by john blevins (aka, publius)
So there you have it – I’ve been officially outed by Ed Whelan. I would never have done that to my harshest critic in a million years, but oh well.
And to be clear – the proximate cause was that Whelan got mad that I criticized him in a blog post. More specifically, he’s mad that Eugene Volokh made him look rather silly – and he’s lashing out at me for pointing that out, and publishing my name.
For background, Whelan and others have been harshly criticizing Sotomayor for her comment that courts are “where policy is made.” Whelan has repeatedly seized on this comment (in print and on TV), and is demagoguing it (much like he did with selective and inflammatory readings of Koh).
The problem, though, is that it’s not even controversial that courts consider policy, which Whelan knows full well. Volokh, responding to one of these Whelan posts, wrote an excellent and definitive blog post explaining in great detail why courts do consider policy (something Orin Kerr echoed a while back too). Volokh’s post embarrassed Whelan because it decimated his argument – and now he’s mad.
Whelan is now pretending that Volokh was responding to his single post about Sotomayor’s “Revealing Joke.” I can’t speak for Volokh, but I doubt he would have taken the time to write such a detailed and examining post if he were responding to a single post. I read Volokh’s post as frustration with the larger attack on “make policy,” in which Whelan has been front and center.
But anyway, he’s right – my name is John Blevins. I recently joined the faculty at South Texas College of Law in Houston (both of which I love) after practicing for years in DC. I’m also now a recent convert to the Houston Rockets, and am enraged that Chuck Hayes doesn’t shoot more.
I thought about ignoring the whole thing – but some of you have been with me for 5 years now, so I thought you all deserved an explanation.
As I told Ed (to no avail), I have blogged under a pseudonym largely for private and professional reasons. Professionally, I’ve heard that pre-tenure blogging (particularly on politics) can cause problems. And before that, I was a lawyer with real clients. I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts. So I don’t tell them about this blog. Also, I write and research on telecom policy – and I consider blogging and academic research separate endeavors. This, frankly, is a hobby.
Privately, I don’t write under my own name for family reasons. I’m from a conservative Southern family – and there are certain family members who I’d prefer not to know about this blog (thanks Ed). Also, I have family members who are well known in my home state who have had political jobs with Republicans, and I don’t want my posts to jeopardize anything for them (thanks again).
All of these things I would have told Ed, if he had asked. Instead, I told him that I have family and professional reasons for not publishing under my own name, and he wrote back and called me an “idiot” and a “coward.” (I’ve posted the email exchange below).
So there you have it – I’ve been successfully pseudonymous since the Iowa caucuses in 2004. During that time, I’ve criticized hundreds of people – and been criticized myself by hundreds more. But this has never happened.
And yes – I criticized Whelan rather harshly. But that’s what the blogosphere is about. Blogging is not for the thin-skinned. And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people’s reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn’t be so childish and thin-skinned.
Anyway, I’m not sure whether I’ll start posting under my own name or not. And there were several people who already knew – it’s not like this is a state secret. But still, if I wanted my name out on this blog, I would have done so. It should have been my choice.
Oh – and one last point. In his outing post, Whelan makes a big deal of my so-called “second” pseudonym “Edward Winkleman.” That’s actually a real person – he was an early member of the group blog Obsidian Wings and initially set up the group email address (obsidianinfo@yahoo), which is listed in the “About” and "Email Me" sections. Scandalous, I know.
In other words, he’s criticizing me for replying on the Obsidian Wings institutional email to which he initially wrote. What’s funny is that Whelan and I have corresponded on this very address before.
In short, it’s misleading and without context. And sort of mean. And that’s how he rolls.
Anyway, here’s the email exchange below, which is more "revealing" than any of Sotomayor's jokes (click for the full view):
And here's his initial email:
Bloody hell.
All sympathy. What a bloody stupid thing to do.
I hope whatever trouble Ed Whelan thinks he can kick up with this is all for him, and none for you.
What an unbelievable dick.
I hope this doesn’t cause you to withdraw, I enjoy your writing immensely.
Frankly, you should file a civil suit against him, if for no other reason than to make him spend time and money responding. If that’s the game these scumbags want to play, make them go all in.
BTW, can Slarti or someone who has a talent for tracking IPs in comments confirm whether our “mr. moto” and “lsd-etc.” in the other thread are in fact likely to be Mr Whelan? So long as he’s in the process of embarrassing himself in public, might as well help him along.
I dont know who ed is, but he doesn’t seem very smart. These mean tricks almost always bite back.
What a jackass.
I’ll second Hank P’s comment. This is BS, and I hope it doesn’t cause you to stop blogging. Whelan should be ashamed, if he’s capable of it.
“Now who’s the hitman,” he asks, after outing you without permission.
Um… that would still be him.
Nice to know he has wit to go along with his honesty and class.
Ed Whelan is a petty man.
I think I’m detecting the beginning of the end of the widespread use of pseudonyms in the blogosphere. Relying on netiquette will not work with people like Ed Whelan.
It’s a god damned shame, really.
Agree with Phil on the civil suit, but am of several minds about the causes of action. Defamation? Interference with Business Relations? Emotional Distress is probably out, since publius is putting on a brave face.
On the facts, though, it seems that there should be something — or several things — right on the money. It’s been too long since the bar for me to have it on the tip of my tongue, but . . . Whelan cannot be unaware of many reasons why people blog anonymously. He also — by the time he posted — knew you were a law professor, and as a lawyer himself (allegedly) should have been able to divine a million reasons why you would want to continue anonymously. His claim that cowardice is the sole reason is pretextual. He outed you for the sole reason that he thought you would be hurt in your profession. If his purpose is to damage publius’ professional reputation whether he succeeded is immaterial, correct?
Also ,it’s particularly rich that Ed (and by and through his sock puppets) seems to think that this is a response to some unwarranted, over the top, and outside the bounds attack by publius. He seems to think that “ad hominem” is a phrase that he alone gets to determine the meaning of. Most hilariously, he seems to think he’s not exactly what Anonymous Liberal described him to be, despite his pitch perfect demonstration of the accuracy of that description.
And now he’s adding sock puppetry to his resume. Oh well, Lee Siegel was getting lonely.
Well, as one of those folks who’s been reading you since (no joke) sometime in late 2003/early 2004 (my RA when I was a freshman in college recommended Legal Fiction), I can say that the only difference for me is that I’ll know who to buy a drink when I’m in Houston.
Let me add to the sympathy above, though. Truly a dick move, Eddy W.
Whelan should be ashamed, if he’s capable of it.
Oh, he’s not. Nor are Malkin, or Trevino, or any of the numerous other WATBs who revel in revealing the real names of pseudonymous bloggers or other such personal information.
Even worse, there will be no consequence for Whelan aside from some embarrassment in the blogosphere. NRO won’t chastise him or punish him, he won’t suffer professionally, nothing.
For the record, Ed Whelan is a coward AND an idiot AND an incompetent hitman. He’d be a better hitman if he weren’t such a coward and an idiot.
If “mr moto” and others who supported Whelan’s argument are not in fact just his sock-puppets – is this really your hero? Is this really how you think people ought to behave? Really?
Finally: National Review. Sigh. Is this your idea of responsible journalism? Really?
Sheesh.
Don’t worry, you’ll always be “that damned Wildcat Blue-Mist son of a bitch” to me. ;]
And SOT have you seen NR’s latest cover?
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/
Buckley would roll in his grave at the sophomoric editorial direction his magazine is taking.
Whelan has made a strong effort here, but he will have to try harder if he wants to be the principal embarrassment for the National Review this week. the competition is just so talented.
John WHO??
Don’t worry, you’ll always be “publius” to us — lower-case and all…
And did I miss something, how come Edward_ (or should that be “Mr. Underscore”?) got in the middle?
Stay publius, publius.
No, really. That’s your name, to a lot of us. Who admire how you think, even when we think you’re wrong. Who like the premises, and the conclusions, you choose, for their comprehensiveness and their thoughtfulness.
I’ll echo what Jay said… who is this John fellow?
Crap, if I started using my “real” name, nobody would know who the Hell I was either. Not after 20 years of being Elf Sternberg.
So you just go on being publius. We like you that way.
It might be possible to find all this moral indignation a little less laughable if there was even the slightest chance that the outing of a pseudonymous conservative blogger would register anything other than high fives all around among this group.
I’m guessing Ed doesn’t really think pseudonymity is the coward’s way. After all, the guy he just outed used a handle cribbed from our Founding Freakin’ Fathers. If it was good enough for John Jay, if it was good enough for Hamilton, it’s more than good enough for the likes of Ed Whelan.
Also as to a possible civil suit, I know it looks petty, but there are in fact larger principles involved. Pseudonymity is a great boon to the blogosphere, as it allowes a quick response time by knowledgable people who otherwise would not — for personal or professional reasons — be inclined to enter a public debate. An international relations academic without tenure might not like to see his blog posts under his own name, since he didn’t edit and re-edit them, and didn’t cite to enough primary sources. But in the context of an evolving debate — say over the recent Russia-Georgia fracas — informed opinion is essential. Some folks can swing it under their own line (Drezner, the LGM folks) and some can’t (or think they can’t, or don’t think they want to test the theory). It narrows the debate considerably to ignore the reality of people’s careers just to get a cheap shot in.
I confess that I take a little bit of a gumshoe pride in sniffing out the clues to pseudonymous bloggers — the little hints they drop over time and such. Some are extremely circumspect, others aren’t. Publius isn’t. He blogged about his move from BigLaw to academia, about his undergrad and law school experience, and where those were, and also about what was going on in Houston. It’s not that hard to figure out who he is. If Ed just wanted to put a face to the guy he thought was attacking him, it was easy enough to do.
But pseudonymity is not anonymity. It is a compact. The adoption of a pseudonym is an indication that unwanted consequences might follow from revelation of identity. It does not mean the complete stripping of personality — and, as I said, publius didn’t really hide very well, to his credit. But you sacrifice a little as well — in particular, you sacrifice the weight of authority your experience and position might otherwise lend to your opinion. The other side of the compact is that those of us who find publius’ writing valuable (and I have since long before he came to ObWi) respect the pseudonymity, and perhaps we discount ever so slightly his opinion because he has elected pseudonymity. Not that we are obliged to, of course. It is, for me, more that his arguments stand on their own.
And in that respect, pseudonymity is a benefit to the reader as well. The authority has been ceded — everything lives and dies on the quality of the writing itself. If there is to be any benefit to the growth of blogs, it is precisely that authoritative voices are forced to stand on their own merits. This is a problem for some, who attained authority without the writing chops to support it. For others, it is a challenge. Pseudonymity makes the tubes more interesting, more challenging, and far more fun than they would be otherwise.
So yes, there is a larger purpose. There is a non-silly reason to sue Whelan and his puppets, sock and otherwise. Protect what we’ve got, what we’ve built, what we’ve made. Not just liberals, but all of us who look to the tubes for lively and challenging debate. Ed, being more concerned with disingenuous obfuscation, can’t hang with others critiquing his work, and I get that. Lively debate ain’t his thing. Diff’rent strokes and all that. But he’s trying to trample our thing, this thing, and he shouldn’t be allowed to (and yes, I am aware of what “our thing” translates to, and I’m trying to stick with Ed’s hitman theme)
Oh, my. I have nothing to say, other than this Ed Whelan fellow is minus six sigma or so on the making-friends-and-influencing-people distribution.
Sorry, publius. I would have much rather that not have happened.
mr. moto,
You clearly haven’t been around this blog. While there are entire blogs full of unreasoning liberal partisans entirely comfortable in their hypocrisies, this is not one of them. The most frequent and best-known poster here is a philosophy professor who specializes in ethics, and she behaves accordingly and strongly encourages an ethical commentariat. While the blog tilts sharply to the left, this was not always the case, and the blog retains some conservative commenters and even some conservative front-pagers. Despite your baseless claim, it is unthinkable that any of the front-pagers or that many of the frequent commenters would indeed celebrate the outing of a pseudonymous conservative blogger absent some quite impressive demonstration that the pseudonymous conservative in question had abused their pseudonymity.
Indeed, two of the front-pagers are pseudonymous conservative bloggers; as of today, they are the only front-pagers who are pseudonymous and whose identities have not been outed.
I invite you to stick around and have your prejudices tested – although I encourage you not to speak whereof you do not know.
It might be possible to find all this moral indignation a little less laughable if there was even the slightest chance that the outing of a pseudonymous conservative blogger would register anything other than high fives. . .
Yah, and your speculation, Ed, would be a little less laughable if such a thing had ever happened, which it hasn’t, because . . . wait for it . . . most people respect the pseudonymous choice, even of conservative bloggers. And their sock puppets.
Please keep up the good work, publius, however you choose to do it!
I’m sorry you were outed. Whelan is the kind of jerk whose finest hour would have been an early abortion. To call him a ‘dick’ is an insult to a useful and enjoyable body part 🙂
I sincerely hope being outed won’t make trouble for you in your professional life. I mean, Jesus H Christ, professors Reynolds and Althouse – on their own blogs, under their own names – consistently embarrass themselves by showing off their intellectual and moral bankruptcy, and SFAIK neither one has suffered any professional harm for it. If anyone gives you any hell at all, fight back.
Please continue to blog as publius, because taking a classical nom de plume to discuss “the public thing” is traditional, appropriate, and classy.
Ed, I know you’re reading this, so I’d just like to take this opportunity to tell you that the world is a meaner place for your having lived in it.
*sickened*
Yes. Keep going as publius, for CaseyL’s reasons.
I’m not going to say anything about other commenters other than Ed’s IP and theirs differ substantially.
Which proves nothing, really.
I’d be inclined to ban Ed, based on what he’s done, but I think the possibility of more comments by him might be entertaining.
Dear god, no, don’t ban him! He might not come back and be stupid any more!
The idea that there was any sort of code of honor among federalists and anti-federalists and later among federalists and democratic-republicans by which they all respected each other’s pseudonymous anonymity is absurd. On the contrary, they were constantly speculating and blaming as to the true identity of all the various pamphleteers and newspaper writers.
Didn’t say there was a code of honor. Said they chose to write things pseudonymously. Seems relevant. Got something against the Founders, mr. moto?
That was sort of the point, C.S.
It’s pretty clear Whelan lashed out in a vicious, cowardly manner because he was unable to respond to the substance of the criticism. I know NR has sadly declined since the days of Buckley, who generally had more class than the current crop. But perhaps it’s worth registering a complaint there about Whelan’s contemptible behavior.
This is a serious breech of blogger etiquette, and honest conservatives should find it odious as well. He didn’t just do it as an independent blogger on an obscure blog, either; he did it under the auspices of NR. If enough people speak out about their disgust to NR, maybe Whelan will feel the heat. He deserves it.
It was poor form on Whelan’s part, to say the least. You can read my take here:
http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/8895
and yet it’s pretty much par for the course, given that he worked for that gang of thugs and incompetents that was the bush crime syndicate.
heckuva job, eddie.
Grotesque. Whelan is clearly a petulant little creep who is furious about being shown up. What a sad little man.
It wasn’t even much a criticism, either. Which makes Whelan’s inability to respond so much more the act of a thin-skinned bully.
I don’t think I noticed this sentiment expressed, but in addition to the pleasure you would be denying us by retiring, publius (yes, “publius”), you would also be essentially rewarding a scurrilous act. The only way to prevent Whelan from profiting from the act is to keep posting. QED.
“And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people’s reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn’t be so childish and thin-skinned.”
Actually, that’s precisely what I’d expect from them … and, at least in this case, my presumption appears to be validated.
“It might be possible to find all this moral indignation a little less laughable if there was even the slightest chance that the outing of a pseudonymous conservative blogger would register anything other than high fives all around among this group.”
It would help if your statements had some connection to reality. The number of posts made on this site about the wrongness of outing pseudonymous bloggers without good cause is a large number. Nobody has ever said that it should be done because of political ilk; it’s been many times said that would be wrong.
So, you know, try not making up a claim that’s so easily refuted. I won’t even bother to dig up the many links to such posts and comments for someone who can’t be bothered to support their false accusations with any cites themselves.
It’s funny how he approves of Jonathan Adler’s posts, when Adler himself blogged for some years under the pseudonym “Juan non-Volokh”.
John Cole’s take.
Well, I for one am totally disappointed: I thought for sure that publius was a 400 pound long haired guy with a goatee…something like a fat Shaggy.
From the relatively conservative point of view that began reading you at Legal Fiction, I can’t imagine that there is anything you have ever written that could cause you embarassment: it has always been well thought out and measured. I am sorry that you have been unwillingly exposed, but I believe that it will more likely be an aid to your professional life since you have shown great restraint as well as great insight for years.
