However, this week has made me long a little bit for those anonymous days. Palin’s official press release was that of a bully and it “unleashed the hounds”. I’m up early this morning because Ann Coulter talked about my ethics complaint on Geraldo last night which prompted some idiot from Tennesee to call me at 4:00 AM in an attempt at intimidation.

Doogan, like Palin, is a bully. He has “unleashed the hounds” on Mudflats against her will, opening AKM up to folks giving out as much private information they could find. It makes one wonder if doing this gains Doogan a little consideration from our Governor.

Our situation cannot be compared to that of a newspaper for a number of reasons:

1) WE’RE NOT JOURNALISTS–what we do is the equivalent of a diary

2) WE’RE NOT A BUSINESS–most of us don’t make money on the blog. Even those who try hard to do so usually only manage to break even.

3) WE DON’T HAVE A CORPORATION, EDITOR, ETC… TO BACK US UP–it’s just us. We are private citizens in every definition of the word.

Newspaper folks are under the mistaken impression that blogs are their competition. They are wrong. Newspapers have failed due to systematically poor decisions made by their corporate heads and their editorial staff. They have refused to read the writing on the wall as to the future of journalism — now they blame their poor choices on others. Mike Doogan, Sheila Toomey, Amanda Coyne and Tony Hopfinger remind me of dinosaurs lashing out at anyone while in the death throes. I used to care–defending support of the ADN. Now, when Toomey gets her pink slip, I’ll throw a party.

I strongly urge the Blog Herald to remove this comment from the screen until and unless “Gary” and his Team Sarah associates can provide proof of this illegality.

To “Gary” – this is not the place to make these charges. If you have proof of your assertions, please take it to the appropriate law enforcement official.

FWIW, I know AKM. AKM is a friend of mine. AKM would not hack into anyone’s forum account. And you, “Gary,” are no AKM.

*Both* are completely within their legal rights. No one’s done anything wrong here. No one’s violated a law.

Bottom line — if you really want to stay anonymous you’re going to have to do a bit better job of it than Mudflats and others have done.

If I had been Doogan in this case I wouldn’t have outed her, since it doesn’t appear she had a hidden agenda. If it had turned out, for example, that Mudflats was really being written by the head of the Democratic Party in Alaska, that would have been worth outing her. But just “here’s the name of some ANchorage resident you’d never heard of before” isn’t exactly compelling news.

However, I’m not Doogan and he’s got every right to do what he did.

With Proposition 8 I was pointing out that requiring public disclosure has caused people to be harassed and to lose their employment. Hence I can understand why a blogger would want anonymity when writing about a powerful political figure.

As for the Church of Jesus of Christ of Latter-day Saints blackmailing people, where did you dig that up? I followed the campaign from the beginning and didn’t come across anything that could remotely be called blackmail from either side.

If you self-publish observations and opinions, not under anyone’s banner and not with any organization’s backing or protection, but simply on your own, who gets to say you are influencing public opinion to such a degree that you can not do so pseudonymously? Who gets to make that decision?

Had Doogan wanted to force AKM out from behind the curtain of Mudflats, the proper course of action would have been for him to take the issue to court. He could have attempted to show that AKM’s words swayed an audience huge enough to change the outcome of an election, for instance. But then, he’d have to face up to the fact that pseudonymous political commentary comes from all sides (think Free Republic, for example…). I doubt he would have made much headway in bringing this case.

So again, who gets to decide who influences people enough that their names must accompany their voices? Doogan obviously thought he could decide. I hope he learns, quickly and emphatically, that it is not up to him.

Meanwhile, there are already established rights to internet privacy. And really, given the do-it-yourself ways of the internet, the whirlwind, as someone else has said, that Doogan is now reaping– is his very own.

If one criticizes a powerful political office holder, being anonymous may merely be keeping the playing field level. Of course, your message could be much more effective if your identity is known.

One recent example of where anonymity was needed was where Proposition 8 supporters were harassed, property damaged, and some losing their employment, because their donations were made public.

You ask for my name and e-mail address before I can post this commentary on your essay. You also noted that I may be “Moderated” because this is my first post. I happen to believe that there is a huge difference between giving a family recipe for salmon and attempting to influence elections or public policy.

When you venture into the latter effort the “transparency” you mention becomes relevant and important. Your “Mudflats” writer is certainly entitled to an opinion, even a controversial or unpopular opinion. She is also entitled to print or publish that opinion. When it is an opinion about an elected official and the opinion is given for the purpose of influencing either an election, or the outcome of pending legislation; then the same public that opinion is expressed to, has a right to know who is speaking and what their associations are.

If an opinion comes from Louis Farrikan, we don’t want it attributed to the Dali Llamma. The identity, background, and the associations of someone attempting to influence public policy are indeed fair game. President Harry S. Truman had some advice for “Mudflats,” he said “If you can’t take the heat; stay out of the kitchen!”

I’ll look forward to the next article. Well done.