Here's a copy of an email I just sent to one of the yahoos who blogs over at National Review Online. (Yeah, that National Review.) I have added a link to the body of the text, so that you will know what's going on.
To: Ed Whelan
Subject: Stay classy, EdEd:
Just saw that you outed publius, evidently because you couldn't win a blogospat on the merits.
A low blow. And typically Republican. No wonder you all are so far in the minority.
Brendan Keefe
For the record, I used to be fairly vehemently opposed to anonymous posting online, and I did not see a difference between that and pseudonymous blogging. I have since changed my mind about that -- there are too many stories out there about people suffering real consequences from having their meatspace identities made public. An online pseudonym is effectively a distinct entity, I now believe, and if people want to publish under online identities, that's fine with me. I'd rather have them being honest about their thoughts, and if using a pen name helps, that's all to the good, as far as I'm concerned. In any case, outing a person against his or her will by revealing personal information is reprehensible behavior, and I felt that way even before I understood the difference between anonymous commenters and pseudonymous bloggers.
(h/t: Sadly, No!)
[Added] Pretty funny that Ed Whelan currently draws a wingnut welfare check from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, isn't it? The EPPC says they are "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy."
If you didn't already know, Whelan has lately been one of the leading attack dogs out there spreading FUD about Judge Sotomayor. Previously, he worked in the Bush White House, in the Office of Legal Counsel, around the time all those fun torture memos were being drawn up.
Those Republicans and their Orwellianisms, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment