There may be an important insight here when someone like Jonah separates out "amateurs" who are just blogging "for fun." So many wingnuts seem to be just making stuff up in support of their positions, and that modus operandi makes more sense if they're just doing it for fun, instead of actually believing in what they're doing.

It is poo like this that ended Media Whores Online. I miss the horse, it was the best. Oddly, we still don't know who ran it.

Oddly, we still don't know who ran it.

Ok - I'll fess up...

For me the important thing to note about a blogger who uses a pseudonym is that they are asking to have their opinions taken at face value. Their arguments stand on their own and the public's perception of their arguments are not biased by any extraneous credentials that may be attached to the full identity. When Publius or Hilzoy blog, they are not presenting their opinions as those of some expert in some unrelated field, but as the opinions of two individuals who are known entirely through their writings. Hardly something done "for fun". In its own way it is much more serious blogging than those that blog under their own name and give their history and partial resume.

Every time Jonah opens his mouth, a puppy gets cancer.

There may be an important insight here when someone like Jonah separates out "amateurs" who are just blogging "for fun."

Wouldn't you separate the amateurs from the pros by the quality of the arguments?

Or is Goldberg saying that he can't tell the quality of the arguments by himself?

I for one feels it's a privilege to able to read publius for free. He/She/It is one of the best writers commenting on contemporary American politics, right up there with Benen and Sullivan.

When this started, Ed Whalen wrote that he was "reliably informed that publius is in fact the pseudonym of law professor John F. Blevins"

I'm just curious....

"Reliably informed" by whom? Shouldn't Whalen tell us this? Wouldn't it be cowardice and unprofessional not to reveal this anonymous person's name?

If writing is about opinions and ideas, what's the difference what name one wants to publish by? Can we not applaud or denigrate or disagree with someone's writing regardless of the name they use? I'm equally comfortable with Steve Benen and The Carpetbagger. Does a rose by any other name smell less sweet? Frak it.

Publius, like most political bloggers, is attempting to engage and influence the national discussion on those issues he chooses to write about. That's absolutely no different than what Goldberg does (except for the quality of writing and analysis being much higher).

Also, publius didn't get his job as a reward for his mother getting a young woman to save a semen-encrusted dress. So there's that.

Ach! That's not right...that was specifically Linda Tripp. But Lucianne was involved in Tripp's involvement.

Would pen names enable us to be spared the prime time opinions of people like the Cheney and McCain offspring unless they really have something important to say? That would be good. Let's focus on the quality of the argument, not the irrelevance of the name and we'll have a true democracy of ideas.

I luv these 'analogues' of debate. Why a person writes with an internet 'nic' is pretty much irrelvant to what is being written. Thus, the knowledge base as well as the skill set, is of primary importance, and said sadly or written accordingly by me, both consistenly come up short at least from my perspective.

And as a Native American/Chicano, permit me to add a tad of 'agitation' and 'aggravation' to this subject area?

Under my 'nic' of Jaango, I write the "Cactus Juice Commentaries" for the Chicano Veterans Organization, and for in doing so, I am much more read than either Publicus or Goldberg, and possibly both combined. Consequently, I must be doing something 'wrong' if I were to use either the Whelan or Goldberg 'standard' as a point of comparison and contrast.

And yet, I will continue to write under my 'nic' for very obvious reasons. As a Vietnam War vet, a licensed mortgage banker, and all-around good guy, I can 'pat myself on the back' without 'harming' anyone and whom ascribes to a failed political philosophy or an Ideology that is supremely out-dated. And both Whelan and Goldberg represent for me, their failed philosophy, despite their respective lack of a qualitative knowledge base and/or skill set.

And why am I not a national columnist of some resonance?

I much prefer my self-interest for remaining tightly wrapped in the business arena of our Indigenous Hemisphere. Thus, my having lived in the Latin America Region for over ten years, adds to the 'newer' and 'better' taco sauce and for which I gladly share among my Brothers and Sisters of Shared Experiences.

And to close out this post, unfortunately for America, neither Whelan nor Goldberg have ever done an 'internship' at a prestigious institution that has as it's 'mission' covering this Hemisphere and with all of the reflective and respective nuances and subtleties that are required for expounding on the 'issues' of import.

Note: And no, this post is not an advertising plug, just a healthy dose of reality and normally not found in the MSM, but found readily available on the Internet.

Jaango

goldberg is such a nimrod. the guy seems to think in a cartoon-like way about history -- and more tragically, about human suffering caused by horrendous political decisions.

no offense to really nice fools out there, but goldberg are one a'you guys...

Let's not forget the many pseudonyms Benjamin Franklin wrote under. Although, sometimes I think he was doing it "for fun."

Seriously. It's like saying "The Economist" is an untrustworthy magazine because they don't have bylines.

Shorter Goldberg:
If your mommy had gotten you a really important job like my mommy did to me, you would be important enough to write under a pseudonym.
P.S. mine is RedDawn4ever! if you ever want to chat.

The parallels between 18th century pamphleteers and 21st century bloggers are, I hope, fairly obvious.

To Jonah Goldberg? You have got to be kidding.

AHH, The Valerie Plame excuse...

Goldberg's argument doesn't even make sense on its own terms. He's saying that if you're a revolutionary trying to overthrow the prevailing political order, you're presumptively granted the right to anonymity. But if you're a moderate attempting to influence political outcomes within the existing Constitution, you should be unmasked and exposed.

So basically, Jonah is refusing to stand up for publius because the stakes are too low.

What's interesting is that it's obvious where Goldberg places himself on this scale. And equally obvious that the monumental stupidity of his discourse disqualifies him from the plane he fervently wishes he inhabited.

Tom Veil,
Yeah, but the Economist is European, so it's obviously misguided and fey.

Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, and Timothy Turnstone were a few of the many pseudonyms used by what famous Ameriacan.

I’m no blogger (not smart enough), but the persistence of this topic is making me feel uncomfortable. So I’ll fess up. My real name isn't Chopin. My given name was Rick A. Mortis, but I got so much flack in med school that I legally changed my name to Jack Ash. It's what people were calling me anyway.

K. Ashford brings up a great point above. Does Whalen think anonymous sources are just hunky-dory but he despises anonymous bloggers? Er, just anonymous bloggers that "pantsed" him that is.

for what it's worth, the moderator here objected to my using the pseudonym "MatthewRQuarreler." Because it would impair accountability for my opinions.

I don't know whether the moderator would object to my use of my other pseudonym, "Papageno."

Madison, Hamilton and Jay were entitled to anonymity for their "Federalist" editorials because those were not ad hominem attacks on named opponents (though they wrote such on other occasions.) It seems to me that nobody who insults others by name should enjoy anonymity/pseudonymity.

Does anyone with an ounce of intelligence believe that anyone would pay any attention to Jonah Goldberg at all if he used a pseudonym? Does Goldberg even believe that?

A reader asked Goldberg whether it was "cowardly" of Madison, Hamilton, and Jay to publish the Federalist Papers under a pseudonym. "No," Goldberg responded. "Madison, Hamilton, and Jay weren't amateur pundits."

So according to Goldberg, the more important and influential you are, the more you are entitled to be anonymous?

Except, of course, they kind of were. We understandably think of these three as relative giants of the era, but in the 1780s, Madison, Hamilton, and Jay were reflecting on the current events of the day, without compensation, because they wanted to help shape the political discourse.

Goldberg is, actually, right. They weren't anythign like amateur commentators, they were active politicians writing anonymously to lobby for support for proposals which they were deeply involved in putting together in the first place.

They were, after all, among the drafters of the Constitution (Madison being the principal author) and the Federalist Papers were written in an effort to overcome objections to the Constitution.

Of course, given that, they probably have less of a claim to anonymity than amateur commentators would, since the Federalist Papers were essentially an early exercise in astroturfing, as "Publius" pretended to be a citizen who had considered the Constitution and decided to support it, rather than a collection of its authors acting to promote it.

Silence Dogood, Harry Meanwell, Alice Addertongue, Richard Saunders, and Timothy Turnstone were a few of the many pseudonyms used by what famous Ameriacan.

IIRC, that was Benjamin Franklin, aka "Poor Richard".

Look. If Goldberg tried to write his own blog under an assumed name without the wingnut welfare that got him where he is, he would never get an audience.

He would just be known as, "That deranged moron who calls liberals fascists." He would be right up there with the time cube guy.

The parallels between 18th century pamphleteers and 21st century bloggers are, I hope, fairly obvious.

To Jonah Goldberg? You have got to be kidding.

Well of course. If Jonah can see enough parallels between fascism and liberalism that he can construct an entire book out of them, he should be able to see parallels between any two given phenomena.

the moderator here objected to my using the pseudonym "MatthewRQuarreler."

And I assumed Quarreler was a parody.

for what it's worth, the moderator here objected to my using the pseudonym "MatthewRQuarreler." Because it would impair accountability for my opinions.
Posted by: MatthewRMarler

And here I was thinking that was a parody. Little did I know you were saving your really stupid thoughts for your pseudonym. One learns something new every day...

