Dear Alan, Amanda, Andrew, Krestia, Mark and Sheila,All six of you have written about Rep. Mike Doogan's letter to constituents on March 27th, 2009, in which he published the name of the pseudonymous blogger called AK Muckraker.
None of you, to my knowledge has mentioned in your article or articles the concern many have shown over Rep. Doogan's use of state-owned resources to name this person who preferred to communicate through a pseudonym, but was easy enough to reach through email.
None of you appear to have thought to ask Rep. Doogan who his source or sources were for the information he published with taxpayer money.
My questions to you are these:
1) - Why do you believe it did not merit mentioning in your article or articles that there might be concerns about Rep. Doogan's use of state resources to name a critic?
2) - Why did you not question who had provided the information to Doogan?
3) - Are you now pursuing either of the two above issues?
Please feel free to ask me any questions of your own in return.
Rep. Doogan and AK Muckraker are also recipients of this letter. You may feel free to include both of them in ccs of your responses. I intend to publish this letter and your responses at Progressive Alaska.
For reference, here is a listing of articles at Progressive Alaska already published on Doogan's actions:
Mike Doogan Outs Mudflats in Challenge to Outdo Eddie Burke as 2009 Anchorage Slimeball of the Year
What Doogan Did and What Alaska's Progressive Bloggers Hope to Do
Picture of Mudflats' AK Muckraker Posted!
Punish Mike Doogan -- by Kelly Walters
Please Ask Alaska Democrats To Take Action - Nicely...
Doogan Beginning to Inspire Alaska Art! Way to Go, Mike...
A Message From Rep. Les Gara About Mudflats by Rep. Les Gara
Warmest regards to you all,
Philip Munger
Update - Sunday 6:45 p.m: Just back from a long and very productive UAA wind ensemble rehearsal in Anchorage. Andrew and Alan responded quickly, with considered, careful answers. I'm not going to post them until I've gotten some response from all six main addressees. Any I haven't heard from by 1:00 p.m. Monday, I'll seek to question over the telephone. It is a weekend, after all...
Some PA threads have smarter comments than others. So far, I'm glad I asked these questions and posted them, as comments either are raising new questions, or reiterating some important points related to my open letter.
Thanks, everyone!
Update - Monday 3:00 p.m: Krestia has indicated by email that he will answer the three questions as soon as he is less busy. Mark has provided an interesting set of non answers. I've left phone messages with Sheila (who is off on Mondays in April) and Amanda.
47 comments:
In my opinion, Alan & Andrew are the only ones worth bothering with. The others are motivated by a constricted view of the us vs. them MSM vs. bloggers view. Not to mention the hypocrisy of Sheila Toomey. That at least did not appear to be an issue in Krestia's piece.
Long-time Alaskans know that Sheila Toomey wrote anonymously for over a decade, and that Doogan knew her identity. Further, she wrote some utterly puerile stuff in there, along with some hateful & harmful stuff. Double-standard much, Sheila & Mike?
SMR
What if Doogan was asked by someone, anyone "Who do you think that AKM might be"? Does Doogan get to answer the question? Bloggers seem to think they have a special standing or class of citizenship. I do not see the harm let alone the foul that you are protesting about. My mommy taught me that if you play in the mud you get muddy. SFW, AKM's revenue stream from her site should tell the tale of how this outing has cost her a loss of what???
Anon: You might be right about Shelia, except that I doubt she would be jumping up and down, citing first amendment issues if someone had outed her then.
Is someone getting ready to file some sort of class action ethics complaint?
I've long been aware of the power of the written word. Personally, I've scribed things in the past that greatly affected people, and caused emotional turmoil, even when that was not the intent. There were times when my words brought change, usually for the good, but not always, and as I wrote, I had to think to myself that my purpose was sincere. Sure, there were other times when I've written things that were mean, or malicious. Sometimes we need to vent. Anger can be a powerful, and useful weapon - if used correctly. It can also turn against us. Until recently, most of what I've written was done in the light of day, without anonymity. I believe this helps keep a person honest. Sure, there are those who will say whatever they want, without disguise, but in this internet age, many, I dare say most people would stay much more reserved, and factual, and less vulgar if they had to reveal their true names to their audience. It makes me laugh when I read about people who believe it is their right to say whatever they want in a public forum, be it lies, libel, slander, or outright profanity, and do it all while remaining anonymous. I have yet to see anything (even in this article) that gives people that right. Everyone has a right to privacy in this country, but you negate that right when you step up and challenge others with the written word. The first amendment affords citizens the right to speak their mind (with limits), but some seem to think writing in public is somehow different from speaking in public. It is not. It's a leap, but people should be smart enough to know that in this computer age, it is easy enough to find someone's identity even if they didn't post a traceable internet pseudonym for everyone to see. I find it particularly amusing the amount of self importance internet bloggers give to themselves. Writing something does not make it correct, true, or factual. Unfortunately, many followers don't understand this, so if it's written, to them it's gospel.
That being said, I've never been a fan or follower of Mr. Doogan, but if he wants to publish the actual name of a persistent internet blogger who mistakenly believes she has some sort of legal, or actual anonymity; if she has repeatly stepped into the ring of journalistic pugilism with claims of fact and opinion, then more power to Mr. Doogan. Anyone who thinks they can take their private thoughts, make them public, be free of contradictory views, AND remain anonymous, is in for a big let down. I know. I've been there. All except the anonymous part. If Doogan did this on taxpayer time, so what? If this blogger had made her claims and challenges in person, vocally instead of in writing, there would be no question as to Mr. Doogan's actions.
I am at a loss for words really. To the posters who agree with what Mr. Doogan...are you serious? Do you really have no idea as to what he did...and more importantly...why he did it?
He was vengeful. AKM took him to task....not based on opinion...or lack of facts or outright lies. She used his own words..HIS words.
It made him mad to be embarassed in this manner...so he hunted her down. He gave no thought as to the fact that he could have put her and her family in danger. He was clueless...he was cruel...he was and is...childish. If you can honestly say...you are ok with what he did...well then there is nothing left to say to you.
Laurie
I am sorry. Last I checked, the word "anonymous" doesn't appear in the Constitution, either State or Federal. Further, while the Muckraker participated in the PUBLIC conversation, in accord of her constitutional rights, she now knows that there is a cost of opening one's mouth.
The attempt to file an ethics complaint will flop. Any legal recourse is nonexistent.
Oh well. Get over it.
Personally, I think Doogan did the right thing because at least he signed his name to it.
Do your best to root out his source. You will likely find a friend of Ms. Muckraker. That is the only person who erred, if Ms. Muckraker intends to keep secret.
But you know the old screed. You can keep a secret between three people, if the other two are dead...
@anon 3:52...I see you seem to enjoy your anonymity as you spout off is such a glib manner. Very interesting.
But the bottom line remains that Doogan used state resources to go after a private citizen who had done nothing except to embarrass him. He used his legislative newsletter for a personal vendetta. How can you justify this?
I think he was wrong not to respect her privacy, as well, but using his office to exact some kind of revenge on her was unethical.
L. Scates
To Robert M:
You, sir, are not a writer. There are so many content errors in your opening paragraph I lost count. It resembles a gigantic run-on sentence, only with punctuation. Maybe a run-on thought would be a better description, as you seem to hop from one idea to another without actually finishing a single one. Oh, and there is no such word as 'repeatly'.
But beyond the inept structure, the issues themselves were never addressed. This post is specifically about how a paid state representative is allowed to use state-generated funds to run a personal vendetta. Because at the end of the day, that's the only way Mr.Doogan can honestly describe his behaviour. He was mad at someone for suggesting he be accountable for his actions and lashed out in a hurtful manner.
I will say it again. Mr. Doogan is a paid State Representative. It is his job to answer people's emails, letters and telephone calls. He had and has a duty to carefully answer questions and address concerns from anyone who has taken the time to ask him. The fact that thirty or more persons wrote to him with the same concerns should have spurred Mr. Doogan to think there might be a problem in his government but no. Instead, he decided to shoot the messengers.
And then he hunted down the one person who called him out on his bad behaviour. On your dime.
Tax-payer monies funded his temper tantrum. Is that how you want your elected officials to use the money taken from your paycheck?
I doubt it.
