What's the big deal with anonymity?

Much ado has been made in the New Albany area blogosphere, in no small part by the prostituted progressives, about the anonymity or pseudonymity of contributors and posters. Even Speak Out Loud NA recently waded into these choppy waters, changing course only to reverse yet again.

Western civilization has a long history of anonymous and pseudonymous commentators and authors dating from at least the Greco-Roman era. These people were, may I say without trying to offend anyone, writing much more eloquently and intelligently than any of us (myself included) are in these local blogs. Much of our outstanding literature (Shakespeare?), important political discourse (Camillus?), and even perhaps New Testament writings (Pauline attributions?) were published anonymously or pseudonymously.

Many of the anonymous and pseudonymous political contributors, in fact, helped to shape the formation and direction of our nation, perhaps best exemplified by Benjamin Franklin and his many (alleged) pseudonyms.

Likewise, modern investigative journalism has come to rely upon the anonymous source (Watergate?), and many states and the federal government have enacted whistleblower statutes, which protect the identities of those who come forward.

“So What’s the Big Deal?”

Well, there is no big deal with unknown writers.

Many of the pro-progressives, and others of their ilk who seem to think they are somehow more enlightened than others, rant and rave about anonymous/pseudonymous posts. They claim that such submittals somehow carry less intellectual worth or veracity, although they cannot articulate the reasons why. Such comments from those who sport their own blogs are especially humorous, given the overall tone of contemptuousness in their publications. Dare not post anything in dissent of the ‘bookman’ – he will try his feeble best to eviscerate both you and your opinion.

The real and only reason for the desire to know and control ‘who writes what’ is the patently obvious, yet unstated desire to quash any debate by those who dare disagree with their opinions, or chosen leaders. How would knowing a person’s identity perhaps quash the debate? There are two main reasons. The first is quite obvious in a small town and community such as ours (and like those where I grew up in my home state). If a person must disclose who they are, they will not participate in the debate in the first place, for fear of losing their job, their relatives losing jobs, not getting a job/contract, scorn from their neighbors, hassled by law enforcement, etc, etc. This is especially true if what such people wish to say cuts against the current leadership, and the local press is in the pocket of said leadership. The second reason is the belief that, if a person’s identity is known, that fact can somehow be used to undermine their position – skeletons in the closet if you will. [Note: Keep in mind, only P-P’s are capable of throwing the first stone….]

A minor, humorous third reason focuses on “frustrated censorship.” Most ‘enlightened’ folks, and P-P’s, are in reality closet socialists. They decry the open press (Rush? SOLNA?) and are frustrated by the electoral process. We “little people” do not know how to write, to whom we should listen, nor for whom to vote – we are much too stupid to be entrusted with such things, “troglodytes” if you will. But please do not hold this fact against them. Many do not even know (yet) that they are closet socialists. It is analogous to the person not yet ready to enter rehab, because many have not reached the point where they can admit to themselves that a problem does indeed exist. That damned Berlin Wall never fell!

”Just the Facts, Ma’am”

The only real issue is the facts of a given situation. As long as the debate centers on the facts, it matters not the identity of the debaters. Facts can be verified, no matter from where or by whom they were disclosed.

Facts about investigations, facts about sewer overflows, facts about city finances, facts about multiple paid positions, etc.

Those who protest against the anonymity and pseudonymity of this blog simply do not want the facts to surface, especially those which focus attention, perhaps negatively, on their self-anointed leaders. By focusing instead only on the issue that those in the debate are unknown, they are simply trying to detract attention from the facts of the argument.

These protestors attempt in vain to practice the old legal adage -- don’t cloud the issue with facts.

”The Ultimate Anonymity”

I would encourage all to continue to post anonymously or pseudonymously, and stick to the facts of the situation. It is a large part of our democratic heritage and political debate. Those who protest against it will continue to do so – just laugh and let it ride, you certainly cannot stop it.

And this fall, I would encourage all of appropriate age to practice perhaps the longest, constitutionally protected right of anonymity we have: VOTE to throw the current mayor out of office!

Just don’t ask me who I am!

blogtastic