The notion that Publius and Hilzoy are anonymous is wrong. Their pen names are actual brands. They are known commodities. Don't conflate using a pseudonym with being anonymous. When you read the byline Publius you know what to expect. His name and body of work is as real to you as Steve Benen's. Publius is well known, Ed Whelan not so much.

There is one thing I have been thinking about today that I would like to share. The strength of the liberal blogs is not the merely the superior quality of the liberal bloggers, but the depth of discussion generated by the many outstanding pseudonymous comment writers. Many write notes on blackberries, or during lunch breaks than are better than anything published in the National Review. I come to Washington Monthly to read the insightful comments. Try doing that at any of the conservative blogs.

By the way, only one in a 1000 readers of the Washington monthly ever post a comment. You might think they are all coming merely to read Steve's work, but I am not so sure.

I think Goldberg really does imagine that The Founding Fathers all went around with Founding Father badges pinned to their chests.

Of course, given that, they probably have less of a claim to anonymity than amateur commentators would, since the Federalist Papers were essentially an early exercise in astroturfing, as "Publius" pretended to be a citizen who had considered the Constitution and decided to support it, rather than a collection of its authors acting to promote it.

So really, when you think about it, the Federalist Papers were AstroTurf? ;)

Let's see Jonah Goldberg write under a pseudonym and see if ANYBODY pays attention to what he says.

The only reason he gets any ink is because his mother is the harridan who orchestrated Bill Clinton's impeachment.

I will offer here what I said to my son, when he questioned the quality of the information I get from blogs. "Do you know who writes the editorials in the local newspaper?" The Op-Ed columnists are identified, but the editorial writers cloak themselves in anonymity.

I see others beat me to the punch, but repeating the valid point just emphasizes it.

If Jonah Goldberg used a pseudonym NO ONE would give 2 cents for his opinion, much less give him a book deal.

Where in the Federalist Papers did Madison, Hamilton or Jay ever refer to a political or intellectual opponent as the equivalent of a "legal hitman"?

There were, I believe 85 Federalist essays written. How much has publius written? Is there a level of involvement in public discourse where pseudonymity becomes no longer appropriate?

Mike

Whelan sez:

"But if the supposed ethics of the Internet treat a blogger’s smears and misrepresentations as par for the course yet condemn someone who accurately identifies a blogger who is using the cover of a pseudonym to engage in those smears and misrepresentations, then I don’t accept those rules."

I actually think that's a fair assessment of the ethics of outing, in the hypothetical. The problem here is that Publius "smeared" Whelan by quoting him fairly and accurately, dismantling his argument line by line, and demonstrating that Whelan is a hack who has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

Let's see Jonah Goldberg write under a pseudonym and see if ANYBODY pays attention to what he says. - Sarah Barracuda

You know, that's actually an interesting comment. Most conservative pundits would merely be dismissed as kooks if not for name recognition. Their arguments don't stand up to scrutiny, so they need either a name like Goldberg or a platform like the WaPo or NYT. But take a Bill Kristol column, use a pseudonym on a minor website, and people would just shake their head and move on.

...we now know who the original "publius" was ...

We always knew that. Publius Valerius Publicola, consul of 509 (according to tradition, 505 more likely) and author of the Lex Valeria which enshrined separation of powers into western Republicanism (and progressive taxation for that matter... oh, and shiving Caesar, that too).

Jonah Goldberg is not smart.

Wow, I too thought Quarreler was a parody of Marler. If it wasn't, what the hell was the point to it, Marler?

That's absolutely no different than what Goldberg does (except for the quality of writing and analysis being much higher). -- Anonymous Liberal

And Goldberg outs A.L, out of pique, in...

I really like msmolly's argument (@17:11) best: do you know who of the "editorial board" wrote which editorial in your paper?

Quoth: "But there's no way to apply a "significance" test to the present. There's no way to pick and choose who is worthy enough to write under a pseudonym (because we don't know who they are!). And without knowing the future, there's no way to fairly or reliably judge the relative significance of people's writings."

Why does anyone even have to say that? Much less to someone whose blatherings have a wide audience?

This outing exemplifies why there must be anonymity, in order to overcome the likes of Jonah Goldberg.

Quoth MBunge: "Where in the Federalist Papers did Madison, Hamilton or Jay ever refer to a political or intellectual opponent as the equivalent of a "legal hitman"? [..] Is there a level of involvement in public discourse where pseudonymity becomes no longer appropriate?"

Pseudonymity only becomes important to opponents. That is, if I say nasty things about you, you become very curious about my identity. However, my anonymity is what allows me to say nasty things about you, and perhaps you deserve those nasty things being said. Perhaps my target really *is* a 'legal hitman,' and thus the charge is not mere hyperbole.

The Boston Tea Party, by the way, was perpetrated by white people disguised as Native Americans. Those cowards!

I have lived in Los Angeles for most of my life and always read the Los Angeles Times. Until Jonah Goldberg was given a job via the Tribune ownership of the LA Times. That was enough for me. I quit reading and buying the Times. Goldberg is the son of his mother and a loathsome character. He really believes that the right buys into his Liberal Fascism theories, as if they are not mutually exclusive. The right seems to be duped about most everything else, or if not duped, encouraged to promote the talking point even if it is untrue. Jonah Goldberg is a zero in my book. Where did these lying thugs come from?

i would like to out j goldberg as an idiot. oops, too late

Given the level of insane hatred on the Right, is what Ed Whalen did really that much different than Bill O'Reilly's efforts to get Dr. Tiller killed?

If publius suffers any negative outcome from Whalen's dickery, I'm sure he'll be just as unwilling to see his own complicity as O'Reilly has been.

To a large extent, the situation is the opposite (surprise! heh) than what Jonah says: amateurs are more deserving of anonymity in most cases. Look at mere commenters versus bloggers. I think Kevin Drun and Steve Benen are taken more seriously because people know who they are, also for Josh Marshall, Brad DeLong, etc. "Doughy pantload" earns his nickname again. Hey, that gives me an idea for an anonymous blog by Jonah Goldberg ...

"Pseudonymity only becomes important to opponents."

HA! It's pretty clearly important to publius and other like minded folk or they wouldn't have pitched such a fit about it.

I'd certainly agree that Whelen is a petty jackass for doing what he did and I've got no problem with him being criticized for being a petty jackass. But while publius or anyone else is entitled blog pseudononymously if they wish, I don't understand why anyone else should be morally or ethically obligated to respect that pseudonymity if the pseudononymous blogger talks trash about them.

It doesn't matter that publius is right about the issue and Whelen is wrong. If you want to make a hobby or get into the business of calling people out, you should do it in the open and not from the shadows or the bleachers.

MBunge, I remind you of the point made by clever but pertinent wags: someone tipped off Whelan who Publius was, and that person remains anonymous! So, shouldn't that person in turn have the guts to say who he/she is? Now, don't the friends of Publius have the right to expose that person, if he/she won't do so willingly?

(Sorry, "they" is supposed to be a group of people.)

for what it's worth, the moderator here objected to my using the pseudonym "MatthewRQuarreler." Because it would impair accountability for my opinions.

The moderator objected to your using "MatthewRQuarreler" because

1. You were handlejacking the real MatthewRQuarreler.
2. You were doing so in an attempt to deflect a satire of you, which was clearly extremely embarrassing to you in its accuracy, as evidenced by you running away and hiding for a long stretch after MRQ began parodying your predictable ass. It took you weeks to come up with the idea of using the parody handle yourself, probably about 1/10th as long as it will take you to figure out how to embed a simple link even after you've had your hand held as you were taught to do it.

A quick study you ain't.

You may post parodies of yourself if you wish, although you don't have any particular talent for it. You may not jack another person's handle to do so.

Surprisingly, Jonah Goldberg *is* a pseudonym.

I have been informed by reliable sources that all of the material published under the name "Jonah Goldberg" has actually been written by a concerned citizen who wishes to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons. The physical entity known as "Jonah Goldberg" is just a beard.

Prove me wrong.

"Now, don't the friends of Publius have the right to expose that person, if he/she won't do so willingly?"

Sure, and they'd look like a bunch of petty jackasses just like Whelen. They'd all be perfectly moral and ethical petty jackasses in this matter, however.

Mike

Publius wrote on paper. Bloggers write on electrons. Unless someone at the Library of Congress or the National Archives is looking into preserving electronic media, it might be rather hard to read the historically significant Hilzoy or Atrios (before he disclosed himself as Duncan Black) two hundred years from now.

It seems to me that nobody who insults others by name should enjoy anonymity/pseudonymity.

According to your dim logic Thomas Paine should clearly have been outed for his attacks on King George at the expense of the American Revolution. The Soviet dissidents should have been outed for their attempts to free themselves and their countrymen from a corrupt and oppressive government. The Iraqi bloggers who were your best friends should have been outed, and the Iranian ones currently insulting their regime. Can't have anyone insulting anyone else anonymously!

No one needs to call you a petulant, self-serving egomaniac to see that your position is ridiculous, but it sure serves to highlight that fact.