Thanks for the work, and keep at it.
martin makes good point, publius.
if you stop blogging, the punks will have won.
john cole also makes a good point, noting that only the right-wing front-pagers here at obwi have been able to retain their anonymity. the progressives have been outed.
maybe ’cause it’s right-wingers who are doing the outing. huh.
it’s kinda like the way that right-wingers in this country are always quicker to resort to violence when they don’t get their way through legal means.
Whelan has a propensity to demand apologies or go for personal attacks when bloggers say mean things about him. Andrew Sullivan gave in too quickly.
Sorry, correct Sullivan link.
a) I twenty-third the motion that Whelan is an ass.
b) By still posting as publius you at least maintain a casual screen of pseudonymity – it wouldn’t stand up to any probing, but random students taking your courses would at least be less likely to trip across your blog posts when they Google your email address or whatever.
I wholeheartedly agree with the general tenor of these comments, except to the extent they claim NR is in some sort of decline. It was always laughable, and Whelan fits right in.
Jonah Goldberg, Kathryn Lopez, Donald Luskin – who in the world can take this publication seriously?
Anyway, JFTR, Whelan is clearly an a**hole.
Yea, just stay publius.
I’ll forget your real name in a few days anyway.
It is pretty cute that Whelan is “the current President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center” . Leaving aside the perverse use of the word “ethics” in the name of any organization that would have as its president a member of the Bush OLC even without his record of unethical personal intrusions and unhinged declarations, it is interesting that the apparent position of the organization is literally More Catholic Than The Pope – and that’s even keeping in mind that Pope Ratzi is a candidate having the most aptly rhyming nickname for any pope ever.
What Bernard said. It’s hilarious that some apparently think that Buckley wouldn’t have approved of Whelan’s actions.
You don’t say.
I’m a STCL grad myself – 2007. Great school.
The petty troll’s profile with contact info is here: http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.68/scholar.asp. So sad because it appears he was once a serious lawyer but is now a degenerate hack.
Wow. Ed Whelan has now surpassed John Edward.
Im a fan Ed but you have screwed the pooch here. Remember back to what you and I probably agreed was a bunch of bs kind of like this, Joe the Plumber. if you are like me you were pretty pissed when reporters tried to protect Obama by investigating the hell out of this guy and the only thing he had done wrong was embarrass Obama. He didnt have that coming and neither did this publius guy. You know you screwed up here. You should have responded to his points on the merits and maybe had some fun poking at him for using a pseudonym. Exposing him was bullying.
Rumor has it that when Rick Santorum said “man on dog” in an interview, he had himself and Ed Whelan in mind.
Sorry to hear about this, JB. Your secret identity lasted far longer than I expected — but what a rude, petty stunt by Whelan.
It will be interesting to see if your students notice the event. If they don’t, you may as well keep posting as publius. It’s not as though you ever say anything under that nom de plume that should give a tenure committee pause anyway. At worst, the passion and intellectual integrity you have consistently displayed here will help you elsewhere. Best of luck, and regards to the family.
(posted this once under my own name)
dude… i always thought you were totally cool…. after checking our your bio, you’re twice as cool as i thought you were!!!! “write” on!
Sorry to hear, p.
I once talked someone down from a threat of such, but of course it hangs over the head. Very very sad.
Thanks for sharing your insights and thoughts with us. Try not to sweat the cobags.
What’s really bizarre is that Whelan is the head of a center on ethics and public policy. (See http://www.eppc.org/scholars/scholarID.68/scholar.asp on M. Edward Whelan III.) He never says why he considers you “irresponsible” beyond his dislike of criticism.
The ethics of outing someone who does not want their name revealed because one is experiencing pique is quite shaky. Whelan’s ethical stance comes down to “you made me mad, now I’m going to get you back.”
RE: National Review, well, I can’t remember ever agreeing with anything I’ve ever read in it, but it does seem to me that the quality of the writing and overall intellectual caliber of it has declined over the years. Not that they weren’t always wrong — it just seems like they used to be more artfully wrong.
I briefly met Buckley once, and he didn’t seem like the kind of guy who would approve of a low-life knee-capping like this. (Perhaps Gore Vidal would disagree.) It’s certainly possible I misread him.
At any rate, Whelan is a cretin of the lowest order. I sincerely hope his inexcusable breech of blogging etiquette draws widespread condemnation. It was cowardly and wrong.
I think we should address the substantive argument: while policy considerations are part of judicial decision making, liberal jurists (critical legal theorists, legal realists,etc.) see policy considerations in constitutional interpretation and statutory constructon as being of equal or greater value in reaching a decision than the framers’ or legislative’s original intent. Conservatives (strict constructionists) consider policy matters subordinate to textual support, framer’s writings and precedent. What did TVA v. Hill hold?
Liberal Justices have used policy to legislate. Look at Miranda rights, the exclusionary rule, Gideon, and most significantly: Roe v. Wade.
Roe v. Wade was not decide based on any constitutional basis, it was fashioned from the whole cloth of judicial policy making. What was the basis of the opinion? Rights which emanate from the penumbra of the Constitution. Huh? The sole precedent relied on in Roe was based on one single expansive policy based case about the distribution of contraceptives which created a newly judicially minted right of privacy.
Regardless of your beliefs of whether banning abortion is good policy or not, you cannot reach the conclusion reached in Roe without creating a constitutional right that simply would not exist unless the Supreme Court placed policy making above any reasonable constitutional construction or reasoning.
Jurisprudence is what the debate should be about, not petty egos and name calling on either side.
“Ed Whelan is a petty man.”
You give him too much credit. Whelan’s behavior is that of a poorly-raised child. A man would not behave that way — petty or no.
Bill Rehnquist, I think you’re in the wrong thread – this thread is about Whelan’s action, or perhaps more broadly about the ethics of pseudonymity. The previous thread, although significantly hijacked by Whelan’s comment and the subsequent discussion, is about the issues involved.
Since I have a real problem with those who chose to give their opinions on an internet site but are unwilling to attach their names to their work, I have a problem with you, John Blevins. If you felt there would be blow back from blogging due to your private business, your family and your friends, perhaps you should have put them first.
And since you going to be teaching at a university that is funded by my property taxes (and other taxes I pay) in the state of Texas, I have sent an email to ask my congressman (also a personal friend) to research your comments here and determine if you can objectively teach Texas students and not try to indoctrinate them.
Shorter retire05: Mr. Blevins, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Democratic Party?
retire05 uses a pseudonym yet says “I have a real problem with those who chose to give their opinions on an internet site but are unwilling to attach their names to their work” and reveals no sense that these are contradictory.
By the way, Whelan’s e-mail address is ewhelan@eppc.org if you want to contact him
“Since I have a real problem with those who chose to give their opinions on an internet site but are unwilling to attach their names to their work” – retire05
Huh?
So is “retire05” your real name? Your parents were very imaginative.
wow, retire05, that’s a whole ten pounds of stupid in a five-pound bag!
first of all, this:
“I have a real problem with those who chose to give their opinions on an internet site but are unwilling to attach their names to their work”
signed by someone named “retire05”.
then this:
“ask my congressman (also a personal friend) to research your comments here and determine if you can objectively teach Texas students”
what kind of “research” do you have in mind? you want to find out whether he does or does not have opinions about legal issues? unlike other law professors? there is no such “research” that could determine such a question.
on the other hand, we do have one good reason to think that publius goes out of his way *not* to indoctrinate his students:
the very fact that he has been using a pseudonym!
did you see that part of the post above, where he explains his reasons for using a pseud?
“I also believe that the classroom should be as nonpolitical as possible – and I don’t want conservative students to feel uncomfortable before they take a single class based on my posts.”
you are really a cretin, retire05. next time, pretend not to be from texas–you give the state a bad name.
“Conservatives (strict constructionists) consider policy matters subordinate to textual support, framer’s writings and precedent.”
Right, it’s not like conservatives played the central role in the development of textually-divorced, policy-driven doctrines like “qualified immunity”.
“Since I have a real problem with those who chose to give their opinions on an internet site but are unwilling to attach their names to their work”… says someone who attaches the name of “retire05.”
Again, the smoke comes out of the computer. Have these people no concept of self-awareness, or non-hypocrisy at all?
“I have sent an email to ask my congressman (also a personal friend) to research your comments here” and I will make threats against your livelihood.
Because this is the sort of American these people stand for.
Has anyone ever told them that America stands for freedom of expression? Remember freedom?
I thought not.
Less flippantly, since when is it wrong for instructors to have opinions? Even if Publius were to inform his students of his political leanings, why would that matter unless he misrepresented others’ political viewpoints or mistreated students who did not agree with him?
Speaking as a federal taxpayer, Mr./Ms. Retire05 (I assume that’s your real name, given your preferences), I object to my federal tax dollars going to pay your Congressman’s staff to investigate Publius’s posts. Firstly because it would be, if anything, a State and not a Federal issue, and secondly because I don’t think it’s an issue at all, and I’d really rather that they spend their time finding some non-imaginary budget cuts. Not to mention, of course, that you have fired off your request for an inquisition apparently without spending even five minutes to find any objectionable posts.
My best love to Mrs. or Mr. Retire05 and all the little Retire05’s, if any.
First of all, thanks to everyone — much appreciated. there are too many people to thank individually, but I do appreciate it.
I especially want to thank Feddie for his kind post over at Southern Appeal (I’ll try to do a roundup of links after it shakes out a bit). In case any of you doubted, Feddie is a good dude who is of course wrong about everything else. 🙂
And to clear up one thing – Im’ not retiring. I wouldn’t give Whelan the pleasure. I was just unsure how to proceed, and Im inclined to just keep doing what I’ve been doing and let enterprising Googlers do their best. in short, i’m following manny’s advice, which is usually a good thing to do. 🙂
And retire05 — South Texas is a private school.
So thanks again all.
retire05 I hope thats a gag demonstrating how reckless it is to expose people online. Im a high school teacher and yak about conservative stuff all the time online, if what I produce online were shown to my colleagues (nearly all liberals) it would create a real problem for me at work. The more I think about the more I figure you are joking, tell me Im right on that. You have to know that teachers have a right to political views and to express them online right?
The head of a center on ethics and public policy outed someone?
Odd, that.
“South Texas is a private school.”
fifteen! fifteen pounds of stupid in a five-pound bag!
you’d better retire now, retire05–you’ll have a hard time exceeding that level of fail.
I’m actually not a fan of pseudonymous blogging (which I recognize is a heck of a lot better than, say, commenting anonymously, since the pseudonym can accumulate a reputation), but before writing anything to that effect, I was struck by how completely that opinion fails to justify revealing someone’s actual identity.
Even if Ed Whelan has a principled distaste for pseudonymous blogging, that wouldn’t justify outing you. And of course it’s obvious that he’s just doing this out of spite.
It’s hard to imagine how he rationalizes what he just did.
I know everyone’s said this already, but I wanted to add my sympathies, Publius. (And yeah — stick with Publius. One of your co-bloggers got outed recently (what *is* it with these people?) and she still writes under her nom-de-plume. So why not?) I’ve been reading your work since the Legal Fiction days (actually, you sort of brought me to Obsidian Wings), and it’s fabulous. Any of the troubles you foresee would not, in a just world, manifest at all: this writing is a credit to anyone associated with it. (In a *just* world, I said, so sadly the pseudonym was probably a very wise precaution…)
What a lousy thing for him to do.
I guess Whelan can be added to the long list of rightwingers who engage in public displays of intellectual dishonesty and bully tactics, a pattern that is pretty common in Repubicans and rightwingers. At least that’s the impression I get from Whelan, retire05, the Republicans in Congress and the rightwing bloggers, pundits and spokespeople (like Liz Cheney!) who get on TV “news”.
I guess Whelan can be added to the long list of rightwingers who engage in public displays of intellectual dishonesty and bully tactics, a pattern that is pretty common in Repubicans and rightwingers.
21st Century ones, that is. I remember when Republicans were principled people, not out after petty, personal revenge.
This was very person. Very petty. Very much revenge.
If the blogger was a Chinese academic challenging the Chinese government I would agree that, morally, all should do their best to respect and uphold his anonymity. But as it is, an American academic now has to endure a little personal embarrassment and discomfort at the occasional conference cocktail function because someone he insulted behind his mask of anonymity turns out to be present. Bloo hoo hoo. Let’s see a little perspective out there.
Good to hear that publius will remain publius. Given that Publius was the first American blogger, if you will, I hate the thought of your giving up that grand moniker because a moral cretin like Whelan (anyone working at the torture-enabling OLC is damned if there is a hell, and damnable if not) tries to make your life more difficult.
Sorry this happened; I would be sorrier if it had (Whelan’s) intended effect.
mr moto invokes Chinese academics to show that he’s a nuanced kind of guy. So, mr moto, could you tell me what you yourself are doing to help the cause of freedom of academia in China? Or is this something you just used to cover your ill-formed opinion?
This Whelan fellow comes across as little more than a petulant child, and I have to wonder how long he’s had this pathetic ace up his sleeve?
“Bam, I’ve got you now mister ‘Publius!, mwa-ha-ha!'”
So is that all there is, or will he now launch some short-range missiles to show HE’S NOT KIDDNG. Perhaps release a gang of jump-suited henchmen from his hollow volcano lair?
I wouldn’t give it a second thought and would keep posting as before, under the same handle. Why allow a child to dictate anything?
Cheers.
“Bloo hoo hoo. Let’s see a little perspective out there.”
So why aren’t you posting under your real name, Mr. Moto? Hypocrite much?
Sympathies, guy–that’s no fun. I use a pseudonym for much the same reasons you do, and I’m not working very hard to keep it secret, because that’s quite a lot of work. I do find it a useful source of discipline, and it saves my friends who hate reading about politics from reading my political writing, so it has some use, even so, and I hope you will continue using “Publius.”
Be wary, though, of other attacks on your private and professional life. The amount of effort these bastards can spend on making someone unhappy can be pretty staggering.
Mr. Moto, I haven’t seen anyone expressing fear for Publius, even after Retire05’s little attempt at bringing back HUAC. Although many strongly negative opinions have been voiced, no-one has called Whelan’s action unforgiveably monstrous, or said that Whelan committed a crime (though I concede that some have suggested suing him for damages, a suggestion I think is rather premature given the lack of quantifiable damages). Despite your deliberately absurd comparison, no-one has suggested that that Ed Whelan is part of a repressive police state, whatever his desires as part of the Bush OLC. So there’s been plenty of this perspective you so long for.
Moving on to the rest of your comment, how has Publius, as you claim, insulted Whelan, and in such a way as to justify this petty revenge?
And why do you invent, and belittle, these consequences of “personal embarrassment and discomfort at the occasional conference cocktail function” when you could just read Publius’s post, which clearly states that the possible consequences could include ruptions in family relationships, difficulties in teaching students if they make assumptions about him based on his
(separate) blogging activities, and potential career consequences for Publius and for members of his family. Do you have any reason to disbelieve Publius? And having written a comment that seems to suggest Publius is engaging in an excessive display of self-pity, did you note that most of those possible consequences Publius is concerned about are actually more severe for other people than for Publius, people such as his family members that could suffer divisive debates within the family or even career difficulties and people such as the students who might not take Publius’s course, or might not learn as much in it, because of their preconceptions?
In fact, in further response to your comment upthread assuming that the commentariat here would celebrate the similar outing of a hypothetical ethical pseudonymous conservative blogger, the main person here who seems to be inclined towards celebration and a refusal to grapple with either the facts of the situation or the consequences for the blogger thus revealed is yourself.
publius, I have greatly ejoyed your posts here and hope you will continue to post as publius.
Second, I believe the other commenters here have been much too kind to Mr Whelan. While he may indeed have all the character flaw attributed to him here, and he may have gotten some enjoyment from his actions, I see them acts of premeditated terrorism. There pupose was to make others pause and consider possible costs before demonstrating how simply his arguments are destroyed.
You sure about that?
And why are you trying to excuse what is, at best, rude behavior, that sprang out of thin skinned bullying?
Sorry, but Whelan was totally in the wrong.
The amount of effort these bastards can spend on making someone unhappy can be pretty staggering.
Shouldn’t that be called out for the thuggery that it is?
Hey, Blevins, you’re cute!
On the other hand, I see no problem calling Whelan a petty, spiteful WATB and laying out the reasons for that in as many forums as make sense.
An “unbelievable dick” is what I would call someone who takes pot shots using a pseudonym. You folks are like the fat guy who thinks he’s tough anonymously posting threats only to be found out and confronted in a Blockbuster parking lot, suddenly shrinking like a violet.
I mean really, don’t you find the dramatic outrage a bit thick? Headline “Anonymous Blogger Outed As Law Professor Who Doesn’t Understand Common Law. Shocker!!!!!!”
Humans, why must you FAIL so hard?
I find the objections to pseudonymous blogging from flagrant pseuds hilarious, and will only address them by pointing and laughing.