Lynn in Australia
To Anonymous@3:52 and to Robert M.:
I'm just happy that Mike Doogan and you weren't around when 16-year old Benjamin Franklin "blogged" under the name of "Silence Dogood." You would have made damned sure the boy never was around to help bring about the United States of America, instead relegating him to a colonial British prison for daring to anonymously mock numerous aspects of life in colonial America.
I'm extremely happy that Miek Doogan you weren't around when Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison penned the Federalist Papers using the "blog" name Publius. The U.S. Constitution (which incidentally protects Muckraker's right to privacy) might have never been ratified, and our fledgling republic turned into a shambles. But hey - you'd have protected the American people from an anonymous "effort to influence the politics of thousands of people." I'm sure you'd have taken great pride in that accomplishment.
Oh - and also to Anonymous@3:52 - I noticed you posted anonymously while cheering for Doogan.
Does the term "cognitive dissonance" hold any meaning for you?
I don't live in Alaska (thank god) but I have written my Elected officials quite a bit, and never ever received the smartassed, stupid replies he sent to ALL OF US re: Troopergate. And I do mean ALL of us, each person who responded their email was exposed and his reply to one person went to all. AKM called him out on her blog, and he's been stalking her ever since. Most likely using state resources. Who else stalks people on state time? Well GINO of course.
I don't believe doogan acted alone.Legally AKM has a right,A Right to know the Anonymous person who ratted her out!
As for doogan he is a drunken a-hole. He is not fit for office, nor GINO...I hope the feds come and investigate them all, clean out the rat's nest that poses for Alaskan government!
Quite frankly Andrew Halcro is the only conservative-leaning blog to read. He clearly knows his limitations and will be the first to admit when he is wrong. I thought he wrote a thoughtful post about the outing of AKM but understand that not discussing Doogan's use of state resources to do the outing may have been an oversight on his part.
I'm personally more bothered by Doogan's comparison of AKM's anonymity to the KKK! That could only come from someone with a slightly if not completely demented mind.
Sheila Toomey is barely worth the effort it takes to type her name. I think she should be properly renamed to the "Divine Orifice." Another orifice, not an ear.
SLT
I just want to say thanks Phil.
Waiting & watching.
And to all of the "Anonymous" posters.
No, you won't find the word anonymous in the constitution. But you *will* find it in Supreme Court rulings. Some of those have been cited here.
Why don't you man up and use your names? Or even an internet handle.
Had Doogan, as a private citizen, written something "outing" AKM, he would have been childish, vindictive, a creep, but within his rights. He used his elected office and position, however, to act as judge and jury. He used state resources to do this. Unacceptable!!
Had he felt strongly, as a member of the legislative branch he should have used his position to introduce legislation requiring real names be used on anything published, including blogs and comments. Is that what he would be willing to do? The bill could further forbid any use of anonymous sources. Would he want to go there? Really?
Jan
This would be Blogger 3:52. Christopher Constant. I could care less you think I am glib or dissonant. Once again a false opinion. I just don't subscribe to the user systems available.
Mr or Ms 5:16. Franklin, Hamilton, Jay, Madison all protected their own identities well. They ALL FACED GREAT LIABILITY. Their necks. So while Ms. Muckraker's supporters are complaining that her rights have been violated, it is simply not true.
Had Hamilton been outed, he would have been outed. Simple.
I am just glad Doogan didn't use the many many ways he could have indirectly attacked the Muckraker, and instead chose the honorable path and signed his name to it.
So your painfully inconsistent claims of protection fall on ears that reject the weak claim that there should be some special secret class.
Ms. Muckraker has earned the blame for her name being discovered. She told someone, who told someone who told Mike.
Re: Anonymous 7:40
Doogan honorably signed his name to a mass mailing to his constituents- email addresses he had as a result of his elected position. Honorable? Ethical? Not so much, but I have this funny little thing about gov't not over stepping their bounds.
Jan Watson
Jan W,
You go!
What bounds did he step over? She is a public figure. She told someone who told someone who told Mike Doogan. So simple.
Government overstepping his bounds? What damage? You mean that maybe her husband will now abuse her or her family will disagree? Tough. But it is really hard to charge someone with a crime that might happen.
Don't want to receive his newsletter, then unsubscribe.
As for honorable and ethical, please, I can list multiple ways this could have been done without ever touching it.
Anon @ 8:02 - I'm not sure what you mean when you close with "I can list multiple ways this could have been done without ever touching it....."
