Recommended reading
The scourge of anonymous comments
Recommended reading
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I'm otherwise occupied today, but I'll return on Monday. In the meantime, I highly recommend this commentary piece from the American Journalism Review website. I couldn't agree more, especially with this wryly understated passage:
"The opportunity to launch brutal assaults from the safety of a computer without attaching a name does wonders for the bravery levels of the angry."
Comments (91)
I will be completely honest: I intend on running for political office one day and I wouldn't want a cherry-picked, out of context quote to be used against me. That is why I use a pseudonym. I'm sure some of you will scoff at that notion, but I'm being completely honest. Although 'Logathis' has been my online name in countless forums for 10+ years, so it probably wouldn't be impossible to track me down. How's that for full disclosure? And if some crazy homicidal person really wanted to track us down, they would just hire some 20 year old computer geek to hack into philly.com's database, find our IP address, and show up at one of our front door's.— Logathis
Meanwhile, it's not hard to see why Theriot was upset. Here's a sample comment: "Theriot, just another Jefferson Parish politician thug mobster trained by his mentor..dressed up in a façade of respectability by a corrupt Louisiana Legislature." Man, this person makes RightWingHypocrite look deranged. Heavy hitting maybe, but this guy has a thin skin and probably had no case anyway. Huey Long anyone?- Logathis makes an excellent point.
22 failed banks for the month of July. That is really a big number. And the foreclosure for the first 6 months, 1.6 million. It's a good thing the democrats are in charge of doling out the relief or else you might think some people would really go postal, what with no job, no money, no home, and no savings. What's a society to do? I know, play with people's lives and hope they get so gosh darn angry, they kick those ole dems in the keister come Nov. Then, when the republicans get in, all of the millions of people who lost their homes and jobs and have no money, not even their unemployment insurance, will have their taxes cut, invest the extra money in new businesses like oil well clean up services and bring the economy roaring back. Oh yea, and nuke Iran, that will create a lot of jobs too. Oh Oh you just made me think, a really big wall across the the Mexican boarder with smart missiles to kill anyone trying to cross it illegally and all.- "Launching assaults without a name..." lol is Mr. Polman talking about all those nonsense editorials in the Inquirer? Not one of them ever has a name attached to it. Are you reading this, Mr. Jackson? lol— texas.troubadour
- While I'm not too worried about crazies, unlike Phil, I'm still working and not retired. Employers (especially corporate ones) are none too happy with employees posting anything. The board of managers I report to probably would take a dim view of my posting anything political, whether they agreed with it or not.— still_independent
- Phil: " If the press KNEW, they WOULDN'T report it" ??????? Were you awake during the Lewinski thing? It was all Monica, 24/7. They didn't shy away from anything with Clinton. He wasn't a favorite of the the Washington media at all..... As far as the Bush girls, while it is a more realistic scenario (the press didn't follow them around, and they were busted for underage drinking), I have no idea if the story is true or not. Generally speaking the less outlandish the claim, the less proof I would require to believe it.— still_independent
- swedesboromike : and how does knowing that the "Committe for concerned Americans" tell you who paid for an ad? Depending upon when the group was formed, an election could be over long before they filed anything. Back in the 1990's, "Get Government Off Our Back " paid for a lot of ads. I, as a voter, may have wanted to know that RJ Reynolds was sponsoring those ads (it involved the regulation of tobacco).... tom, I don't think that being against the DISCLOSE act was being against free speech, but please explain how it inhibited free speech at all.— still_independent
- CD75, Comrade Noodlehead, bag o cheese, et. al. You've completely missed the point of the post. We all know who Dick Poleman is, his picture adorns the blog, his credentials are listed, his place of employment is know. Dick is free to post what he wants because it's transparent. "The opportunity to launch brutal assaults from the safety of a computer without attaching a name does wonders for the bravery levels of the angry." asks the question would you still call people meaningless names and spew hate with out content if we all knew your name, face, place of employement, etc. The point is, post what you want to post, but do so as yourself so that you are know to everyone else. You'd be amazed how civilized the discussion would become if we were to know each other personally. I taught a technology ethics class for several years and I'll pose the same question I posed to my students at the beginning of each semester; Would you walk up to a complete stranger, start calling them names and spew hate without content like you're willing to do here in the blog? None of my students ever answered yes to that question. If you answered yes, well, either you're lying to yourself or you have some serious sociopathic tendencies that need professional help. Nobody is saying you should change what you post but rather post without the cloak of invisibility. Stand behind your words and if you feel uncomfortable doing so you likely don't believe what you're saying and / or you can't defend your position. As Mikey's brother used to say, "Try it, you'll like it."— WarrickSawyer
- Still Independent- You asked " and how does knowing that the "Committe for concerned Americans" tell you who paid for an ad?"............... You can look up the group and inform yourself. Once in a while there is an effective campaign ad ( i.e. swiftboat, or the Sestak ad on Arlen Spector) but for the most part I think people tune them out.