Oh and Marler, it took me all of sixty seconds to find this:

You are of course correct about KD being center-left and thoughtful, but occasionally he adds an anti-Republican rant that only a die-hard Democrat could tolerate. Despite all his writing about sleaze, he pretty much stays away from Mollohan (D. WVA) and Jefferson (D. LA) and Murtha (D. PA). Or Byrd (D. WVA ) for whom theft of government funds is policy (that's an exaggeration, of course). Without constant reminding, he tends to forget that sleaze is bi-partisan.

Posted by: papago on October 3, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Amateur anonymous attacks? Tsk tsk.

blank: The moderator objected to your using "MatthewRQuarreler" because
...
1. You were handlejacking the real MatthewRQuarreler.
2. You were doing so in an attempt to deflect a satire of you, which was clearly extremely embarrassing to you in its accuracy, as evidenced by you running away and hiding for a long stretch after MRQ began parodying your predictable ass. It took you weeks to come up with the idea of using the parody handle yourself, probably about 1/10th as long as it will take you to figure out how to embed a simple link even after you've had your hand held as you were taught to do it.

1 is half right: there was no "real" MatthewRQuarreler, it was a pun on my name and a parody of my points and style.

2 is wrong: MatthewRQuarreler was funny and a delight to read, a really good parody. I took the handle because it was funny.

Amateur anonymous attacks? Tsk tsk

I thought that the issue being debated was who was entitled to have anonymity/pseudonymity protected? I have written before that I do this for fun; my analogy was sandlot football. I also practice writing out thoughts for my letters to my elected officials.

At least you recognize me as an amatuer: a few have asserted that I get paid.

I took the handle because it was funny.

Why? You're not funny. Did you think no one would notice?

I thought that the issue being debated was who was entitled to have anonymity/pseudonymity protected?

Yes it is. You said, and I quote, "It seems to me that nobody who insults others by name should enjoy anonymity/pseudonymity."

I pointed out that:

1) legitimate critics have been attacking people by name for centuries for noble reasons, refuting your point, and:

2) that you yourself have done it, showing your hypocrisy on the matter and further undermining the legitimacy and seriousness of your opinion. You don't get a pass if you're only doing it for "fun."

Next.

There are bigger fish to fry out there.

Get a life.

FYI, Whelan has posted a public apology on at the Corner and apparently apologized personally to Publius as well. Sometimes even the wingers do the right thing.

blank: Why? You're not funny. Did you think no one would notice?

I thought that everyone would notice.

About trex on June 8, 2009 at 10:51 PM

1. blogging hasn't been around for centuries, so for blogging the issue is new.

2. I claim no privilege of anonymity/pseudonymity, as publius seems to have claimed.

Pseudonyms are for pussies.

I thought that everyone would notice.

Which totally confirms that your intention was to disarm the parody, not to keep it going. Sounds like you didn't find it all that comfortable after all, as your long disappearance and failure to mention it until busted handlejacking suggest.

It disappointments me that I've read so much rhetoric on a topic that merits so little, really... Whatever happened to an individual's right to privacy? Whalen should have thought about that before staging his hissy fit. Publius is a better man than I because in his place, I would have told Whalen to shove that apology right up his ass. If this affair has taught us anything, it should be that while some on the right still have respect for basic decency, others -- Whalen and those who defended have -- haven't the respect for anything beyond the grasp of their own opinions.

But there's no way to apply a "significance" test to the present. There's no way to pick and choose who is worthy enough to write under a pseudonym (because we don't know who they are!).

Yes there is. And Jonah has found it. Which, obviously, is why he gets to write for important publications.

http://goethean.blogspot.com/2009/06/on-7-june-2009-someone-with-ip-address.html

Whelan is still lying.

Publius wrote on paper. Bloggers write on electrons. Unless someone at the Library of Congress or the National Archives is looking into preserving electronic media, it might be rather hard to read the historically significant Hilzoy or Atrios (before he disclosed himself as Duncan Black) two hundred years from now.

Posted by: sara

Actually, it's all being saved: Internet Wayback Machine.

Now, whether or not we have machines that can access the info 200 years from now is another question ...

Regardless, the medium of a message is irrelevant. It's the message that matters, which is why, IMHO, pseudonyms should be used more, not less.

Too often an absurd point gets play simply because of who said it, as if stupidity is more acceptable when displayed by someone with "credentials."

If we could somehow just focus on the message itself, most of the wingnut pundits and bloggers would be out of work. Which, now that I think about it, is probably why they hate pseudonyms so much ...

:-)

Îòëè÷íàÿ ïîäà÷à! Âñå, ó êîãî åñòü äîïîëíèòåëüíàÿ èíôà - âàñþ 567äâà40452.