Sat 8 Aug 2009
I don’t normally confirm or deny the identities of my pseudonym bloggers here on Sonoran Alliance but seeing a defamation lawsuit in the works, the only thing I will say is that Rachel Alexander does not post on Sonoran Alliance under the pseudonym “Cincinnatus.” Rachel has her own excellent blog at Intellectual Conservative and does quite well with her own postings there.
That settles that.
August 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Oh. What pseudonym does Rachel Alexander use at Sonoran Alliance?
August 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Mesa Mike,
If I had $10 for every post that was NOT written by me that went up under pseudonyms by “Chewie,” “Pat,” “Cincinnatus,” “Ted,” and whatever other synonyms I’ve been accused of writing under – I’d have a nice pot of money. There are some truly gifted writers who write for Sonoran Alliance, and I admit I know who probably all of them are, but I cannot claim credit for their hours of research and writing on issues, many issues that I come into contact with every day as well which is why I tend to get blamed. I do find it humorous that folks think it’s me when my style of writing is a lot more laid-back than some of the “energetic” posts I see on this site. (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/rachel-alexander-archives/) I will not out these other writers, and I would hope that commenters on this blog would also respect their desire to remain anonymous. Commenters are anonymous, and so they they should equally permit contributors anonymity, provided there is no libel but it is political speech.
August 8th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
Here is the original article:
Sorry “DGN” and “Jaime,” blogger Rachel Alexander is not “Cincinnatus”
August 8th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Thanks TonyGOPrano!
August 8th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
So, Rachel Alexander writes at Sonoran Alliance under a pseudonym but that’s as far as you’re going? And Politico Mafioso is here to straighten out all the facts? hmmm
August 8th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
I only said Rachel. Never used a last name.
August 8th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Tell it to the Judge!
August 8th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Same deal here. Never knew the name, nor said the name..
August 8th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Actually – I see now that my anonymous name is on this site called politicomafioso.blogspot.com incorrectly saying that I called this person out by name – Tell this to the judge Billbo!
I only have observed the terrible articles authored by Cincinnatus.
Is this how it’s done… Silence citizens through intimidation who observe something wrong in government? Not a chance – and not this time!
August 8th, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Thanks TonyGOPrano for telling us you talk to Rachel constantly. What’s the difference then if she is writing a blog constantly or talking to you constantly? You have that much business at the County Attorney’s office?
You made Jamie’s point yourself, right?
Also, it makes me nervous my County Attorney is politically aligned with the far left RINO fringe of the GOP. Or, at least an attorney in his office is.
August 8th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
Yeah, with 1,000 employees and 40,000 felons prosecuted each year (and growing) it’s important to scrutinize the politics of each and every attorney.
August 8th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
You all see, if you posted under your real name you wouldn’t have this problem.
Besides, folks would then know that you know what it is you are talking about. Your integrity, provided you have any, would give it the weight and the assurance that you do know what you are talking about rather than throwing meaningless mud balls from behind cover.
No one but I posts as Horst Kraus, and allways with my full name and I stand straight and tall behind everything I ever said, or will say.
August 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Horst is missing the point about what makes a blogger. It’s not who you are, it’s what you have to say.
August 9th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Letting it all hang out there again are we Horst?
August 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I agree with Horst. It’s true that it’s the content of your material that is important — and that’s true in every endeavor of communication — what’s the reason for a pseudonym?
Some pen names are just for effect, or they may have a good reason at one time but no longer do so. Everyone knew Mark Twain was Samuel Langhorne Clemens.
George Eliot and George Sand wrote under men’s names when women writers weren’t often taken seriously.
But among political bloggers, I don’t see the reason for anonymity unless it’s part of a masssive art project. Indeed, sometimes I think this whole blog and all its contents are written by some Democratic party officials or indie liberal operatives in order to make Arizona conservative Republicans look ridiculous, given the nature of so many of the posts.
But there are other very conservative bloggers with views I find just as laughable who post under their real names.
The only reason I can think of is that people are worried about conflicts of interest they have in the real world or that they feel that knowledge of their views might negatively affect their employment or status in the community.
But given anonymity, people are not taking responsibility for their actions. And I thought one of the virtues of conservative philosophy was that people should take responsibility for their actions.
On the other side, I recognize that anonymous speech has had a role in American history. After all, “Publius” was credited with the Federalist Papers written by Jefferson, Madison and Jay.
The Supreme Court has also ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission (1995), the Court wrote, “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
And obviously in repressive societies, people challenging government policies of dictators must sometimes use pseudonyms or they would be killed.
So I guess it is a matter of how you balance out competing concerns. I certainly support anyone who wishes to post anonymously, but you have to understand that it raises questions in many people’s minds about the motives of the author.
August 9th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
If one chooses to use a pen name, or as I do just part of my name, it can be for a good reason…I have personal and professional reasons that would limit my ability to speak freely. With that said, I do not believe it gives me cover to make accusations that I cannot validate or know to be absolutely correct. I can have an opinion and express it but I cannot spread lies, innuendo, gossip, or purposefully distort the truth.
That is the trade off. No one should face a ghost and have to defend their honor against an untraceable and unidentifiable assault.
August 9th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
If you remove anonymity you’ll get a lot fewer comments. I know it’s frustrating, if you are a public figure, to watch nameless people attack you. It’s certainly frustrating when you’re not a public figure if it happens to you. I am sure it’s also frustrating to be Ann Kirkpatrick the other day when she was basically shouted down and kicked out of her own town hall. So it’s not just a blog thing.
But as an anonymous commenter, I can’t help but laugh when I chime in on some topic and another commenter immediately wants to know who I am. That’s just weird.
If I was the person who called Kirkpatrick a “nitwit” at that meeting does it really matter who I am? And if it does, who exactly does it matter to?
August 10th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
The latest attacks by Barry Soetoro against those who oppose him are a great example of why we fear the “crown.” Free speech as long as you say what you are supposed to say. You can say Ronald Reagan was a lousy actor, but you can’t say Obama is a lousy president. That’s ridiculous, we know Reagan was a good actor.
See if this sounds familiar:
“Freedom of speech of the individual citizen must be based on the four basic principles of insisting on the socialist road, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the leadership of the party, and the Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought. The citizen has only the freedom to support these principles and not the freedom to oppose them…”
No it wasn’t Obama…yet. It was Wei Jing-sheng, a prosecutor in China. Our current/temporary Governor is also rumored to retaliate against people opposing her.
Fear of the “Crown” is increasing. My government calls me a terrorist and un american because I support the Constitution and speak out. Few can afford the luxury of public exposure.
August 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
who is Rachel Alexander? Wasn’t she in a horse race?