I have encountered a number of people who use only RL names online and are uncomfortable with people who use pseuds, but this attitude is baffling to me. Pseuds have an extremely long history for fiction writers and political writers, and I see no reason the “nom de net” shouldn’t be accepted seemlessly in those fields.
More generally, objecting to pseuds puts you on the losing side of a generation gap. As my children grew up and started going online, I carefully instructed them in the construction of suitable pseuds and in basic techniques of internet compartmentization. For young people in general and women in particular, pseudonymity online is a matter of basic security. Objecting to it marks you as a clueless fogey, or at least as highly privileged.
In another decade, it’s possible that the “presumption of online pseud protection” will become a legal principle, as it already is within the “old-growth” parts of the Internet. I do not think we’re there yet, and I don’t think any suit by publius would have a legal leg to stand on.
BigYap,
Is that a pseudonym or did your mother not like you very much?
Many sympathies, publius. I agree with all those who think you should continue to post pseudonymously.
When I first started commenting on blogs, I did so pseudonymously. Over the years, I’ve started commenting (and, more recently blogging) under my own name much more frequently (though there are sites on which I’ve been commenting for a long time where I still comment pseudonymously). There are certain attractions and advantages to pseudonymous blogging. I, too, teach at a university and, like publius, I believe that the classroom should be a politically open space for my students and not a place for me to foreground my politics. When my university’s now defunct Dartmouth Review clone went after me for my politics about five years ago, it was nice that they were able to find very few things on line (though they tried). Since then, I’ve done much more commenting under my own name (and I’ve gotten tenure, fwiw).
I notice that, unlike you, Mr. Whelan and company do not allow comments to their posts.
So much for cowardice.
As to who’s the “idiot” – well, Whelan’s post is self-explanatory.
Sweet, I found one of the fat guys!!!! And he’s left-handed, so you know what that means……
I’m just glad to have been able to get under the skin of at least a single leftist jackass, which is what I normally call a Thursday….. 🙂
If you demand reparations, I bet there’s an Applebee’s or Cracker Barrel nearby where we could meet at. I could order a raspberry lemonade and you could whine about how you haven’t paid off your law schools loans.
“An ‘unbelievable dick’ is what I would call someone who takes pot shots using a pseudonym.”
I’m sorry your mother named you “Big Yap.” That must be tough.
Equally tough must be an inability to address any issue of substance. It’s very sad.
Posting guidelines for the obvious newcomers.
It really is a pity Ed Whelan wasn’t around for the revolution or the founding. George III could have really used his services.
BigYap, let’s meet at the library. We can look up pseudonym together.
“guess Whelan can be added to the long list of rightwingers who engage in public displays of intellectual dishonesty and bully tactics, a pattern that is pretty common in Repubicans and rightwingers.
21st Century ones, that is. I remember when Republicans were principled people, not out after petty, personal revenge.”
Yes, I meant the current ones. The nice people, the peole with ideas tht they could defend in a civil, honest way have been mostly driven out of the party.
you’ll always be publius to me.
and Whelan will join the ranks of such fine minds as Patterico. brothers in ad-homs. assholes, to the last.
Publius,
I am glad to hear that you, like me, have grown to love Houston, and am sad we never did manage to have that drink, but regardless, thanks for keeping on.
Sympathies, dude.
People should consider complaining to NR. I suspect they really are vulnerable to pressure on this, and might fire Whelan.
In addition to the e-mail address given for Whelan above, the address for Bench Memos, the place where he originally outed publius, is benchmemos@nationalreview.com.
BigYap: Consider the fact that you’re up at 1 in the morning posting on the Internet, trying to irritate liberals. I recommend re-evaluating what you do with your free time.
As to Whelan: Arguments can and should be tackled without concern for the author. If Publius is such a bad writer, why not prove so in argument? Shouldn’t he have been able to make his case? Not to mention the lack of civility.
I’m very glad to hear publius will keep writing. Even when I disagree, he raises the dialogue.
Here’s a question: Is there a conservative mirror of ObWi?
Whelan did not “get mad because you criticized him”, you liar. He got mad because you attacked him personally, in a quite nasty and uncalled for manner.
Serves you damn well right.
I think it’s instructive to post Hilzoy’s reaction to another outing (by a Dem) of a pseudonymous blogger:
Um. No, my pseudonymous friend.
Oh dear, someone fetch “ssss” a fainting couch and a tonic. Calling a man a “demagogue” and a “know-nothing”… why I cannot abide such salty discourse on the internet.
Sorry about what happened. I sincerely hope it doesn’t cause any problems for you, professionally and (especially) with your family.
And I’m with many others in the comments – you’ll always be publius for me.
Anubis, Publius didn’t even do that – the worst he did was to accuse Ed Whelan of enjoying disingenuously acting like a know-nothing demagogue, not of actually being one, and he quoted Anonymous Liberal’s somewhat stronger language approvingly.
That’s it.
If this is a nasty and uncalled-for manner to ssss, then what a paradise of blandness their world must be.
ssss, I hope someday someone has the chutzpah to attack me in a manner as nasty and as uncalled for as, “[H]e’s a smart guy with outstanding legal credentials. He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue.”
The “hitman” analogy — you understand what that means, right? — was quoted and agreed.
And hey, Jesus said, “If someone strikes you on one cheek, give him a good kick in the balls next time he’s not looking.” Right?
C’mon sock puppets these are too easy! It’s like computer chess on the first difficulty level.
LAME. Petty, lame, pathetic.
I guess Mr Whelan doesn’t mind letting everyone know that he cannot be trusted to respect the privacy of others. Since most people worth knowing regard trustworthiness on that score as a prerequisite for friendship or employment, I hope he doesn’t mind getting stuck with the kind of vindictive losers who regard such social-contract violations as acceptable responses to simple criticism.
Anyway, welcome to the real-name crowd. Sorry you didn’t get to join us by choice.
Is BigYap having a Stupid-Bag-Stuffing contest with retire05?
I believe the scale has now been set to twenty pounds, advantage BigYap.
Sorry to hear this, publius.
As for Retire05, let me offer one of my rare Fuck yous.
On BigYap, Moto, and especially retire05: unless we want a continued infestation, let’s try not to feed the trolls, shall we?
publius: Ed Whalen’s behaviour has a more corrosive effect on the Internet than any pseudonym could possibly do, and I say that (full disclosure here) as someone with a fair amount of research on Internet ethics and electronic communities under my belt. The one rule underlying all of the other rules of net discussion states that you must not attempt to harm a person in their life outside the discussion. Attacking their arguments: fine. Attacking their net persona (psedonymous or not): childish and unproductive, but not seriously unethical. Trying to mess up their life (or doing something like outine, which betrays a recklessness about whether or not you mess up their personal or professional life): categorically unacceptable.
In other words, it appears that Ed Whelan’s actions have objectively harmed, if in a very petty and small way, the most effective medium for public discussion ever devised. I urge other people to avoid the temptation to imitate his actions.
That was fairly obnoxious to do. While I chose to post under my own name, it is a choice, and I’d not out somebody who made it unless they were exploiting it to commit some manner of fraud.
I believe there are only 2 possible responses here:
A) condolences;
b) What a dick that Ed Whelan is.
I’m just appalled. Whelan’s post is amazingly snotty. It’s up to you, but I’d keep the pseudonym – plenty of bloggers whose real names are out there do. As for teaching, plenty of good teachers don’t completely hide their opinions – but they create environments where students can express, explore and think through their own and those of others. In any case, my sympathies, I hope any fallout from this is minimal, and best of luck with everything.
The problem with tenure and blogging, as I told publius a few years back, is not necessarily that the political content of your blog might be contentious. The most common problem I hear of is that your blogging has zero value to a tenure committee, and some might consider it a distraction from ‘real writing’. You leave yourself open to the criticism that you would have been able to publish more scholarly work if you hadn’t been up all night blogging every day.
I don’t know how common this is, or whether it’s less of a problem than it used to be, or if it varies by field, but young faculty are frequently warned against blogging.
Publius will always be “publius” to me.
Ed Whelan will always be a petty little man. Whether he acquired his vindictiveness while working for the Bushies, or whether they hired him because of it, who knows?
The important point is that Whelan demonstrates why Republicans have been getting their asses kicked recently. Petty, pointless boorishness seems to be losing market share.
–TP
I’m glad you posted the email exchange, publius. It’s damning, it shows his pettiness, and the great thing about the internet is, it’s there forever now.
Publius, all I can say is: You really stung Ed Whelan. Direct hit. His reaction?Flailing and pathetic. If you hadn’t really struck a nerve and gotten to the core of the issue, he’d have left you alone.
Despite his lack of integrity, and from a certain angle, you can take it as a compliment.
The best part is, you don’t have to do anything more to expose him for what he is. By this petty, indecent act, he’s accomplished that all by himself. His reputation will be forever marred for those that know what he has done.
(PS Manny! I remember when you posted under your real name at LF. But I’d never out ya!)
Ed Whelan is a snitch.
I just find it fascinating that not a single Whelan defender posts under his or her actual name…or even a pseudonym that sounds like an actual name (e.g. I hear “Mary Rosh” is now available for use).
A Far Right Tirade At NRO Results In Exposing An Anonymous Centrist Blogger
When your hyped up on zealotry thinking your cause is pure, it is tough taking criticism which brings you back down to Earth with us mere mortals and all our imperfections. But at NRO (a hotbed of true conservatives – though there are man…
The ghost of Bill Rhenquist posted upchain: “Conservatives (strict constructionists) consider policy matters subordinate to textual support, framer’s writings and precedent.”
A claim with absolutely no validity. The one example (there are many more) of Bush v. Gore should be enough to refute it.
publius, I appreciate your posts and I look to Obsidian Wings for honest and insightful commentary-something I’ve yet to see at NRO.
If Mr. Wheelan were not embarrassed by his errors, he’d never have behaved in this way.
As John Cole points out, the only un-outed bloggers remaining at ObWi are the conservatives. No coincidence.
It’s not an intrinsic property of conservatism. But for the petulant, dwindling, ignorant, all-white gang that comprises today’s movement conservatives, this kind of substanceless malice is par for the course.
Glad to hear that you’ll be carrying on, publius. Sorry you wound up going through this.
It’s not like Hilzoy or Publus ever did more than put a teeny little Lone Ranger mask over their identities so this doesn’t make Whelan a great detective like Marquand’s Mr. Moto. It’s nice to know Whelan can pick the really low hanging fruit. Now maybe he can work his way up to investigating who stole the better upbringing I’m sure his mama gave him.
remember: this is a bush administration member we are talking about.
the same guys who outed a cia agent because her husband showed they were lying.
the same guys who forced a man to apologize to dick cheney, because his face got in the way of cheney’s drunken shotgun.
the same guys who committed serial crimes against international law, and then pissed on the constitution in order to protect themselves from american law.
sure, whelan’s cowardice and pettiness in this episode would be enough to undermine any decent man’s reputation.
but whelan never was a decent man. he was a member of the most dishonest, unscrupulous gang of thugs ever to take over washington for eight years.
“he outed a pseudonymous blogger” is pretty bad, true. but nowhere near as damning as “he was a loyal foot soldier in the bush family crime syndicate”.
Anybody know Ed Whelan’s home address?
If you demand reparations, I bet there’s an Applebee’s or Cracker Barrel nearby where we could meet at. I could order a raspberry lemonade and you could whine about how you haven’t paid off your law schools loans.
This is the oddest attempt at a pick-up line I’ve ever encountered. I guess toe-tapping in bathroom stalls is becoming passe.
Sez BigYap: “An ‘unbelievable dick’ is what I would call someone who takes pot shots using a pseudonym.”
Sez I: There is no mirror in the BigYap house.
As a Conservative I stongly disagree with Ed Whalen “outing” you. It was petty and unprofessional. Best wishes on your continued success in your personal and professional life.
Publius is actually a man named Blevins. He teaches at an obscure law school in Texas.
Sez Sophomore: “There is no mirror in the BigYap house.”
Sez I: Someone get Sophomore a Dos Equis, he’s probably gay….
Ed Whelan: biggest thumbsucking WATB eva.
Publius,
Ever since I first found Legal Fiction way back when, I determined that you were my favorite blogger on the web—perhaps the greatest example of what blogging could be. I haven’t always agreed with your conclusions, and at times I’ve thought you’ve made missteps, but who hasn’t? We’re human after all.
I’m glad to know that you will be continuing in some form. It might also be interesting to see you discuss in more detail at some point the specific merits of anonymous blogging, separate from the particular problems your “outing” creates. There are some who view you (or, say, Mudflats, in Alaska) as cowards who hide behind their anonymity and that by making them know to the world, they will be bound by normal social behavior.
Personally, I find this kind of blanket sentiment ridiculous. The point of being anonymous is to enable you to say something without fear of reprisal. Certainly, irresponsible people might use that slander others. But I would hate to think anyone would be afraid to give an honest and thorough opinion because they fear those opinions will end up affecting their family or others—not because its slander but because it is being honest. (Ed Whelen’s blogging is inseparable from his public life, so to pretend like he’s somehow being brave is ludicrous.)
I too teach, but I’m not anonymous because I fear reprisals. (My colleagues have said far more inflammatory and political things with their names attached.) But I rarely write letters to the editor because I don’t want my students to become distracted by my political leanings, especially since I work so hard to not let those opinions affect my analysis of their (sometimes) political work.
And I agree with the comment that this is a kind of digital terrorism: it is an act that is designed to silence debate and debaters rather than answer them. If by doing this Ed can keep his critics from voicing critiques, he’s accomplished his goal. I suspect that your note, Publius, only served to make him more inclined to out you.
I think you should stay Publius, Publius. In fact, how about everyone on the site start publishing as Publius for a while.
And you would think that someone who spends their days trying to destroy other people’s reputations in dishonest and inflammatory ways wouldn’t be so childish and thin-skinned.
Actually, you would. The two are generally a full package. Folks like Whelan are very good at dishing it out and very bad at taking it in return. It is all about conservative privilege.
I agree wholeheartedly, publius.
Chuck Hayes should have taken the shot more often.
And Ed Whelan is a petty chump.
“Anybody know Ed Whelan’s home address?”
Hey, cut it out. No need for that.
can we create a new “peter rodino” award for outstanding and exemplary failure to read the original post?
nah…some of us old guys still feel residual affection for the real peter rodino, and don’t want to sully that good name.
And this psuedo-outrage is even more of a new christy minstrel show, when you consider these folks have zero problem with “outing” Yes voters of Proposition 8.
But the let the jackjob act go on, it’s always “Free douchebaggery for me, but not for thee”.
What a dick.
Not that it’s any of my business, but I wouldn’t bother with the lawsuit. Whelan sounds like kind of tar baby, any time or attention you put his way are likely only going to turn into further aggravation.
He’s already had more than his allotted 15 minutes, why give him more?
As an aside, I’ll offer my opinion that the only difference between Buckley and the current NRO crowd is their vocabulary. I never made Buckley out to be any kind of gentleman.
Thanks –
well, now bigyap agrees that whelan’s act was douchebaggery.
and i’m thinking that when it comes to identifying douchebaggery, bigyap knows it well. intimately, even.
Why are wingnuts so hung up on identity?
when you consider these folks have zero problem with “outing” Yes voters of Proposition 8.
Who are “these folks?” Which “Yes voters of Proposition 8” has publius outed, or where has he otherwise expressed an opinion on the matter?
Please show your work. For bonus points, please give us your real name. I use mine, so the least you can do is man up here, tough guy.
Yap is one of the Federated States of Micronesia, and I must really be embarrassing to have such a nimrod take up their name.
Publius, my apologies and best wishes going forward – while the vast majority of your technical/legal items are aimed at informative with only a mild/moderate dash of positioning, it is quite understandable why you wouldn’t want them widely distributive, especially with the concerns for your family.
First off, anyone who does not know the difference between a pseudo-nym and a non-nym is a flaming retard not even fit for /b. Secondly, it will be highly entertaining to see the Volokh reaction to this, especially considering the blogospheric citation history of one certain Juan-non.
Which “ones” are those? Sebastian has been out since the start. von is the only front-pager that is anonymous. hilzoy was only anonymous because people respected her wish to remain anonymous; it’s not as if her identity was some huge secret.
None of the conservatives are regular posters anymore, so outing them is fairly unexciting. And, no offense, publius, but I thought outing you was fairly unexciting as well. It’s not as if you were writing anything particularly noxious. Granted, I don’t expect the tempest-in-a-teapot effect maps over to your emotional state all that well.
My identity is even less exciting. Knock yourselves out, is my advice. But also: get a life, people.