Comment removed.- still_independent, yes, the Prius is Toyota's best selling car in the US. For it to become so, Toyota needed $4/gallon gasoline and needed to take a loss on each sale of $15K on each car. Did you note the paragraph where it stated Toyota began selling the car for $17K despite the fact it cost $32K to produce? Also that today the Prius cost the same in inflation adjusted dollars as it did back in 1997? GM is selling the Volt for a profit, and it costs more than the US median income (before the $7,500 tax credit). So, for the billions we gave to GM in the bailout, and the billions we gave them to re-tool so they could produce the Volt, and the billions in tax subsidies to both the seller and buyer, we get a car that can go 40 miles on a single charge, but can then go 340+ miles using its gas powered engine. Not to mention less head/leg room than its $15,000 sister economy car on which it is based. Sounds like a great investment to me...where can I go buy one.— tom - wilmington, de
- Maybe there is hope... The mayor of Washington DC, a black man, has hired Michelle Rhee as his School superintendant. She has just fired the bottom 4% of Public School Teachers. She immediately came under fire from the teachers union, and the mayor, good man, is backing his super. Hope this starts a trend in big cities. I dont think you would have to fire legions of teachers, once they see what's happening I think they will pick up the pace themselves. The mayor is in a tough re-election, have to get his website and send him some money. Have to support people trying to do the right thing.— Phil Checchia
- Still... Drudge broke Monica Lewinsky. The press had no choice but to follow up on it. And as far as proving things to you, I'm not interested in doing that. As a matter of fact, I'm not interested in pursuing any type of conversation with you.— Phil Checchia
- still_independent, how did the disclose act inhibit free speech? First, it required the disclosure of every member of an organization that donated more than $600. According to NAACP v. Alabama, the Supreme Court rebuked government-mandated membership disclosure regimes as thinly veiled attempts to intimidate activist organizations that worked by instilling a fear of retaliation among members of the activist group. Anyone wishing to remain anonymous would not donate to an organization, thereby inhibiting that person's free speech and privacy rights, or it would inhibit hte organization from advertising in support of a candidate to protect its donors privacy. Either way, inhibited free speech. Second, it could be argued that issue advocacy could be the same as advocacy for a candidate. For example, an ad against Obamacare, where it states "Call Rep X and urge him to vote for/against" could be considered advocacy either for or against the candidate, thereby forcing the group sponsoring the ad to disclose its donors, etc. The Act uses the term "functional equivalent" and is very open to subjective interpretation. The act also expandes the "electioneering communications" period from 60 to 120 days before an election. The disclosure of the CEO (made before and at end of an ad), the significant funder of the ad, the top five funders of the organization, not to mention other disclosures required would take up more than half of a 30 second ad, leaving little time for any "free speeech" to take place. Lastly, TARP recipients and contractors with $7 million of gov. business ($50,000 in Senate version) are prohibited from advertising, as are corp. with more than 20% foreign ownership/membership, yet unions (SEIU) and non-profits are exempt from this part of the act. That is how it inhibits free speech.— tom - wilmington, de
Popular Posts
About this blog
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
Search this blog:
Blog Roll
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
Classifieds:
Site Services:
Partners: