Blogger not using pseudonym calls Ed Whelan a “douchebag”

There is a new trend going on amongst politicians and right-wing government types lately that bodes poorly for bloggers – you see, when certain people like Mike Doogan get upset by an anonymous blogger, they then figure the best way to show the anonymous blogger up is by “outting” them.

The National Review’s Ed Whelan is the latest to use this strategy. Whelan, who believes the best way to focus on the judicial career of Supreme Court Nominee is to take a long-ago comment she made and extrapolate on it ad nauseum, was upset that the Eugene Volokh made his strategy look silly. Worse than that to Whelan, Publius of Obsidian Wings linked to Volokh’s takedown.

Tired of spending so much time getting obliterated on the facts, Whelan did the only thing he could think of – he published the name of Pluribus, thus ending his anonymity.

Here’s how Pluribus put it:

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).

Truly a class move by the obviously manly and macho Whelan. And while I still hold strong to the belief that people should be able to blog anonymously if that’s what they need, I do occasionally like to flaunt the fact that I blog under my own name. So, I can’t imagine Whelan would have any ability to comeback whatsoever when I call him a disinformation-spreading douchebag.

Update: Simon over at Bloggasm spoke to both Whelan and Publius about the situation in a post you can read here.

–WKW

Save