It would be one thing if publius’ pseudonym somehow prevented Whelan from addressing publius’ criticism of Whelan, which would have given publius an unfair advantage. But it didn’t. Publius was fully available in the very forum in which he put forth his criticisms, and Whelan could have made publius look as foolish or could have embarrassed him as much as Whelan could have managed in front of the same audience before which publius criticized Whelan. What Whelan did was completely unnecessary and a violation of publius’ personal choice. Talk about cowards.
Press on, publius.
“Has anyone ever told them that America stands for freedom of expression? Remember freedom?”
Yeah, but not the freedom to be wrong….
I find it ironic Slarti would have any heartburn whatsoever re Whelan’s reprhensible actions.
I am completely unsurprised by that, JG.
slarti,
von has expressed many of the same reasons for anonymity as publius has, and I would treat von’s outing with the same contempt and concern that I feel about Whelan’s douchbaggery. I think your sanguinity is a bit off-base on this, not because it is likely to cause publius any problems, but because it is an attack on the notion embodied in this blog and I hope, with a little reflection, you might see that.
Ed Whelan is like so many of the righteously wrong wingers: his boneheaded actions cause real harm. I’m outraged by the havoc they all wreak across the globe but I must celebrate the discovery on at least one level: Houston is a richer city by your presence. Please keep writing: the truth is the bright light that makes them wither.
You guys should meet at Applebee’s.
Big Yap, when you call yourself an “unbelievable dick” you’re joking right? Dicks like you are commonplace, not unbelievable at all.
i’ll add my two cents at this point. i cannot imagine what mr. whelan thinks he has achieved. the e-mail exchange exposes him for what he accuses others of being. i personally do not care if one posts using a real name or a pseudonym. when i post, which is not all that frequently anymore, i use my initials. i also use a disclaimer on occasion, that being that my brother is one of the front posters at balkinization. it’s therefore not all that difficult to figure out who i am, if one wants to bother at all. the “outing” of a bloggers identity without his permission, however, one approaches it, is nothing but extremely childish. i would assume that mr. whelan is now proud to have outed himself as an infant.
You guys should meet at Applebee’s.
Slarti and JadeGold, that is. 😉
It might surprise you to find that I agree with everything you said, except for the part where you seem to come to the conclusion that I think it’s ok that Ed outed publius.
I think we should help Ed Whelan. I for one plan to send him frequent emails listing various “finds” about anonymous and real-name bloggers that he can use. You know, that so-and-so purchases Hustler magazine, doesn’t wash his hands after visiting a public restroom, colors his or her hair, or is having marital trouble. That sort of thing.
Ed is sure to appreciate that information ’cause he can then use it to bolster his legal arguments. E.g.
The case in question is moot because of the Supreme Court ruling in Worcester v. Georgia and also because Anonymous Liberal doesn’t change the oil on his car as frequently as the manual indicates.
Who can resist intellectual firepower like that?
While not ordinarily a defender of Whelan and his ilk, on this matter I have to side with Whelan.
1. Whereas Anonymous Liberal and Publius were public or quasi-public figures operating in the political blogosphere without explicitly shouldering the risk of personal and professional blowback, Ed Whelan’s name was attached to all of his posts. It makes sense, given those facts, that Whelan called Publius a “coward”.
2. Ed Whelan offered substantive criticism of the record of a judicial nominee; his opponents attacked his character with cheap, grade-school level psychoanalysis, uncharitable distortions, and petty ad hominems.
3. Ed Whelan has clerked for the Supreme Court and worked for the Executive branch, so he has a firsthand view of how policy is made and an accurate understanding of what public officials consider proper. The critics attacking him, for the most part, are opinionated private citizens who post anonymously on the Internet.
4. When responded to substantively, Ed Whelan engages or adapts to criticism. Note how quickly Whelan modified his claims about policy considerations at the Court after Eugene Volokh, a respected former clerk and noted law professor, critiqued them. Had the rest of Whelan’s critics so limited themselves to the content and form of Whelan’s posts, perhaps his rejoinders would have reciprocated.
As a personal matter, I fail to understand the criticism of Whelan’s “outing” of Publius. What is the ethical argument in favor of Publius remaining anonymous while maintaining a public website that personally criticizes public figures in the course of discussing public affairs? Is there a moral argument in favor of trashing Ed Whelan’s reputation while selfishly preserving your own? Worse, given the shoddy legal reasoning behind Publius’ posts, I would think he ought to be ashamed of his attacks on Whelan. His posts most certainly do not inspire confidence that he is a high-quality law professor. One might have expected a law professor to expose holes in Whelan’s reasoning, demonstrate how one ought to properly argue, and use the free Westlaw/Lexis at his disposal to back up his claims. Instead we were treated to childish sniping.
Lastly, the notion that one not ought to punish one’s critics is ridiculous. If free speech means anything, it means protecting speech we hate and curing speech with more speech. Precisely for that reason, you should expect criticizing a person to result in hateful speech directed toward you. If Publius desired to remain anonymous, he should have kept his mouth shut.
Which “ones” are those? Sebastian has been out since the start. von is the only front-pager that is anonymous.
weren’t you a front-pager yourself, at one point ?
In addition to a sarcasm tag, I think the next HTML expansion should have some way of expressing the “Zorak Blink“. For that moment when you need to express incredulity and confusion in the same second. For those of you not up on your Space Ghost, it’s the sound that you make when someone pulls a rhetorical 180 inside of two sentences.
Recommended for any grad student in epidemiology or public health who’s looking for a thesis topic: Check into the history of people who write under pseudonyms, who are subsequently identified.
How’s their health and safety, over the next few years?
Historical perspective: threats to those who can be identified, and burning of political statements, are the reason pseudonyms are used. See these examples among many from before the American Revolution:
http://www.njstatelib.org/NJ_Information/Digital_Collections/NJInTheAmericanRevolution1763-1783/3.12.pdf
Past tense. Pretty long past tense.
If you think it would help even the score to out me, I offer myself up as a sacrifice. I don’t think it’ll help anything, personally, but I’m not sure what your point was in the first place.
The point of being anonymous is to enable you to say something without fear of reprisal.
Um, the difference between ‘pseudo’ and ‘annon’ is kind of an important distinction, no?
Who’s the ‘coward’ Ed? Who is afraid to engage the actual argument at hand? Life’s revenge on you is simply that you have to live with being who and what you are.
Sorry about this, publius. I hope it doesn’t have negative ramifications for you (and trust that it won’t). Barring those, Ed’s outing of your name disturbs me most because of its pettiness and gratuitousness. It’s distressing to belong to the same species as such a tiny, dinky person.
Ed has just put himself on several thousand people’s long-term sh_t-list for no compelling reason. Nice work!
On the issues, I tend to agree more with Ed Whelan as I am a former, now jaded, Democrat. But outting an anonymous blogger is a form of terrorism (unless there were threats of violence).
Shame on you, Ed!
If you think it would help even the score to out me,
woah. put down the coffee.
but I’m not sure what your point was in the first place.
it just seems that if you’re going to make a list of ObWi front pagers who remain pseudonymous, for purposes of proving how few there are, you should probably include all of them.
i realize you don’t post here any more, but i, for one, still consider you a front-pager (on hiatus, or whatever); i would be completely unsurprised if you started posting again.
i’m probably not alone in thinking that.
I cede you the point, although I have no intention of front-paging any time soon.
…but then we’d have to consider Katherine.
Sympathies, publius.
You did exactly the right thing in publishing the exchange: allowing the man to show himself behaving like a childish, thin-skinned jerk.
He’s automatically lost the discussion in which you all were engaged, by taking his attacks outside the bounds of the discussion.
Long live publius.
but then we’d have to consider Katherine.
i thought she was known… ?
Blevins? Sounds like a made-up name to me. Probably a pseudonym that publius has made up so that we can’t follow his activities when he’s not blogging here in the real world. What’s he doing when he’s not here? It would be irresponsible not to speculate. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was doing something unseemly, like working for a living or even – shudder – getting mixed up with academia. There’s a scruffy lot for you.
Hilzoy was “known” fairly widely before she was identified (Cluelessly or maliciously? I can’t recall) in national media. I don’t think any of Katherine’s interlocutors ever identified her publicly.
I could be wrong about this, though. Relying on memory is dicey, at my age.
Way too many people in this discussion are using “anonymous” and “pseudonymous” as synonyms. I cannot stress too strongly that they are *NOT*.
A pseudonym is a *consistent* identifier within a particular community. It is also a *comprehensive* identifier — within a community, general netiquette prescribes one pseud per customer.
Anonymity is completely different. All anonymice are alike: “anonymous” is one-size-fits-all, so no persona or set of consistent actions can built up around the name. I’ve known communities where *everyone* was anonymous, and while it can be existentially and psychologically interesting, these things inevitably end in tears.
Slart:
And, no offense, publius, but I thought outing you was fairly unexciting as well. It’s not as if you were writing anything particularly noxious. …
This is a really callous and also stupid thing to say. If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the prospect of publius facing problematic work and family relationship is “fairly unexciting” to you — as if his life is a movie that needs to justify your interest with car chases and explosions.
get a life, people
You appear not to be aware of all Internet traditions. “Get a life” is invariably said by people who don’t realize that this *is* life. If you’re an asshole on the Internet, you’re an asshole — full stop.
“And this psuedo-outrage is even more of a new christy minstrel show, when you consider these folks have zero problem with ‘outing’ Yes voters of Proposition 8.”
Name three folks here who have written favoring that.
Y’all should leave Mr. Moto alone. I mean, it’s obvious that he’s one of those Chinese academics who’s using his real name.
And leave BigYap alone, too. He’s still working on his projection issues. Had he any cluefulness, he’d remember that talking tough is the right-wingers’ preferred modus operandi. But any day now, he’ll grow up. Any day now …
You didn’t.
What I had intended to convey was that publius’ outing really accomplished nothing good for his out-er. There was not widespread rejoicing in Mudville, that the dreaded publius had finally been slain.
In other words, the effect out here in the world is not very big. You’re free to ignore Granted, I don’t expect the tempest-in-a-teapot effect maps over to your emotional state all that well all you please.
Ah. Perhaps I ought to have said something about getting a meaningful life. If you think the Internet is life, maybe you need to get out more. Although it can be just as petty and backbiting when you’re not spending hours a day staring into a monitor.
I’m having posting problems again, so this is partly a test.
Anyway, if this goes through–Slarti, you condemned Ed Whalen way upthread, so I can’t tell if you are downplaying his sin now or if people are just misreading you (something that has happened a few times before).
Donald Johnson (with a typepad account now, hoping that’ll solve the posting problem)
except for the part where you seem to come to the conclusion that I think it’s ok that Ed outed publius.
slarti, I picked out ‘get a life, people’ as being directed at those of us who commented on this thread. Calling it ‘tempest-in-a-teapot’ also suggests you don’t think this is a big deal. I didn’t say you thought it was ok (nor did I mean to imply that), just that your suggestion that it isn’t that important is wrong.
I am completely unsurprised by that, JG.
I’m sure you are.
Just as surprised as Ed Whelan.
I support the right of anyone on the internet to blog anonymously for whatever reason they choose. Whether that person be of the left or the right.
The fact that your reasoning made him look stupid is not a sufficient reason to make a personal attack on a blogger. If you can’t support your opinions without resulting to the tactics of a teenager then your probably don’t have much of an argument to begin with.
I would note that other bloggers have been outed and have continued to blog under their alias, with the support of the commenter’s and others who simply refuse to mention the persons real name or refer to their identity. Hopefully that will also be possible for you.
That is showing respect for personal choices.
Personally, I think it’s good to know that Ed Whelan thinks it’s OK to attack the personal lives of people when having a political disagreement.
Anyone care to start an Ed Whelan Private Investigator fund?
I’m in for $100.
On the other hand, even if we grant all this, here on ObiWi is probably a good place to vent, given that this is Publius’ home blog. If ya can’t post outrage here, where else….
Oh, crap.
Well, my thinking goes this way:
A given anon/psedonymous blogger’s RL identity is only interesting to the extent that they piss off people who might be interested in what their names are.
Since Ed Whelan seems to be one of the very few people in the blogosphere who is interested in publius’ real name, I count publius’ outing as “uninteresting” more or less by definition.
I guess this is me being opaque, again. I swear that it isn’t deliberate.
I am orders of magnitude less interesting than publius, so if anyone noticing that it’s only the liberals getting outed over here at OW is thinking that maybe the score should be balanced, that’s who my “get a life” comment is directed to. If there are such people.
[whimsy]
Or, it could be a conspiracy. von and I have infiltrated the OW combine, and the rest of the rightwing blogosphere is sufficiently stupid that it’s taking this long for hilzoy’s and publius’ true identities to leak out.
[/whimsy]
THE OUTING OF HILZOY AND THE COMFORT OF ANONYMITY
Someday, someone is going to make a million by writing a book on what so far is largely unwritten; the rules and etiquette of blogging.
When that happens, we wont have internet ignorant philistines like Ed Whelan running around destroying the an…
Well we still have a perfect record of all Ed Whelan defenders on this thread writing under pseudonyms. I personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with writing under a pseudonym (though I don’t happen to do so when commenting on this blog). But given their own stated views on these matters, pseudonymous Whelan defenders are self-identified cowards.
I particular liked this bit from the last pro-Whelan coward:
Ed Whelan has clerked for the Supreme Court and worked for the Executive branch, so he has a firsthand view of how policy is made and an accurate understanding of what public officials consider proper.
The idea that a someone who worked in the Bush Administration has “an accurate understanding of what public officials consider proper” is only meaningful if strong emphasis is placed on the gap between what those officials considered proper and what is, not to put too fine a point on it, proper. And as far as I know, Whelan has never recognized such a gap.
Or to put the point differently: service in the Bush White House is neither exactly a good job qualification for heading up a center devoted to law or ethics, nor a good foundation from which to lecture anyone on what is proper in government, let alone on the relative powers of the three branches of government.
Also this:
When responded to substantively, Ed Whelan engages or adapts to criticism. Note how quickly Whelan modified his claims about policy considerations at the Court after Eugene Volokh, a respected former clerk and noted law professor, critiqued them.
Whelan didn’t modify his claims one bit. He intentionally minimized Volokh’s quite broad critique of his earlier piece by claiming that it involved the phrasing of a single sentence.
And, for whatever it’s worth, thanks to Whelan, we now know that publius, too, is “a respected former clerk and noted law professor.” So much for the (pseudo-)argument from authority.
Anonymous Liberal who, with some cause, feels he started the whole thing, has a succinct take on the Ed Whelan/Publius flap:
The nut graf:
Whelan responded by publishing Publius’ real identity on the National Review website and sending him an email saying “now who’s the hitman, you coward and idiot.”
Um, it’s still you, Ed, but thanks for proving it.
RTWT.
I’ve only read posts on this site three or four times. However after going through the comments here on the heinous outing of publius by an unethical lawyer who should probably be investigated for his role in the torture memos, I’ve decided I need to visit here everyday if only to raise my own level of knowledge and to benefit from what everyone else here seems to have found.
I don’t think i’ll be disappointed.
“It makes sense, given those facts, that Whelan called Publius a ‘coward’.”
Signed “Anonymous Blogger.”
Odd the number of critics of publius who keep calling themselves cowards, and similar self-denunciations. Where are these people’s courage to publish under their own names, as they say is required to be non-cowardly?
I want to express sympathy for your situation. I once posted something from work, and had a right winger reveal on his blog who I worked for, which I took as a threat to my employment, so I know how you feel.
I post under a pseudonym not to hide my identity, but in the hope that we can reach a point where comments are not judged on who made them, but on their merits.
Fat chance, huh?
Not sure why the childish and thin-skinned behavior of the immoderate right surprises you. They have demonstrated their inability to ‘take it’ time and time again. Whelan is simply a sad, sorry poster child for the personality disorders that abound on the far right. Can’t really expect civilized behavior from the party of proud bigots and bullies.
Strictly on the point of whether or not to continue working under your pseudonym, I see no reason why you shouldn’t. Atrios still writes as Atrios — heck, he goes on the covers of local magazines as Atrios — even though everyone knows his real name at this point.
Insisting that you start putting your real name on everything would be like insisting that we change the names on novels to reflect the author’s real name. Does it really change anything when you know that Huckleberry Finn was written by a guy whose real name was Samuel Clemens?
Writing under a pseudonym has a long and storied history. I don’t know why people get all bent out of shape over it.
I have read both sides and consider “anonymous bloggers who abuse their anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks” as justifiable cause for outing. I am curious to see if you maintain the same superiority so say such things with your job and reputation on the line, if they are not already.
Slartibartfast, you have offered yourself as a conservative target to be outed to “even the score”, but if anyone did publish your real name now, they would be acting with your permission – your invitation, in fact. They wouldn’t be outing you, you would in effect have outed yourself.
Publius had not only given no such permission, he had made it explicitly clear to Mr. Whelan that he did not wish his real name to be published.