Dear Anonymous 8:02
I am a pretty big believer in limited gov't, and I absolutely do not think the role of a member of the legislative branch is to go after private citizens, especially in regards to the Bill of Rights.
I do not think that using gov't gathered e-mail addresses is the proper use of that information. What else will he use citizens' email addresses for?
Mike Doogan, private citizen, had other options if he felt this was that important. Mike Doogan, elected official, overstepped his bounds.
And, if he or others were so bothered by The Mudflats. your same logic would apply- don't go there! Free will...
Jan
she's a public figure!
she's influencing policy decisions!
it just sounds, i don't know, chickenshit, to be blunt. if you read mudflats since the beginning as i have, you'd know she is anything but mean, vindictive and power hungry. she says what many of us are thinking but don't take the time to parse and put down in words.
if doogan or anyone else thinks otherwise, sue her ass. good luck with that.
and you're a public figure because you have a blog? almost everyone i know has one.
Wow, communicating the name of a progressive/left-leaning blogger is state business? Bizarre.
Legislative issues & tasks include communicating a blogger's identity to constituents using state resources (computer/email) to reach a group of people whose names are available to you as a function of your ELECTED POSITION AS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE? Weird.
Hands up everyone who would provide their email address to doogan just because...
Anyone? Anyone?
I suspect that there are many people that email doogan cuz he's their buddy, guys/gals he used to work with, relatives, neighbors, maybe a few of the people that he works with now. And if he'd emailed all of them AFTER THE SESSION WAS OVER, from his own email address, and told all of them who AKM is, well, the matter would be easy -- he's an arse, but nothing illegal or ethically questionable there. But guess what -- that's not how it happened. State. time. state. dime. state. resources. personal. business. It's all very simple, even Christopher should be able to get that.
-SMR
And haven't you all heard, there is nothing secret on the internet unless it is behind heavy encryption.
Although "The secret Bloggers Society" could become a powerful lobby. Oh wait, they won't tell anyone who they are.
And I subscribe to Doogan's newsletter because it is the closest thing to his column which I loved so much that I can find. Not a constituent.
And a Legislator's job description is much broader than answering letters emails and calls, and sitting in committee and voting on bills.
Les is the #1 example of someone who is involved with many many issues outside of his constituent interest and passing laws.
My last comment before leaving this line of content...
Politics is a contact sport. Enter at your own risk.
Phil, I can only say that *most* of the above posters sound far wiser than I. However, I just want to add:
Get those answers to your questions! They should be answered. Alaskans deserve the answers.
I applaud you for your stick-to-it-iveness.
Jean
in AK
Oh, and who said AKM is a PUBLIC FIGURE?
Ask the courts about that one .... betcha that would make a really good new federal court case, huh?
Jean
in AK
April 5, 2009 8:53 PM
Clark said:
"she is anything but mean,...."
--------
...and beyond that, s/he backs up facts with links and quotes. I have never, ever read an AKM story that didn't link its facts somewhere. That's what we all are looking for, and that's why we go there.
So if anyone is implying that AKM's articles are baseless and opinionated -- they'd better think again, because that's the LAST thing they are! We read AKM because we can find the real deal there.
Jean
AK
Jean AK - the story up right now at Mudflats is one of the most uplifting in Alaska blog history. Nothing would be added to it by AKM's anonymity; nothing subtracted.
If I were Glen Beck, and AKM were a Republican, would Beck have cried while reading it to his viewers....?
Faulting Doogan for digging into AKM's identity on public time is correct. These legislators spend too much of their time doing things other than the state's business.
While you are flaying Doogan for that, you might want to look into the antics of others. From the Governor hiding her emails to the democrats holding a closed door session on Gussendorf we seem to be paying our people to hide our business from us.
But screaming about AKM's absolute right to remain anonymous nuts.
It would be within anyone's rights to find AKM's identity and broadcast it to the world. She made herself a target with her blog.
holikachuk
holikachuk,
I told AKM in September that AKM would eventually be outed and that AKM should prepare for that personally, and otherwise.
Something ineffably is taken when you steal a benevolent shadow.
Nefarious shadows abound. They haunt the human imagination like nothing else, even redemption.
