Dick Devine” — sounds like a porno star. And then there’s a lawyer named “Richard Kuntz” – or “Dick Kuntz” if you prefer. My sister used to have a friend named “Kelly Green.” I know a chessplayer named “Spottsworth Christmas.” (Never asked if he has a sister “Mary.” But if you do a search you’ll find there are people named that, and “Dick Harden” and “Harry Cox.”) And then poor “Sadly, No!” is apparently named “Sebastian” after the crab in “The Little Mermaid.” 🙂

I’m not a public figure and Atrios was happy to link to and promote a vicious smear of me that ran on the blog of one of his less stable sycophants. My problem with Atrios is that he is a coward and a bully. With palpable glee, he hurls humiliating insinuations while hiding behind his anonymity. If he weren’t so malicious, I’d be more inclined to respect his decision to conceal his identity.

And then poor “Sadly, No!” is apparently named “Sebastian” after the crab in “The Little Mermaid.” 🙂

We are named after the crab in The Little Mermaid, 1989?!? This isn’t Kyle Williams‘ blog you know, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.

Both sides

Having listened to Atrios and Andrew Sullivan on the Blogging of the President radio show (you can hear it here),…

Ha! I knew you would make the lame argument that you can?t have been named after a character in a movie that came out after you were born! Wrong! If you were a giant of the blogosphere like Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds you would see the speciousness of this argument: Glenn brilliantly deduced that the publication of Valerie Plame?s picture in the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair proves that the claim that Bush administration officials violated the law in July 2003 by exposing her as a covert CIA operative is “bogus.” Obviously your faculties of reasoning pale in comparison with Glenn?s. btw, from the 2:37 a.m. post time, I’m glad to see that you are following through on your pledge to never sleep again.

why would most of us yowl if the New York Times and Washington Post drop all their bylines?

But when the NYT and WPost ‘speak’, they do so anonymously, through the editorial section. Or rather, through a collective, identifiable pseudonym, which is ‘The New York Times’ or ‘The Washington Post’. And while the ‘editorial board’ may be available, I know from personal experience that those who write and contribute to editorials aren’t necessarily listed.

Do we really want newspapers to sign their editorials? No: bylines are for op-ed. The point being that the institutions are accountable for their editorial viewpoints, just as a consistently pseudonymous commentator is not particularly elusive when it comes to critique.

Now, if you can find Atrios glove-puppeting elsewhere, a la John ‘Mary Josh’ Lott, then you’d have a point.

Oh man. Some guy ruins the name Zaphod by confessing that he reads Sullivan and then someone else denegrates Hitchhikers. I think I need a pan-galactic gargle blaster.

If you were a giant of the blogosphere like Glenn “Instapundit” Reynolds you would see the speciousness of this argument: Glenn brilliantly deduced that the publication of Valerie Plame?s picture in the January 2004 issue of Vanity Fair proves that the claim that Bush administration officials violated the law in July 2003 by exposing her as a covert CIA operative is “bogus.” Obviously your faculties of reasoning pale in comparison with Glenn?s.

Obviously — but then again, there’s no need to draw attention to the obvious, is there? We knew Glenn has the ability to see genius where others can’t when he announced:

ADAM YOSHIDA is a Harvard blogger with some interesting observations on the war.

To “Zaphod” – “eschaton” isn’t a reference to the Illuminatus Trilogy (and yes, everyone who’s read that should be embarassed for having read that). Atrios says it’s a reference to David Foster Wallace’s “Infinite Jest,” but even then the word “eschaton” is a theological term which refers to the last thing, or the end of the world. So yes, you’re being stupid.

To the larger point of the Atrios/Sullivan issue – when Sullivan begins attacking Tacitus’s anonymity – or that of the Economist’s contributors, as noted in the original post – or issuing “challenges” to Glenn Reynolds, I might respect him. That is, I might respect him – if he starts writing/blogging instead of handing out today’s Nth “Barbra Streisand Award!” in lieu of actual commentary. Sullivan is one of the only people who can make Mickey Kaus look deep.

Obviously — but then again, there’s no need to draw attention to the obvious, is there? We knew Glenn has the ability to see genius where others can’t when he announced:

ADAM YOSHIDA is a Harvard blogger with some interesting observations on the war.

Holy mother of Christ. That’s the first time I’ve seen someone use “Adam Yoshida” in a sentence without also using the word “psychotic.”

Jesse Mayshark – This whole thing about “people living in a repressive political system” is silly; left-wing bloggers are not being arrested in this country, and they’re not going to be… it leads others to think that they might NOT have the right speak up without fear.

I personally know one liberal who was sacked for attending an antiwar protest last year, one conservative who bragged about selecting the liberals in his department for redundancy, and more than a few lefties who were too afraid to attend smaller anti-war protests in case their names ended up on black or no-fly lists. Greens were denied the right to fly more than a few times.

Repression does exist in the USA, and the majority of it is directed at those that oppose the establishment in favour of left-leaning ideals. Protecting yourself in such a society is unfortunately a prerequisite.

So much for land of the free, huh.