So there would be no equivalence and no evening of the score – something I hope will not be attempted in any case.
What the hey….
While not ordinarily a defender of Whelan and his ilk, on this matter I have to side with Whelan.
1. Whereas Anonymous Liberal and Publius were public or quasi-public figures operating in the political blogosphere without explicitly shouldering the risk of personal and professional blowback, Ed Whelan’s name was attached to all of his posts. It makes sense, given those facts, that Whelan called Publius a “coward”.
I believe this has been covered elsewhere, but Whelen’s blogging and public career are operating in the same sphere, by his choice. The question of professional blowback is very real, but it’s also a choice. What exactly was sacrificed by Publius’s anonymity? By destroying that anonymity, the result is that other considerations independent of the argument will restrict Publius’s ability (or willingness) to be sincere.
2. Ed Whelan offered substantive criticism of the record of a judicial nominee; his opponents attacked his character with cheap, grade-school level psychoanalysis, uncharitable distortions, and petty ad hominems.
Actually, this was entirely the point of the posts that got Publius in trouble. Volokh demonstrated that Whelan’s posts were anything but substantive. They were written as if the author didn’t know much of anything about how courts actually work. Publius and Anonymous Liberal made the point that because of Whelan’s background, he quite clearly DOES know this, which means he’s just acting like a hack.
3. Ed Whelan has clerked for the Supreme Court and worked for the Executive branch, so he has a firsthand view of how policy is made and an accurate understanding of what public officials consider proper. The critics attacking him, for the most part, are opinionated private citizens who post anonymously on the Internet.
This is just nonsense. Appealing to the authority and experience of an author is all well and good, but it’s ignoring the rather comprehensive and (frankly) better arguments showing that Whelan saying things that (he knows) aren’t true.
4. When responded to substantively, Ed Whelan engages or adapts to criticism. Note how quickly Whelan modified his claims about policy considerations at the Court after Eugene Volokh, a respected former clerk and noted law professor, critiqued them. Had the rest of Whelan’s critics so limited themselves to the content and form of Whelan’s posts, perhaps his rejoinders would have reciprocated.
Yeah. Have you, um, read much of Whelan’s blogging? The criticisms leveled against Whelan were harsh, to be sure. His lack of substantive response is reflective of the difficulty he has in effectively pushing back. If it was untrue criticism, he’d need not respond at all. But Publius’s engagement with this issue was, if anything, annoyance with the fact that Whelan isn’t more honest in his arguments. Apparently, you’re saying that it’s not a valid criticism to accuse someone of intellectual dishonest.
As a personal matter, I fail to understand the criticism of Whelan’s “outing” of Publius. What is the ethical argument in favor of Publius remaining anonymous while maintaining a public website that personally criticizes public figures in the course of discussing public affairs? Is there a moral argument in favor of trashing Ed Whelan’s reputation while selfishly preserving your own? Worse, given the shoddy legal reasoning behind Publius’ posts, I would think he ought to be ashamed of his attacks on Whelan. His posts most certainly do not inspire confidence that he is a high-quality law professor. One might have expected a law professor to expose holes in Whelan’s reasoning, demonstrate how one ought to properly argue, and use the free Westlaw/Lexis at his disposal to back up his claims. Instead we were treated to childish sniping.
Since apparently you are new here, I’m willing to chalk up your characterizations of Publius’s analyses as mere ignorance rather than stupidity. Anyone actually familiar with his work would know that he is nothing is not engaged in substantive arguments, particular with those with whom he disagrees. Whelan’s continued hackery is especially infuriating to those who actually ARE interested in engaging the merits of ideas rather than using one’s incredible authority to confuse and deceive those who know little (as Whelan has done.) The question of whether it’s unethical to out someone who discusses public matters is a fair question, but not really that difficult to understand. There is no advantage that Publius’s anonymity offers him in his debate, except the freedom to speak honestly without fear of reprisal (against him or his family). Whelan, without his authority or his platform, would just be another hack. The specter of the anonymous figure cowardly attacking the brave public face is a nice image, but I think if you’re going to make an argument for why his anonymity should not be preserved (against his wishes), you’d need to at least try to demonstrate what harm comes from it.
Lastly, the notion that one not ought to punish one’s critics is ridiculous. If free speech means anything, it means protecting speech we hate and curing speech with more speech. Precisely for that reason, you should expect criticizing a person to result in hateful speech directed toward you. If Publius desired to remain anonymous, he should have kept his mouth shut.
Bizarre. Funny that your last paragraph provides a pretty good rebuttal for your penultimate one. “Ought not” is not the same as “will not” and that’s precisely what people are complaining about. So, Whelan’s is “hate” speech now? Okay.
Publius’s accusation was a harsh professional criticism of Whelan’s intellectual honesty, but it wasn’t in any way contentless, nor was it a random attack. It was also an accusation that Whelan was perfectly free to rebut. His response instead was to make it more difficult to Publius to argue with him for reasons unrelated to the accusation itself.
That’s cowardly. And still intellectually dishonest.
Posted by: Anonymous Blogger
I guess this is intended to be ironic. But since we’re not the ones arguing about the pointlessness of anonymity, this is just stupid.
I’m not sure this is working out quite the way Mr. Whelan planned it to – this post is now number six with a bullet on the google search for “Ed Whelan.” Anonymous Liberal’s post is at ten.
Leaving aside the ethical implications of his behavior, I’m guessing his desired outcome was not for anyone who searches for his name to see the criticisms he objects to.
I’m sorry this happened.
You are as big a coward as those trembling forest animals, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. How irresponsible of them to write the Federalist papers under the pseudonym Publius.
My broader response here: http://tiedtothemast.wordpress.com/2009/06/07/scandal-ed-whelan-outs-publius-for-petty-reasons1/
And to make absolutely sure that we get our daily dose of irony, the commenter upthread who posted the (uncharacteristically for this discussion) reasoned defense of Ed Whelan’s outing of publius’ identity as “Anonymous Blogger”, has re-posted his/her comment at Washington Monthly : only this time, actually signed!
As “John Hancock”.
Wow. Ed Whelan, people who live in glass houses oughtn’t throw stones. I suspect you’ve got secrets, and it’s now open season on revealing those.
You reap what you sow.
publius, you rock.
I have read both sides and consider “anonymous bloggers who abuse their anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks” as justifiable cause for outing.
the problem with this, which is Whelan’s problem too, is that publius wasn’t engaging in “irresponsible attacks”.
pointing out that a person is saying ridiculous things is not irresponsible.
I have it on good information that “Big Yap” is indeed his real name and yes, his parents never liked him. That is one of the reasons why he is such a prick.
p.s. I am posting under a pseudonym for obvious professional reasons.
On the plus side at least I’ve now found your blog. Are you sure you and Mr Whelan aren’t involved in some kind of Pro-Wrestling fake feud?
It’s an Irish anonymous! That’s awesome.
So sorry — it’s very frustrating, I know. But hang in there. And know that, in response to your criticism of his dickery, the worst thing he could do was… call you by your real name.
Robert:
“pseudonymous” is not “anonymous”.
Obviously, whether an attack is “irresponsible” is usually debatable.
Criticizing a person’s conduct, as publius criticized Whelan’s, is not a function of his “superiority” by any non-circular definition, so your last sentence appears to lack any coherent meaning.
2 sentences, 3 points on which you are confused.
If publius had attempted to harm Whelan or his family personally, in a manner entirely disconnected from his chosen, public, profession, that would be another thing.
Sorry for your outing, pubilus. Whelan should be ashamed of himself. Psuedonymously or no, please keep up your excellent posting. Don’t let Whelan’s odious act silence you.
Well, this is a small fraction of what’s due. Insignificantly small, I’d say.
I have read both sides and consider “anonymous bloggers who abuse their anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks” as justifiable cause for outing.
As cleek said, one problem with this is that publius did not engage in “irresponsible attacks”, only well-supported justified attacks.
Another problem with this is that it’s difficult to see how an outing would be justified even for truly irresponsible or unjustified attacks from an anonymous or pseudononymous blogger – on the internet all you have is the strength of your argument. If publius’ argument was weak, Whelan could easily have rebutted it (or ignored it).
For example, this is why we can ignore the truly laughable attacks of the “Motos” and “Yaps” in this thread. We pay slightly more attention to the more detailed arguments from “Anonymous Blogger”, but find they fall apart on closer examination. That’s how it works. On the internet not only does no one know you’re a dog, it doesn’t matter, as long as you make good arguments.
An anonymous blogger just isn’t even in a position to make “irresponsible attacks”. Not ones that stick. Whelan’s problem isn’t that the attacks came from an anonymous source. It’s that the attacks were accurate, and hit a nerve.
In fact, the only ones in a position to give irresponsible attacks the imprimatur of authority they need to stick are political hacks like Ed Whelan. The ones who trade on the authority of their education and professional experience in order to engage in irresponsible, substance-free partisan sophistry.
The cognitive dissonance apparently makes them rather thin-skinned and petty.
came from an anonymous source
Pseudonymous source, I should say, though Whelan doesn’t appear to understand the difference.
Kind of interesting, seeing who is lining up behind Whelan:
Says, I’m guessing, the guy who already has his tenure situation all squared away.
I always expected to find out who “publius” was a decade from now during a SCOTUS nomination launch or on the book jacket of some epochal work on the Constitution.
As someone who used to comment a lot at LF but who still reads regularly, let me add my voice to all those expressing sympathy for publius and anger at the cretinous Ed. Keep up the great blogging, and don’t let the bastards get you down.
This won’t help, but…
Although I’m best described as a conservative or libertarian, I’ve read your blog off and on for years. I’m not sure I’d heard Whelan’s name before today.
In the world of the interwebs, Whelan was far more anonymous to me than you were, even though I knew you only by your pseudonym.
You, I’ll keep reading. Whelan I’ve already forgotten. And here’s to hoping that’s as far as the repercussions go.
Just a word to the wise: if you post comments of a liberal bent at ObiWi, pseudonymously, you stand a good chance of being outted.
“Leaving aside the ethical implications of his behavior, I’m guessing his desired outcome was not for anyone who searches for his name to see the criticisms he objects to.”
But that’s exactly what always happens to anyone who “outs” someone. Ignorance of how the blogosphere works is its own punishment.
Blevins, since all you do is promote the current party line, what do you care who knows who you are? It would be surprising for a person like you to express anything else. As Mencius Moldbug (who blogs anonymously for good reason, as I do) says, it allows you to pretend you’re part of a revolutionary movement, rather than the Komsomol.
http://www.stcl.edu/faculty-dir/John_Blevins.html
The dude quotes Woody Allen, of all degenerates. You sir, are a massive tool.
I’m toying with not banning BigYap, as punishment. Thoughts, anyone?
note to all bloggers who are just starting out and are considering using a pseudonym: please consult Jim to see if your reasons for wanting to use a pseud are good enough.
Slartibartfast, who would you be punishing by not banning BigYap?
BigYap
since all you do is promote the current party line, what do you care who knows who you are? It would be surprising for a person like you to express anything else. As Mencius Moldbug (who blogs anonymously for good reason, as I do) says, it allows you to pretend you’re part of a revolutionary movement, rather than the Komsomol.
Lots of trolls out today. But just because it’s worth stating again, I note that this kind of criticism only outs these “critics” as people who haven’t read Publius’s work at all. The last thing I can imagine someone reasonably saying about him is “totes the party line.” He’s the guy I go to when I want to hear the rational argument for why the party line is wrong.
But ignorance concerning what they’re writing about hasn’t stopped people like Jim and BigYap from enlightening us with their opinions.
I am much closer politically to Mr. Whelan than I am to Mr. Blevins. That said, it is fantastically petty and lame for Whelan to “out” Blevins. Good grief, it’s as though he (Whelan) is some petulant teenager with hurt feelings. Where are the comments on the “courageous” Mr. Whelan’s blog, by the way?
Warning: Debra Bowen is “outing” all you California political campaign contributors. Be advised.
http://www.sos.ca.gov/
One hopes Whelan and BY get all up in her grill for this blatant revelation of…er…public records. For shame.
It’s worth mentioning that this post is currently the top post at Memeorandum, and the next several dozen posts are all about Whelan’s act.
Way to make yourself famous, as I said, Whelan.
Just to keep score, the number of Ed Whelan-defending, scourges of pseudonymous-blogging-as-cowardice willing to post under their complete, real names in this thread remains….zero. What an enormous collection of pathetic bullies.
Re: Whelan’s response (linked to by Slarti above):
1) Whelan whines that “others seem to assume that I owed some sort of obligation to Blevins not to expose his pseudonymous blogging.” Whelan didn’t expose publius’s pseudonymous blogging. Everyone knows (I think) that “publius” is a pseudonym. You don’t need to know his actual name to know that. And if you’re going to draw a whole serious of fantastic and bizarre conclusions on the basis of the mere fact of his pseudonymy (as Special Ed II and his minions appear committed to doing), his identity is irrelevant.
2) Anybody else tired of McCarthyite threats to bloggers’ professional lives posing as statements about the “consequences” of their blogging? Luckily, these threats–at least in the case of bloggers like publius–are truly empty. But if Whelan thinks that repeatedly writing the equivalent of “nice blog you have here….shame if something were to happen to it” is a way to either win an argument or impress the world with his ethics or bravery, he’s an even dimmer bulb than his attacks on Koh and Sotomayor suggest that he is.
3) Whelan and his defenders have still not dealt with the substance of publius and Anonymous Liberal’s response to Whelan’s laughable criticism of Sotomayor. Instead Whelan and his flying monkeys have been too busy feverishly patting themselves on the back for pretending to accept Eugene Volokh’s criticism of them. It turns out, even Volokh isn’t satified:
UPDATE: Ed Whelan e-mailed me to note that he has revised his post in light of this one….I much appreciate the revision, which does make Whelan’s point narrower. But I think that on balance the criticism still isn’t quite apt.
So Whelan is pretending that he’s satisfied one critic (Volokh), which he’s then using as evidence to justify his “outing” of a second critic whose criticism he refuses to even pretend to deal with (publius), while, as far as I can tell, largely ignoring a third critic (Anonymous Liberal).
The Ethics and Public Policy Center must be so proud!
You’re about to find out who your real friends are. If you lose some, take it from me, just let it go. Take it as a lesson as “That jerk wasn’t worth my time anyway.”
Good luck.
Commenting here was broken for a while. I resorted to posting on my own blog.
Thanks for the explanation, Slart. I now see what you mean.
I continue to be baffled by the number of people referring to “anonymous bloggers” — especially while using a pseudonym (LOLZ). *No-one* here is blogging anonymously, we are mostly using *pseudonyms*, which is (a) completely different and (b) part of a very, very old tradition in both politics and fiction.
Here’s what an actual experiment in anonymous blogging looked like [details redacted]: a group of several hundred people with a common interest formed a community in which *every member* had admin privileges. Both posts and comments were unsigned and IP addresses were unlogged, so there was no way to connect comments and posts to each other.
I was told that the advantage was:
In the event, as might have been predicted, one member of the community got angry and used hir admin privileges to delete *everything*, and there was much unhappiness. What was truly surprising was that this took *3 years* (a generation in Internet years), so it probably qualified as a remarkably successful experiment.
The point of this story is to make it perfectly clear that we in the political blogosphere are *not* talking about anonymous blogging.
I will assume that anyone who persistently uses the term “anonymous” to describe pseudonymity is part of the problem. That is, people like *you* are the reason fiction and politics have a long tradition of pseuds, of which the nom de net is just the most recent version.
You are a law professor. Stop being a crybaby and grow up.
I’m toying with not banning BigYap, as punishment. Thoughts, anyone?
Outting him is much more your style.
To publius: I am not a regular commenter here and only learned of this because I saw it on Althouse. I suspect I am rather more conservative (right of center, if only slightly) than you are, but I want to add my voice to those who are condemning Ed Whelan and encouraging you. Keep blogging, dude.
As C.S. said, pseudonyms are a kind of compact. Pseudonyms can function as a kind of tool, as Green Eagle pointed out, to allow us to focus on the merits (or lack thereof) of arguments.
I echo John Spragge that this is a line that must never be crossed and concede that paulk has an argument for calling it “internet terrorism.”
I too am a teacher and thus am careful about what my public persona puts out. I want my students to think for themselves. I also want to avoid backlash from some of my colleagues.
Lastly, may I say that it is indeed a sad moment when, just as 21st century America has discovered the ability to have the kind of back-and-forth arguments that the Founders did, we are willing to ruin it by selfishness and cowardice.
Pseudonymically yours,
Frodo Potter
It really enrages me whenever a pseudonomous blogger is “outed”. Those who engage in such behaviour are cowardly and vindictive. Not ethical in my world.