Hey Lynn in Australia,
(and to whomever else it applies)
I never claimed I was a writer, unless by your definition we here are all writers. I claimed I wrote things. Does that me a writer? Factual reports were my forte, and I stand by my previous posts' statements.
I had to laugh when I read your attack on my comment. You are an example of those who take themselves a little too seriously. You chastise Mr. Doogan for shooting the messenger, yet do the same to me when you disagree with my comments. I'm sorry my rambling style and misspelling of a word left you completely confused as to the content. I did address the issues, but apparently you were too intent on critiquing my syntax and grammar to notice. For your benefit, and the benefit of others, I'll use smaller words and sentences this time.
Mr. Doogan did not "run a vendetta," nor did he "lash out in a hurtful manner." He did not "shoot the messenger," neither had he "hunted down the one person who called him out." Doogan did not have a "temper tantrum." All your exaggerations are blogspeak for your need to hype emotion rather than fact. Mr. Doogan's job is much more than your description of answering emails, letters, and phone calls, and the one single fact you failed to mention is what actions he actually took. He named a person who was anonymously writing about him and other government officials. Childish? Probably. Unethical, or illegal? Not even. I'll address the issues for you further.
The founding fathers of this country wrote things that could easily get them imprisoned, killed or executed. Anonymity kept them alive.
The same does not apply to the bloggers of today. The U.S. Constitution provides for rights of privacy. It does not mention 'anonymity'. The Supreme Court of this country has made many rulings regarding our rights to anonymity. Numerous people on these comment boards keep quoting them, yet they misinterpret them. A person has the right (in many instances) to keep their identity hidden. The courts have NOT made any rulings mandating that I have to abide by your secrecy. I can't force you to reveal yourself. I do however, have the right to say who you are if I find out legally. Have I lost you? Probably.
Mr. Doogan revealed a person who was insighting others to take pot-shots at the government. That's all he did. In answer to your question Lynn, yes, I have no problem with my elected officials using a pittance (as in this case) of my tax dollars for this reason. My tax dollars are used all the time to find out the sources of fundraisers and such. I see this as a similar situation. Some people place a little too much confidence in their illusion of anonymity. If, and when I'm ever involved in a revolutionary overthrow of the government, I might change my mind. Not until then.
Unfortunately Lynn, if you are truly "in Australia" (yeah, right), I have to wonder what business is it of yours anyway? After all, you people have given up most of your rights to your government already. Now you want to tell us what rights we and our elected officials have? You don't seem to have an understanding of this Doogan situation other than what you've read in over-publicised, over-rated, self-important blogs. That goes back to one of my points on my original post. It applies to you. Internet bloggers can call themselves "progressive" or any other such nonsense, but it doesn't make their writings gospel. Only in the minds of people like you. They can rant to, and about government officials, but if they want to call them onto the proverbial carpet, they should have the gonads to show themselves, and not hide in the shadows.
By the way. If you are going to berate people for their writing errors, you should probably avoid internet comment boards. They are rife with mistakes. We're sharing ideas, not term papers. When you harp on spelling it makes you seem petty, and lacking in knowledge of the subject, and when you start your sentences with conjunctions while doing it, it also makes you look stupid. It's a comment board for goodness sake.
I've been accused of being a blogger on occasion. I deny it. I comment when I read something to which I have a response. I try to respond as I would in person. I ramble and don't use spell-check. I try to follow one strict rule. If I'm writing something I would not say in person, I probably shouldn't write it. If others did the same we'd probably get along much better.
mudflats did not INCITE anybody to do anything. and bob, your long-winded points are disturbing at best. WE are the government. don't go provincial on lynn -- she understands it better than you do.
i'm glad philip is continuing to stir this story.
Doogan claims AKM is a "public" figure. He has also claimed several times that AKM "influences public policy".
We have already seen several of Doogan's abusive emails to local folks in Anchorage, emails which loudly trumpet that these citizens DO NOT INFLUENCE PUBLIC POLICY.
Phil, do you know of one iota of AKM influence on any policy or policy-maker in the entire State of Alaska, at any time in its history?
PS: hearty thanks to all those ANONYMOUS critics here, calling themselves ANONYMOUS and criticizing AKM ANONYMOUSLY. Are they all Mike Doogans?