I personally appreciate that the nom de plume means that the writing & arguments can be judged on their own merits, without the filter of personality. The good will develop a following. The mediocre will fade away. Your pieces pass the test, and I look forward to more legal and political analysis from “Publius”.
We could have an open thread where JadeGold could gripe about what a big meanie I am. That would be probably better than taking a dump on publius’ thread, I bet.
Dick.
It’s the fact that Whelan is associated at all with the teaching/promotion of ethics that’s more than a little upsetting. He’s clearly a man of very little character.
you should file a civil suit against him,
Join with Valerie Plame to make it a class action against right-wing bullies.
Yah, and your speculation, Ed, would be a little less laughable if such a thing had ever happened, which it hasn’t, because . . . wait for it . . . most people respect the pseudonymous choice, even of conservative bloggers. And their sock puppets.
Riiiiiight.
http://www.blogherald.com/2009/03/28/the-outing-of-a-blogger-social-transparency-or-violation/
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Gannon_comes_out_Former_escort_conservative_0506.html
I blog pseudonymously. I know that it is a thin veneer and is only as good as my ability to keep my identity secret. That’s simply how it is. I also make sure to not post anything that I would not attach my real name to.
You have a right to blog under a pen name. You do not have the right to prevent someone else who finds out your real name from revealing it. Grow up, and do a better job next time.
Everyone, whenever Ed or his sockpuppet Mr. Moto shows up, ask him this:
Dear Mr. Moto/Ed Whelan:
How come the only bloggers that haven’t been outed at Obsidian Wings are the two conservative ones?
Do this until he deigns to answer or leaves.
(By the way: I’m not advocating that the righties drop their cloaks. I am advocating that Ed Whelan grow a brain, a conscience, and a spine.)
Whereas Anonymous Liberal and Publius were public or quasi-public figures operating in the political blogosphere without explicitly shouldering the risk of personal and professional blowback, Ed Whelan’s name was attached to all of his posts.
Whelan works for a right-wing think tank. When he blogs right-wing opinions, he’s not risking any blowback, he’s advertising the “Ed Whalen, professional right-wing opinionator” brand. Your statement is the equivalent of congratulating a baseball player for wearing his name on his jersey.
I have read both sides and consider “anonymous bloggers who abuse their anonymity to engage in irresponsible attacks” as justifiable cause for outing.
Why? Seriously, why is the anonymity the problem? If a post is lucid and readable, if factual assertions are supported by proper citation, and opinion clearly noted as opinion, why does the (relative) anonymity of the author come into it at all?
I would also like to reiterate what was said upthread about the difference between Anonymity and Pseudonymity. They are different things. Someone posting under a persistent pseudonym is held accountable for their words in pretty much the same way as someone posting under their real name.
A persistent pseud has a history to it, that can be examined by readers, and that carries social capital. Everything Publius posts carries with it the history the reader has with reading Publius’ previous words, the same as if he were posting all along under his real name. The effect of pseudonymity in online dialogue is to put the emphasis not on the person, but on the writing.
Attacking a blogger for posting pseudonymously achieves two things:
1. It inverts the argument from authority, implying that the blogger does not, in fact, have the authority to make the claims they have, invalidating their argument. (This doesn’t actually work on Publius, who only gains authority from his status as a law professor, but it has certainly worked on other bloggers in the past, such as Mudflats and Coffeeandink.) This is an inherently conservative/authoritarian attack: if you don’t already have a position of privilege, I don’t have to listen to you.
2. It silences future critics, particularly critics who operate from a position of less privilege. Women writing on gender issues, POC writing on race, low-income bloggers writing on poverty–all of these people risk a lot more from being outed than Publius does (Publius, I suggest, has not received death threats, whereas we all know the story of Kathy Sierra, I hope). And knowing that the National Review supports the outing of pseudonymous bloggers, those less-privileged critics will have their speech chilled as a consequence.
You have a right to blog under a pen name. You do not have the right to prevent someone else who finds out your real name from revealing it. Grow up, and do a better job next time.
Strawman Alert: no one is saying that anyone has a right (or a way) to prevent Whelan from making an ass out of himself by outing people who criticize him.
However, once he’s done it, everyone is fully justified in pointing out what a petulant child he is, and how much weaker it makes his arguments look (such as they are).
Pretty classless move — an unquestionable breach of blogging etiquette.
That said, I generally share Whelan’s concerns about Sotomayor. The problem isn’t so much the “consider” policy as it is the “make” policy.
Of course policies are considered by courts. The whole idea is to gauge legitimately adopted policies against the constraints of law. Some policies pass muster, others don’t.
My problem is when judges go a step beyond that and get into the policy-making business. That is something that nobody should welcome.
What if the courts were filled with judges like Roy Moore? Surely everybody can see the problem inherent with granting judges that much power — power they were never intended to have.
So — consider away. Strike down when the constitution says so. But leave policymaking to the policymakers who are elected and accountable to voters.
I may not agree with you being outed, but I find your reasons for being anonymous less than compelling.
One should never be ashamed of what one believes. If you really believed in what you wrote then there is no reasons to hide it from family or friends or business, even if they disagree with you.
There are good reasons for being anonymous, but your reasons are not.
Stop whining and man up. Before, you did not have the courage to blog under your own name. Now, you have a chance to show that you have some guts.
You’re entitled to your opinion. But it is, after all, his identity and his choice.
And, to that end, it doesn’t really matter what his reasons were or whether you find them compelling.
There’s no defending what Mr. Whelan did, IMO. And I’m somebody who’s far closer to him on the underlying issue than I am to Mr. Blevins.
I think our judicial branch, in general, has assumed far more power for itself than it ever was intended to have. And I think Judge Sotomayor’s comments get right to the heart of that. Whelan’s criticisms of her were hardly demagogic, as Blevins charged. They were utterly cogent, in context, and fair.
And I don’t blame Whelan for objecting to the way Blevins wrote about him. If anybody was being demagogic, it was Blevins as publius.
Still, that doesn’t give Whelan the right to strip Blevins’ anonymity.
“There are good reasons for being anonymous, but your reasons are not.”
And what’s the reason you haven’t given your full name, address, and telephone number here, Kathleen?
Gene, what’s your address and phone number? Man up and show some guts.
Hi, ya Gary:
I live in Stafford, Virginia. Based on that fact, everything else should be easy enough to figure out.
So, let me repeat myself:
“Stop whining and man up. Before, you did not have the courage to blog under your own name. Now, you have a chance to show that you have some guts.”
One fundamental flaw I found in your post above is this; courts DO, of course CONSIDER policy. They frequently must in performing statutory interpretation.
That is MATERIALLY different than MAKING policy, as Sotomayor stated was a legitimate role of appellate courts.
Also, as a member of the bar in your same jurisdiction, and knowing the law school in which you teach, I doubt very seriously that you will meet any repercussions for your blogging…unless, of course, they derive from the market choice by potential students who chose not to take a course you instruct.
Why? A policy is made with either approach.
What cofax said. The persistent equation of pseuds with anonymity seems to me to be part of the same dynamic: only those privileged with power and security should be allowed to speak, anyone who is in a risky or precarious situation should shut up. If they don’t they’re just rabble, anonymous, the faceless mob.
I’m conservative, but this is an infantile, indefensible action on Whelan’s part.
Blevins has made some tough observations on Whelan’s writings – ok. So *answer* them. Don’t resort to this crap. Because, once one peers past Ed’s jesuitical bullshit, it’s nothing more than a straightforward attempt to intimidate Blevin and shut down discourse. It’s the blogging equivalent of a SLAAP suit, and Whelan should be man enough to admit that and apologize
That is MATERIALLY different than MAKING policy, as Sotomayor stated was a legitimate role of appellate courts.
This is really silly. When an appellate judge chooses among multiple plausible outcomes (as is almost always the case), she makes policy, period. And this is true whether a judge considers policy consequences or not. (This doesn’t mean that a judge is acting lawlessly.) This kind of argument is just sophomoric.
Sorry, publius, that sucks. I’ve enjoyed your stuff since the Legal Fiction days, and this was totally uncalled for. Keep using publius, just like others kept using their posting name after their real name was revealed.
And to those who are defending this behavior while also not posting under your complete real name, you have got to be kidding me. Seriously, do you have any idea how absurd you sound, demanding that publius have his real name revealed while refusing to subject yourself to the same standard?
If you demand complete real names, use your own as well. If you post under a pseudonym yourself, then respect the right of others to make the same choice.
I’m really trying to fathom this…so far I see comments from at least three different people expressing disdain and scorn at the notion of pseudonymous blogging. And all three of these people are doing so under pseudonyms.
Glad to see hypocrisy is alive and well. But really, don’t you think it’s just a bit too ridiculous to be worthwhile when you use a pseudonym to criticize the usage of pseudonyms? Or are you people so self-absorbed that you don’t realize that such an argument is manifestly self-defeating and, indeed, makes you look idiotic?
I’m kind of astonished at the way the issue of privilege is being elided in this conversation. That Publius could have posted openly under his own name, without much fear of reprisal, is a privilege of his status as a white male professor of law.
Forbidding pseudonymity means that other people with just as much value to add to the public conversation cannot contribute, because they are at risk of immediate personal or even physical harm. Or if they choose to take that risk and post anyway, they would not gain an audience because their real life circumstances don’t give them the veneer of authority that being a former clerk to SCOTUS does.
It’s all about privilege, and about silencing the voices of those who dare to challenge privilege.
(Also, hey, Doctor Science! Do I know you under another pseudonym beginning with M?)
Gary Farber is right!
Also, I changed my fake name up-thread to BigYap’s Shrink only because it made the snark funnier(I hope). No secret conspiracy. My real fake name is:
gocart mozart
You’re not a “big meanie,” Slarts; just an unethical one.
Yeah, cofax, it’s me. *waves* And yeah, in that other part of the ‘net we’ve seen this particular go-round *so many times* — though I must say, I find the number of pseuds decrying pseudonymity here especially hilarious.
I think it might be a function of the one-to-many structure of the political blogosphere, instead of the many-to-many structure found some other places. The fact that people can persist in calling pseuds “anonymous” may reflect that on most blogs the OP is *highly* privileged compared to the commenters.
You’d think Whelan would have a little tougher hide after doing bad law for the worst DOJ in history. I mean if you’re the Washington Senators of lawyers, you get used to being a loser, a bottom feeding war criminal, don’t you Ed? Prick.
“Lastly, the notion that one not ought to punish one’s critics is ridiculous.”
I think Stewie Griffin has invaded ObWi comments.
Seriously, this falls under “allow me to defend Ed Whelan’s d*ckishness by being a d*ck”.
Keep it coming folks, we love to see your true colors.
My advice? Continue as Publius. It’s your brand, at this point. Just don’t be afraid to own Publius and don’t let Publius own you.
Whelan is already owned. Or ‘pwned,’ as the netizens say.
What a bunch of whiny little bitches.
bobbyp:
If you read the opinions quoted in my original post and respond to my query, then you might just understand the point. Gore v. Bush had more ratio decendi than Roe, Gideon and Miranda combined.
By the way, you should also try to spell former Supreme Court Chief Justices’ names correctly if you are honestly trying to debate constitutional jurisprudence.
His name was spelled Rehnquist.
no amount of trashiness surprises me at NRO these days.
the big shame is that Whelan was winning this argument in a big way. Sotomayor is a crummy nominee for all the reason he has brought up. When they start in with that “he doesnt really think like this, he’s just pretending to because thats his job for those scheming neocons” thats when you know you have a lib licked. Then he snatches defeat from the jaws of victory with this stupid personal attack on publius. Oh well you got yourself owned here Ed, take your licks and keep fighting the good fight, just do it in the right way in the future.
Whelan is a coward and a liar, and his parsing of Volokh’s response to make it seem as if Whelan wasn’t completely pwned, is exactly the quality of character that makes many laypersons despise lawyers en masse. I also find it ironic that Whelan talks about publius “hiding behind two pseudonyms,” while his own forum allows no opportunity for feedback or discussion.
Oh, and welcome to Texas. Don’t worry, not everyone here is a dick…
Slarti :Well, this is a small fraction of what’s due. Insignificantly small, I’d say.
Whu? Your link goes to Whelan being ever more obstreperous and stoopid. He is indeed insignificantly small, in my universe, but I’m not sure what you mean.
get a life… you want to smear people on the internet? you can’t and should not do it pseudonyouly… and stop crying like somebody took your precious toy from you… why shouldn’t employers and family know about your dark side? they should know…. get a life….
BWAH HAH HAH HAH HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Nobody has a right to have an inviolate blogging pseudonym. You post your thoughts on the net, you take your chances. Whether Whelan’s conduct was gentlemanly is another question.
Scott Lemieux wrote: “This is really silly. When an appellate judge chooses among multiple plausible outcomes (as is almost always the case), she makes policy, period.”
This is ridiculous. Looking at the law, interpreting it, and applying it as interpreted in the context of a particular case is not making policy — even when it comes to serve as precedent for similar future cases.
Naturally, the courts can say that some statute violates the Constitution, and thus invalidate it. They do that all the time. But doing so is not “making” policy at all.
Consider an example: the line-item veto. Congress passed a law giving the president some additional powers. The courts tossed it out as violating the powers outlined in Arts I & II.
That is not “making” policy. The result of this ruling is a return to the powers and checks already spelled out in Arts I & II and as previously interpreted by pre-existing caselaw.
But interpreting and understanding law is not making law or policy — anymore than an umpire at a baseball game applying the rules of the game as he understands them to some play is a rewriting of those rules.
There’s nothing wrong with rewriting rules, of course. But there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about doing that. Having an umpire do it in the middle of the game, based on whatever he thinks best for whatever reason, is the wrong way.
Actually, I think that is ridiculous. Functionally, the resultant judgements act as policy, no matter how they are arrived at. The underlying philosophy seems to be that there is one right end point; that there is only one set of context to take or that there can be no underlying philosophy to guide that selection of context seems to be out of touch with reality.
The umpire analogy really is not that applicable to how law is determined; if things were that unambiguous, it wouldn’t have gotten up to the Supreme Court level anyway.
That is not “making” policy.
Yes, it is. When the Court decided Clinton v. NY, it made policy. This doesn’t mean the Court acted lawlessly. But it did exercise its discretion to make a policy choice that was a plausible interpretation of the relevant legal materials but was certainly not compelled by them.
There’s a minor apology hidden in there somewhere. Or there was. As I said: not nearly enough.
Mr. Blevins,
You may feel you have been “outed” in some McCarthyite fashion, but what is at least equally McCarthyite, Orwellian or even Kafkaesque is to be maligned by anonymous accusers you cannot face.
Naturally our Constitutional right to face witnesses against us is limited to criminal prosecutions, but I believe that if you criticize specific people, you have an analogous obligation to use your own name, and it is cowardly as well as unfair not to do so. This is true regardless of the merits of your criticism — after all, almost everyone thinks his own arguments have merit.
Obviously you do not have to agree with me on this, but it is absurd that you assume that someone could not legitimately believe these things and thus could not legitimately act to out you. I have no particular dog in your fight, but I post criticisms under my own name, facing certain risks like anyone else, or I hold my pen; in either case I show by my own actions that I actually hold to this code whose existence you deny.
Bullcrap.
On the Internet, NO ONE HAS FACES.
You stand and fall based solely on your words and arguments.
That’s it.
As well, the minute you step away from the arguments, you explicitly accept the truth of you opponent’s words and say you cannot compete.
It’s nice to see some real net vets chime in. Go Doctor Science.
So when will Ed Whelan post his home phone number and social security number online? Or is he too much of a cowardly idiot.
Robert, what kind of points will you be raising once you start adding your last name and home address to your posts?
You people are being pretty silly acting like you have an absolute right to anonymity on the net. You don’t. Granted, we all like our anonymity, but no one is legally bound to respect it. It’s a chance you take, especially when you have a blog and you start attacking other people. Some people might compare you in that scenario to an anonymous letter writer to a newspaper. Newspapers do ask for your name and address, don’t they?
To be sure, Whelan’s having “exposed” Blevins has done nothing to advance Whelan’s side of the argument.
All you need to know about “retire05” – he’s a Swiftboater.
http://www.swiftvets.com/phpBB2/search.php?search_author=retire05&sid=c80354bdc37b23ab4f2fbf0e0101c204
I’d publish his real name and address, but that would be wrong.
Stay publius.
If you don’t change the byline and your readers have the common courtesy to still call you by your pseudonym, in a few weeks or months, the little tidbit about your identity will fade into the net and never be found by the average person, and you’ll go back to being as anonymous as you were before.
The genie might already be out of the bottle in some ways, but you stand a good chance that anyone who doesn’t read a half dozen blogs religiously won’t see it now and will never stumble upon it next year when they go to Google there new professor, or when the tenure review board does the same for their latest candidate.
“the minute you step away from the arguments, you explicitly [sic] accept the truth of you[r] opponent’s words and say you cannot compete.”
Agreed. (Except that the acceptance is implicit, not explicit.) But one way of stepping away from an argument is by refusing to own up to it. Another is to emphasize the personalities of your opponents over their arguments. Blevins was doing both before Whelan responded.
The “original” Publius (Hamilton, Jay and Madison), in contrast, was himself responding to pseudonymous articles (by “Cato” and “Brutus”); and this Publius, unlike the modern one, wrote exclusively about the substance of issues, with very few or (as I recall) no instances of attacking an opponent by name.
How was publius ‘refusing to own up to [his argument]’? What personality trait of Whelan did he expose? How is revealing private information (as well as idiotically accusing Publius of using Edward’s name as another pseudonym) a ‘response’? I mean, you could say ‘he responded to my point by calling me a goat f**ker, but you seem to think that behaving like an ass is a valued response.
Jeeze. Take a weekend off from the intertubes and look what happens…
Reprehensible. What a vile and petty thing to do. Sorry publius.
Res ipso loquitur. Whelan is a true WATB, and he made a feeble attempt to “get” you by revealing your identity. He is really six years old, and his mommy was mean to him this morning. I feel sympathy for his immature reaction, not anger.
Dear Publius, I sympathize with you on your preference to keep your real name secret or separate from your bloggings under the “Publius” name. A gentleman would have obeyed your wishes once he had found out about your preferences. Iow, Ed Whelan behaved like a cad.
For me, personally, it doesn’t matter if I use my real name or a pseudonym. I only have two screennames, and one of them incorporates my real name. As you can see below.
Sincerely,
As a STCL student who took his class…..
I can honestly say that I appreciate that he keeps things non-political in the classroom. I would have been uncomfortable to walk into my first class with my first professor knowing only what ratemyprofessor.com and this blog would have told me.
By the way, this guy is one of the best LRW profs at the school. Everyone I know that took him (especially for LRW I) thought he was tough, but fair and freaking sweet (which is a hard thing to accomplish). His tips greatly helped me navigate my first semester and come out on top.
liberals just dont want to hear anyone who disagrees with thier wacko ideas
I was going to comment with exactly what Zuzu said. I don’t care if someone post anonymously. It is about the post, not the person. But a blog without comments, that is cowardice.
Well, that Ed Whelan is clearly an unmitigated shit – a cowardly bottom-feeder who can’t match you in debate or discourse, so feels obliged to revenge himself by trying to attack you in ‘real life.’
Totally pathetic, inexcusable action on his part. Anybody who has a life ‘en blog’ should recognize and respect that anonymous bloggers are anonymous for a reason – and CHOOSE to be that way.
His actions were the last recourse of a despicable coward and stain everything he’s ever written with the unmistakable aroma of failure. Shame on him
To liberal japonicus:
1) The idiom to “own up to” something is to confess to it, to attach your name to it.
2) By “emphasize the personalities of your opponents over their arguments” I meant attacking persons, not their arguments. But even by your narrower reading (“personality traits”) publius did this recently when he attacked Whelan as dishonest for not actually believing his own arguments as in:
“And don’t feel sorry for Ed. He knows all this — he’s a smart guy with outstanding legal credentials. He just enjoys playing the role of know-nothing demagogue. Anonymous Liberal pretty much captured it:
This is Whelan’s role in the conservative world, his niche. He’s the guy Republicans look to when they need to discredit a Democratic legal or judicial nominee. He pores over their record, finds some trivial fact that, when distorted and taken totally out of context, makes that person look like some sort of extremist. Whelan knows this is what he’s doing. It’s willful. He’s essentially a legal hitman, someone who provides the “expert” opinion that the right wing echo chamber then uses as the basis of its attack campaign.”
Writing (and/or approvingly quoting) that your opponent’s claims are so specious that even he must not believe them is of course an attack on your opponent’s honesty.
Again, as has been pointed out innumerable times, the publius name was attached to it and it wasn’t going anywhere. ‘Publius’ ‘owned up’ to what he wrote. You are using an idiom to covertly make the point that has been made by any number of fresh pseuds visiting here, but you seem to be wanting to disguise the actual implication. Your first principle is that there was no reason to use the publius pseudonym. Even if you believe that, you still have to get to ‘and I think Whelan was justified in outing him’.
As for ‘personality traits’, Eugene Volokh pointed out that the opinion that Whelan expressed is just not right. This leads one to speculate why someone with the pedigree of Whelan would make such an argument. Honesty, while a reflection of personality, is always subject to some real world tests. That Publius pointed to one of them does not automatically open him up for being outed. If I suggest that your use of the idiom indicates that you either don’t understand how pseudonyms work or you are using it to conceal a rhetorical point, have I attacked your personality? This logically flows from the points I have described, so it is not a personality based attack.
Interesting, Whelan’s post immediately before all this seems to violate your high expectations
I see … that Wall Street Journal reporters Jess Bravin and Nathan Koppel…fell for the White House’s wild misrepresentation of Judge Sotomayor’s 1999 ruling in United States v. Santa, which merely applied existing Supreme Court precedent on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Their misrepresentation of Santa…is their lead example…
Memo to reporters: Trust the White House at your peril. (emp mine)
All of those seem to be attacks on the ‘personality trait’ of honesty. Whelan certainly could have accused publius of being dishonest if he had evidence. I’m sure that if Whelan could have found something that publius in his RL version had written that made something he had written as publius a lie, he would have brought it up, don’t you?
I left out the link to that Whelan post. It’s here
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTMyZWEzNWNkZmY5ZmUwYmZlZjViMjlmMTM3NzcwMzc=
I have been outed on more than one occasion by angry bloggers. Thus far I have chosen to continue to try to remain semi-anonymous, but it isn’t always easy.
Truth is that if I had to start over I’d probably blog under my own name, even with the potential conflicts it creates.
Still, I am not supporting what was done here. Outing rarely has any sort of “moral justice” tied into it.
To me, the essential point is not the outing itself. The point is that Ed did not defend his ideas. He wrote a silly column, the column got dismantled by Volohk, and publius wrote about the dismantling. So Ed had a choice: ignore, defend his ideas or get all vengeful. He picked getting all vengeful.
As did Libby, Rove, et all when Valerie Plume was outed. As did Michele Malkin when she stalked that family. As does O’Reilly every time he opens his mouth. As did Republicans in Congress over and over with the claims that Democrats weren’t as patriot or as opposed to terrorism as they. As was the consistant theme of Palin’s speeches.
The pattern is that rightwingers don’t defend their ideas with reason or fact. Standard discourse from the right is vengeful thuggery, lies, personal attacks, thereats–retire05 is an example right on this thread! Liz and Dick Cheney lie, lie, lie.
I could go on and on. It is a lot harder to ennumerate rightwingers who consistantly engage in civil discourse on ideas than ones that simply rant and rave.
So in my mind that whole debate on outing is a digression. The point is that Ed, in the manner typical of the debased and degraded state of the Republican party and the conservative side of current political debate in this country right now, did not choose to defend his ideas and indulged in a personal attack instead.
That email exchange exemplifies what a pathetic, vengeful, small man Edward Whelan is. He’ll have a nice home over at HuffPo or DailyKos.
I think all this talk of a civil suit is WELL out of line. I totally decry Whelan’s actions – but at the end of the day, we have to take responsibility for posting on the ‘net. What he did was a ‘dick move,’ but I don’t see how it breaks any law and the sad fact is that publius made a conscious decision to post on the ‘net. ‘Outing’ was always a possibility.
http://rolandhulme.blogspot.com/2009/06/blogging-and-anonymity.html
Don’t disagree. But I don’t think it’s out of line to publicize and circulate what a crass move this was. It’s a behavior that’s entirely consistent with the blogosphere, it doesn’t escalate behavior and, unlike Whelan, matches response with behavior.
Not to mention that it quite possibly could hurt worse than a law suit….
After reading the comments here and AL, etc. I realize that my opinion of Ed Whalen was somewhat off. I _never_ assumed he was anything more than a hit man. I’ve read most if not all of this posts for the last year or so and I never realized that he has serious credentials. I never bothered to look at his bio. So, just based on his writing, I assumed he was a polished and higher paid version of, oh, Confederate Yankee, Ace, Capt. Ed, and so on. I thought he was an a amateur legal scholar and a professional propagandist. Yes, more or less, a Sean Hannity focusing on law. I assumed Whalen is wrong all the time because he is ignorant. I was wrong. He’s much worse than I imagined–he’s wrong because he’s lying. If anything good came of his outing of publius, it’s that more people have a clearer picture of Ed Whalen.
I wouldn’t think so much in terms of lawsuit as in a report to the NY Attorney Ethics Committee. Ed “practices” – if you want to call it that – in the First Department.
liberals just dont want to hear anyone who disagrees with thier wacko ideas
Posted by: Flu-Bird | June 08, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Right. Which is why you’re able to comment here, but nobody is allowed to comment at NRO.
Wait . . .
What a cockbag. Sorry, publius. I hope you don’t suffer any professional blowback.
And I hope Whelan gets a hemorrhoid the size of a fucking watermelon.
Dear Warrem Terra: I object to your vicious comments about Pope Benedict XVI as “Pope Ratzi”. You are being insulting and offensive about not only a good and holy man, but to all Catholics. Your behavior is no better than that of Ed Whelan. SHAME on you!
I happen to be currentlry reading Benedict XVI’s SAINT PAUL. I suggest it would be a good idea to actually reading some of the pope’s books before sneering at him.
Sincerely,
Sorry to hear about this, Prof. I certainly understand your desire to remain anonymous for the purpose of not “tipping off” your law students. I had a law professor last semester whom I discovered mid-semester was a right-wing blogger (he blogs under his own name, but I didn’t know about it until a blog I read linked to one of his posts), and as much as I tried to block it out, I never saw that class the same way again. And for much the same reason, I never told him that I had discovered this about him nor brought up anything political in conversation with him. To his credit, his politics never entered the classroom.
Richard Armitage outed Plame, why isn’t he on your list? Less political utility?
I’m not sure what Whelan really meant to accomplish with his action beyond fulfilling a feeling that his enemy should be named. It does seem he felt he was “calling out” Blevins. This is the risk you take when you have a blog and you get into personal disagreements with people. Whelan’s action may not be admirable (a poll on a conservative blog suggests most conservatives disagree with what he did), but it’s not surprising that it happened. You might also keep in mind that someone gave Whelan Blevins’ identity. So there was another person with aknife in Blevins, apparently. This was bound to happen eventually.
I hope everyone here will be just as outraged about the “outing” project of homosexuals that is in the works.
You are being insulting and offensive about not only a good and holy man, but to all Catholics.
Amusing to defend the Pope by deciding that you are somehow entitled to speak for all Catholics rather than for yourself.
lj: “Your first principle is that there was no reason to use the publius pseudonym.”
No, my first principle is that an honorable person does not engage in personal attacks anonymously. (And that applies equally whether you literally sign your attacks with “anonymous” or sign with a pseudonym you have not owned up to.) When there is some reason to maintain anonymity, an honorable person chooses between not attacking people, or attacking them under his own name and accepting the consequences.
“As for ‘personality traits’, Eugene Volokh pointed out that the opinion that Whelan expressed is just not right. This leads one to speculate why someone with the pedigree of Whelan would make such an argument. Honesty, while a reflection of personality, is always subject to some real world tests. That Publius pointed to one of them does not automatically open him up for being outed.”
Publius did not merely point to such “tests”, he explicitly claimed that Whelan’s error was “willful,” and that he was a “demagogue” and a “hitman.”
“Interesting, Whelan’s post immediately before all this seems to violate your high expectations”
No, it does not, since Whelan does not post anonymously or under the cloak of pseudonym. The stab in the back has long been seen as unmanly and unacceptable, whether it is a literal or figurative stabbing. That does not make all attacks so.
First, you continue to conflate anonymous and pseudonymous. He is not anonymous, Whelan was able to contact him, if he had been at all interested in defending his views, Whelan could have ‘owned up’ and eviscerated Publius had publius been grossly wrong in claiming that Volokh’s post undermined Whelan’s claim. That Whelan did not suggests that he is unwilling to defend what he wrote. ‘owning up’ doesn’t get tossed out the window because a name is official in some way.
Furthermore, publius did not ‘explicitly claim’ the things that you said. You can see the post here. A retraction is in order and your accuracy in attributing arguments underminds your contentions.
Finally, you can’t have the criterion of honesty both ways. Either an attack on honesty is something to be deplored because it is an attack on personality, or it is a fair comment when made by a person who has a fixed moniker, which publius does.
It undermines. Sheesh.
He’s a shmuck.
On the other hand, it is better to blog in your own name.
Ed Whelan’s use of the term “hitman” to describe himself in an e-mail is revealing because he used it in his official capacity as the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
(And didn’t I read that his wife also works at the EPPC? That can’t reflect well on her either.)
He’s an overprivileged bully who clearly has anger management issues, and now he’s using the EPPC to intimidate someone who’s covering his public activities and public statements. There’s just nothing good about that.
For reasons of public safety, Ed Whelan should be under watch. The EPPC should also be scrutinized for other indications that their name is actually meant to be taken as a joke!
Is Ed Whelan nine years old or something?
[Whelan] is really six years old, and his mommy was mean to him this morning.
As the mother of a six-year old, I consider that a gross slur on that age group, many of whom have worked out that ‘he started it’ is not an adequate excuse. In fact can I put up my daughter to replace him as director of this ethical centre?
A flat-out vindictive thing to do. Your reasons for publishing anonymously were good ones, and a decent human being would have respected them and gone point for point on the issue, not the author.
You’ve won one more loyal reader from this, if that is any consolation.
Question of the day:
Will Ed Whalen give up the name of the person who “reliably informed” him of publius’ identity?
Don’t count on it….
This sort of thing is perfectly fine, if you’re the kind of person who thinks ad hominem attacks are valid.
Dang, what a petty, nasty little creep that Whelan is.
lj:
“First, you continue to conflate anonymous and pseudonymous. He is not anonymous, Whelan was able to contact him”
Whelan had to track him down. The posts were anonymous as well as pseudonymous. The moral problems associated with back-stabbing remain.
“if he had been at all interested in defending his views, Whelan could have…”
I agree that Sotomayor’s comment on “policy” can provide but a very weak argument against her confirmation for SCOTUS, and so Whelan’s original argument seems pretty weak to me also. But that is not what I have been talking about.
“Furthermore, publius did not ‘explicitly claim’ the things that you said. You can see the post here. A retraction is in order and your accuracy in attributing arguments underminds your contentions.”
I saw (indeed quoted) the post. When you approvingly quote someone (“Anonymous Liberal pretty much captured it”) and follow their quote with a “yep” you have explicitly claimed it for yourself. No retraction is in order on my part.
“Finally, you can’t have the criterion of honesty both ways. Either an attack on honesty is something to be deplored because it is an attack on personality, or it is a fair comment when made by a person who has a fixed moniker, which publius does.”
My position against back-stabbing (that we should not make personal attacks if we are not willing to associate ourselves with such attacks) is internally consistent and a norm well predating the internet. The fixed moniker does not change this unless we are “out” — i.e., unless people generally know that we are the author of the attack.
Sean M. Brooks is right, Warren Terra: it’s disrespectful to call this ex-Nazi ex-Inquisitor blingball Pope Ratzi.
I think of him as Pope Rat, when I don’t think of him as creepy scumbag.
By the way, Sean, I have read the pope’s work, back when he was Chief Inquisitor, and he’s a homophobic arse and a supporter of the grand Church cover-up that enabled so many child molesters to move safely from parish to parish over the decades. This may be your definition of a “good and holy man”, but it’s not mine.
What a dick.
I’m sorry. I have every sympathy for you, and I hope that none of the feared consequences occur.
Whelan had to track him down.
Said tracking down consisted of:
1) Clicking the “Email Me” link on the “Obsidian Wings” home page, beneath the “About” link at the top-left corner, where nearly every single English-speaking reader in the world begins reading a webpage; and
2) Adding publius’s email address at STLC, which can be found under the very first Google result for “John Blevins Southern Texas Law College.”
I mean, I can see how this activity might have been exhausting for a man of Whelan’s capacities, but I’m not sure “tracked down” is really necessary here.
Publius, I started reading your posts when you had a site called Legal Fiction. Was sad when you quit. Lo and Behold, when the Sotomayer nomination came up I cruised over to Obsidian Wings to read what was being said and there you were. Publius is back in town! Don’t quit. I learn a lot from you and the other bloggers on this site.
The posts were anonymous as well as pseudonymous.
Does anyone understand this sentence from DWPittelli?
Phil: he had to find out John’s name somehow. It’s not at all obvious.
Whelan had to track him down. The posts were anonymous as well as pseudonymous. The moral problems associated with back-stabbing remain.
“In other words, he’s criticizing me for replying on the Obsidian Wings institutional email to which he initially wrote. What’s funny is that Whelan and I have corresponded on this very address before.” link
Your definition of ‘track down’ is faulty. Whelan could already contact publius. He simply tried to bully him by getting an anonymous source to give him his private email so he can threaten him. Eschewing previous lines of communication in order to make more direct contact is, I think, cyber stalking.
When you approvingly quote someone (“Anonymous Liberal pretty much captured it”) and follow their quote with a “yep” you have explicitly claimed it for yourself.
Your definition of ‘explicit’ is also faulty. He quoted another blog post, provided a link to it. There is no transitive notion of explicitness that gets bounced around because someone says ‘yep’.
My position against back-stabbing (that we should not make personal attacks if we are not willing to associate ourselves with such attacks) is internally consistent and a norm well predating the internet.
You may be internally consistent, but that’s easy when you creating your own new add on definition, that back-stabbing somehow means an attack by a pseudonymous blogger on a publicly posted piece. If you can show me that Whelan had some sort of expectation that the entity named publius owned him some sort of deference (which probably gets at why Whelan reacted the way he did, but a hurt ego and a surfeit of pique does not a backstabbing make), I will accept that it is backstabbing, but until then, it appears to be hypocrisy on your part to claim that Whelan’s personality was attacked by the attack on Whelan’s ‘honesty’, whereas you are uninterested in holding Whelan to your same demanding pre-internet standards. Your moral compass may seem true to you, but it is so tightly tethered to your politics that you might was well hold a magnet to it when seeing where you are going to go.
True enough, hilzoy; nonetheless, in context — that context being first, lj stating that publius was not “anonymous” because Whelan could contact him at any time, and Pitelli responding that Whelan had to track him down — it remains true that the nature of the “tracking down” amounts to clicking the ObWi email link. That is the way one contacts publius through this site, and it is trivial.
Are you the same “publius” who posts on slate.com, then?
I actually figured out publius’ nom-de-plume about a year ago just based on general inference — I had read enough of publius’ writings over the years that it wasn’t particularly difficult.
Just so I don’t sound too self-congratulatory, I promptly forgot it and didn’t really bother to go look again, because, well, I really didn’t care. I remember the first name and the face on the faculty page, but that was about it.
Anyway — publius’ four-word post title pretty much covers it. Way to go, Ed, you twit.
Whelan had to track him down. The posts were anonymous as well as pseudonymous. The moral problems associated with back-stabbing remain.
A does not equal P. Publius has a public persona, his name is Publius. If you write him here, and say “Hey Publius”, he will respond. If Publius had said something here that was illegally libelous, or inciting people to riot, etc, to the point where lawyers and law officers needed to intervene, you can be certain that authorities would have found his real-world identity post-haste. As is true with all public pseudonyms of note.
Both Whalen and Publius have ample soapboxes. They could have held public debate on the topic of choice at any point. The ‘anonymous’ aspect of the pseudonym Publius is barely any matter. The fight exists between two minds and two points of view, rather than two ‘real’ names. Ed Whelan could have slammed ‘Publius’ every day on his blog from now til St. Stephen, and it would have been fair game. Publius’ public reputation was just as on-the-line as Whelan’s, as I am certain that Publius takes pride in his writing and in this website. The ‘stabbing in the back’ metaphor you hope will stick is just nonsense. Publius stands by everything that he says, as Publius. To any neutral observer, suddenly knowing a second name for Publius does not change the substance or ideals of which he writes. I gain nothing from this new knowledge, nor does anyone.
There is no moral problem here. Blogging is merely an extension of the fourth estate, where facts, analysis, and opinion are the stars, not the by-lines. Pundits (all sides) are interchangeable, tapped for their ability to fill a box with a predictable partisan opinion. Only a few may go on to some degree of remunerative notoriety. And that is based on the pundit’s consistent ability to render compelling arguments to their base audience. In other words, Ed’s fear that a blogger named Publius might have a detrimental effect on his career, shows what a weakling Ed really is. They are talking heads, talking it out in the arena of talking. Knowing their real names is of no more concern to me, or anyone else, than knowing the real names of professional wrestlers. It’s the game that matters, not the players.
One trick of strawman rhetoric used here against Publius is the insistence that we’re claiming that pseudonymous writing is a legal or inherent ‘right’. It’s not. The word ‘etiquette’ is far more applicable. Farting in someone else’s personal space is not illegal, nor can anyone claim a right to a fart-free space. However, if you fart in someone’s space, you’re an ass.
Last point: as long as hiring committees, tenure boards, management hierarchies, and bureaus of investigation are opaque in their machinations, so goes the need for individuals to mask themselves. Self-preservation is not cowardice. Self-expression is not a privilege. Anyone who has posted anything to the sentiment of “If you were really afraid for your friends and family, maybe you shouldn’t have posted” is a fascist, in no uncertain terms.
“You may feel you have been ‘outed’ in some McCarthyite fashion, but what is at least equally McCarthyite, Orwellian or even Kafkaesque is to be maligned by anonymous accusers you cannot face.”
Publius wasn’t “anonymous.” He’s been blogging here for years now. In what sense am I able to face “DWPittelli” that I haven’t been able to “face” publius?
“Naturally our Constitutional right to face witnesses against us is limited to criminal prosecutions, but I believe that if you criticize specific people, you have an analogous obligation to use your own name”
I believe in the kindness of strangers, but so what? Argument by assertion doesn’t go very far.
“But one way of stepping away from an argument is by refusing to own up to it. Another is to emphasize the personalities of your opponents over their arguments. Blevins was doing both before Whelan responded.”
Ah, yes, by outing publius, Whelan was not “emphasiz[ing] the personali[y] of [his] opponent.”
Gotcha. Or, as we sometimes say: wtf?
“The idiom to ‘own up to’ something is to confess to it, to attach your name to it.”
Publius did attach his name to all his posts. Do you believe there is some platonic ideal of “names,” as opposed to “the name we are known by”? If so, please define that ideal, and your reasoning by which you derive it. Thanks.
“Writing (and/or approvingly quoting) that your opponent’s claims are so specious that even he must not believe them is of course an attack on your opponent’s honesty.”
Of course it is; so what? What’s that got to do with the price of tea in Tibet?
“No, my first principle is that an honorable person does not engage in personal attacks anonymously.”
Do you really not understand the distinction between “anonymous” and “pseudonymous”?
“The posts were anonymous as well as pseudonymous.”
Apparently you don’t understand what “pseudonymous” means, as this is flatly untrue. At no time has publius been the slightest bit more “anonymous” than you or I am in what we post to the internet. (That is, I’m assuming you don’t post under some other, random picked, names.)
“My position against back-stabbing (that we should not make personal attacks if we are not willing to associate ourselves with such attacks) is internally consistent and a norm well predating the internet.”
Personally, I’ve never heard of such a definition of “back-stabbing.” Please give some links to citations demonstrating this “norm.” Thanks.
“The fixed moniker does not change this unless we are ‘out’ — i.e., unless people generally know that we are the author of the attack.”
What does this mean? Is this metaphysics?
“And you would think that someone who spends their days”…
Well, I’d think that a professor in a law school would know how to write a proper damn English sentence.
I’d be wrong.
I think you may need to kinda eat it on this one Mr. Blevins. People who use their real name when blogging usually feel the “anonymous coward” is a fitting term for those who don’t.
The point is, you might not be so tough or loudly opinionated now… by all means, I hope that you are! But you’ve got to admit there’s something there.
Please skip over the “some people require anonymity for justice” stuff – and stick to it. Will being real alter your approach to things here, even slightly?
“People who use their real name when blogging usually feel the ‘anonymous coward’ is a fitting term for those who don’t.”
That’s interesting. What’s your cite to support that claim?
Because I have a slip of paper here in my pocket that says people who make up alleged facts to support what’s actually just their personal opinion have very large heads filled with the turds of humongous Mezoic lizards, and that “big-headed Mezoic lizard poopy-face turd-head” is a fitting term for those who engage in that kind of self-serving rhetorical claim.
You’ve got to admit there’s something there.
“Mezoic” is not to be confused with “mesozoic,” but is far more insulting, and has 20% poopier poop.
Sounds to me like you could have avoided this whole mess by simply explaining that you were pre-tenure instead of the “private, family and professional” defense which, lets face it, sounds rather murky. The truth of the matter is that both of you acted unlike adults. Also, given that this is a “hobby” that you *know* is in conflict with your professional goals, it sounds to me like you should have 1) known, given the risks, not to have blogged to begin with, anonymously or not and 2) understood that this was probably going to happen eventually.
I’m sorry for your outing but honestly, this all could have been avoided had you simply held your tongue until tenure-ship instead of partaking in what you knew to be behavior that would be harmful to your career. We would all be poorer for it, sure, but the world has enough bloggers to be okay without one who is risking career suicide by doing so. And I am not defending Mr. Whelan here, just to be clear, but I do think some self-introspection is necessary on your part.
“The truth of the matter is that both of you acted unlike adults.”
Why are you acting “unlike [an] adult” by using a pseudonym, SankeInTheGrass, without giving any explanation?
Mind, it better be the right kind of explanation, or we’ll have to make further comments about your obvious childishness!
“self-introspection”: the very best kind of introspection!
(To paraphrase Woody Allen, sometimes I like to cheat, and do my introspection into someone else’s psyche; saves all sorts of wear and tear on my own.)
Holy crow! I have never read so much silliness in my life! Adults(I assume) in a frenzy because someone’s real name is now attached to his own opinions?If you believe in what you think and write, why on earth would you want to hide your name? What are you so afraid of? If you are so worried about what your family, clients and colleagues might think, regardless of your or their political convictions, maybe you should have alook at yourself – what are you writing that would be that controversial? Or can’t you take the confrontation? No-one is forcing you to be on the Internet – at least have the courage of your convictions. Mr. Whelan had a right to know who was criticizing him, as does anyone.If its all just a hide-and-seek game, who can take that seriously, anyway?
“If you believe in what you think and write, why on earth would you want to hide your name? What are you so afraid of?”
What’s your address and phone number, Elizabeth? I assume you’ll have no problem posting them here: if you believe in what you think and write, why on earth would you want to hide them?
Post that info in your next comment, and we can continue the conversation from there.
Why, you haven’t even posted an email address here: What are you so afraid of?
He shouldn’t have outed you, though you are wrong about Sotomayor and policy. The idea of judges making policy runs contrary to the founding principle of separation of powers & the primacy of the legislature within the US Constitution. Others will site the steady drift of the courts into the territory of the legislature as evidence that this is the accepted role of the courts, but this would all but ignore the underlying argument for the separation of powers and the prominence of the legislature within the US Constitution. Though I’m sure fans of the Nouveau Oligarchy are not troubled in the least by this.
As a Canadian, I don’t often pop by your blog, but I tend to enjoy it when I do. Ed Whelan is pompous, mean-spirited fool without an ounce of chivalry. And as far as I’m concerned, his apology is fake.
Dear Mr. Farber
Its “Elisabeth” with an “s” BTW.
I did put in my email but I don’t know why its not coming up. I would have trouble giving out my address and phone number as I would be afraid of strangers knocking on my door who might disagree with me – that said, I might be wrong about Mr. Blevins place of work being known, and, you’re right, maybe his home address too. Iguess I didn’t think through what strangers might do, only the people he knows personally.
Mr Farber
I thought your slip of paper comment was extremely funny.
“I would have trouble giving out my address and phone number as I would be afraid of strangers knocking on my door who might disagree with me – that said, I might be wrong about Mr. Blevins place of work being known, and, you’re right, maybe his home address too.”
That’s the thing: there are these things called “phone books,” as well as online directories. Not to mention the repercussions publius may suffer with tenure, with students, with colleagues, with relatives. Then there’s the fact that when you post on the internet, you might anger some crazy person, who will start harassing you now that they know your phone number, address, place of work, etc.
There’s no constitutional write to publish pseudonymously, of course, but revealing someone’s identity without a very good cause is, at best, extremely rude and inconsiderate; it’s harassment, pure and simple, no different than if I ferreted out your own address and phone number and posted them to the internet, along with a link to any possible photos of you online, or any other personal information in the public record about you.
What’s courteous is to leave it to people to make their own decision as to what personal details to make public in the venues of their own choice. It’s not a decision someone should make for someone else without a very good cause indeed (you’ve found out they’re a criminal, say).
My apologies for typoing your name!
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Chuck Hayes should not shoot more. He’s a terrible shooter. Just watch video of his form when taking free throws. His job is to get rebounds and play tough defense.
“I’m just glad to have been able to get under the skin of at least a single leftist jackass”
Ah, the wingnut “moral” code: if it annoys liberals, do it. Such a pathetic, nihilistic and self-indulgent way to live.
I’d never heard of you before this little squabble and my guess is that I disagree with your point of view but I do support your right to use a pseudonym. What should matter is your ideas, not anything about your person. If your ideas are good, it wouldn’t matter if you were a scumbag; if your ideas are bad, it wouldn’t matter if you were Mother Theresa. Nothing about your person has any relevance to what you write. And as I’m sure you know but some do not, the pseudonym “Publius” was used by three of our Founding Fathers when writing the Federalist Papers.
big difference between using a pseudonym and anonymity. there is a centuries old long honored tradition of writing under a pseudonym, especially in repressive regimes which punish, harass, attack and do violence (of all forms) to those who dare criticize the power holders.
i only hope this ends up benefiting / strengthening you and backfiring on those like Whelan who are so sure they have all the answers to right and wrong so facilely using their dualistic black & white simplistic view of the world and who believe they are entitled to judge all they consider to be the ‘other’
hang tough/become stronger and more true.
1)http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html
2) http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html
The Ninth Amendment reads, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Amendment is almost entirely the work of James Madison. It was introduced in Congress by him and passed the House and Senate with little or no debate and virtually no change in language. It was proffered to quiet expressed fears that a bill of specifically enumerated rights could not be sufficiently broad to cover all essential rights and that the specific mention of certain rights would be interpreted as a denial that others were protected.
In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:
“It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution [the Ninth Amendment].”
Mr. Justice Story wrote of this argument against a bill of rights and the meaning of the Ninth Amendment:
“In regard to . . . [a] suggestion, that the affirmance of certain rights might disparage others, or might lead to argumentative implications in favor of other powers, it might be sufficient to say that such a course of reasoning could never be sustained upon any solid basis . . . . But a conclusive answer is, that such an attempt may be interdicted (as it has been) by a positive declaration in such a bill of rights that the enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
He further stated, referring to the Ninth Amendment:
“This clause was manifestly introduced to prevent any perverse or ingenious misapplication of the well-known maxim, that an affirmation in particular cases implies a negation in all others; and, e converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others.”
These statements of Madison and Story make clear that the Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights which the Constitution guaranteed to the people.
3) http://www.alternet.org/rights/50404/
4) http://www.pbs.org/benfranklin/l3_wit_name.html
Not fair, I know, but you can’t help but think of Cheney and Judy Miller.
While I am sorry that the choice to come out was taken from you, I think you are old enough and secure enough financially to go thru this change. My life has been immeasurably easier being totally out and about.
When the secret is not yours, it is not yours to reveal either. What an asshat. I don’t care if he’s apologized. His petty reaction may have harmed your family, your job, your students… but never your reputation. If he wanted to harm your reputation he should never have blabbed.
“The problem, though, is that it’s not even controversial that courts consider policy…”
Is the controversey over Ms. Sotomayor’s comment that she stated Courts of Appeal “consider” policy, or that she stated that Courts of Appeal are where policy is made?
You know the answer to this, I suppose. I would guess that like Ms. Sotomayor, you have no problem with Courts of Appeal, District Courts, the Supreme Court or even State Courts “making policy,” so long as it’s policy with which you agree, because after all, why wait for Legislators to make law, when Judges (or Justices) can do it so much faster, better and with more wisdom!
As for you and Mr. Whelan’s pissing match, maybe you should arm wrestle…
“I would guess that….”
I would guess that you’re arguing with voices in your head, and can’t be bothered to distinguish one individual’s beliefs from another. I would also suggest you take up with Eugene Volokh the notion that the Supreme Court doesn’t consider policy.
I’d also suggest looking into the differences between the Supreme Court (which was the subject of the discussion), the Courts of Appeal, District Courts, and state courts, rather than lumping them all together in your consideration.
HTH.
Why did you reply to his initial message with anything but “no?”
“No” for “I won’t please confirm or deny whatever you’re talking about and don’t appreciate being bothered.”
As for Ed Whelan, he is, in his own words, a coward and an idiot.
From “BigYap:” An “unbelievable dick” is what I would call someone who takes pot shots using a pseudonym.
Good one, you unbelievable dick.