Robert M said, among other stuff:
"I've been accused of being a blogger on occasion. I deny it. I comment when I read something to which I have a response. I try to respond as I would in person. I ramble and don't use spell-check. I try to follow one strict rule. If I'm writing something I would not say in person, I probably shouldn't write it. If others did the same we'd probably get along much better."
I feel the same way. But that's just you and me. You pulled that same metaphor out I've seen elsewhere, of people dying for their written statements they signed, so "what's all the fuss over this, with so much important work to be done"?
I don't accept that. This is part of the important work.
Hello Philip,
I'm not sure what you meant by the last statements you made. I certainly implied 'what's all the fuss over this..?' As far as dying for their written word, I've read numerous opinions from those who think this is a real possibility in the case of people today such as AKM. It's not impossible, but in my opinion, a little far fetched. It won't be the government in any case. (Cue the creepy music.)
With regard to your questions to Boraas, Coyne, et. al., I'd have to raise some questions of my own:
1) If Mr. Doogan has used state resources up to this point to address, banter, communicate, etc. with AKM, and it has not been a problem, why then is it now a problem merely because he prints her name? It shouldn't be, and it isn't.
2) Did these writers in fact question who provided the information, and simply not publish these details? You may find out soon, but it's moot. Doesn't Mr. Doogan, as a journalist have every right to protect his sources? Yes he does. It's hypocritical to claim he's unethical for revealing AKM, then insist he reveal his source.
As I've said before, I'm not a fan of Mr. Doogan, but like many people, I don't think he did anything to merit punishment.
Only time will tell if this venue of blogging for change is truly important work. This is why we will have to agree to disagree Philip. I have yet to see any converts on message boards or blogs.
Cheers
Oh, and Clark... T.S. Don't read if it disturbs you. What disturbs me is that you may actually believe WE ARE the government.
Oh boo hoo, are you STILL whining abou this ?
Phil, her husband is the treasurer of Alaskan's for Truth.
You can't have it both ways, and I'd bet the house that if the tables were turned and these Mudlfat people were R's, you and your little posse would have no problem outing them.
You're a bunch of fucking hypocrites if you ask me.
Mr Mudflats wants truth and justice, but want's to keep the wife's name off of the blog that pushes AFT.
Yeah, lot's of credibility there.
@4:49
"1) If Mr. Doogan has used state resources up to this point to address, banter, communicate, etc. with AKM, and it has not been a problem, why then is it now a problem merely because he prints her name? It shouldn't be, and it isn't."
Using state resources to answer state-related questions is not a problem. Using those resources means he is communicating in an official capacity. Using those same resources for personal reasons IS the problem.
"2) ...Doesn't Mr. Doogan, as a journalist have every right to protect his sources? Yes he does..."
As a journalist, your "protecting sources" argument could have merit, but he didn't publish this as a journalist. He did it as a government official. Big difference.
He was out of line, and I would say this whether he "outed" ANY citizen, blogger, commenter in the manner he did.
Government officials are not paid to play detective against citizens who disagree with them. The line should be very, very bright, to quote another Alaskan.
Jan
Does that AFT stuff still have people all riled up? Where did that originally come from, some pro-palin site? That's utter craziness.
Anyone with a SHRED of intelligence would go to Mudflats, do a search for any references by the author for AFT, BEFORE they started throwing around terms like "fucking hypocrites." It wouldn't take long to see that there are very very few references by the author of the blog, and so that argument that it's a front is all bull.
SMR
There are a couple aspects to Doogan's revelation of AKM's identity that I don't hear much about.
First - who has taken the time to consider, either before the outing or after, what damage may be done to AKM and family: to their way of life, to their finances, their business/professional life, their safety, their peace of mind?
Second - who gets to decide when a pseudonymous blogger's readership is large enough that that blogger no longer "deserves" their express wish for anonymity? What law gives Doogan the right to make that call, in his official capacity, with his official voice, and the weight of his public office behind him?
Phil, thanks for what you are doing. I look forward to reading the replies you get.
To anon:
"Oh boo hoo, are you STILL whining abou this ?
Phil, her husband is the treasurer of Alaskan's for Truth."
So what? John Coale Greta husband is behind SARAHPAC-Greta interview GINO all the time, and at conservative sites they are always TELLING people to donate to SARAHPAC!!!What doogan did was illegal. Using state resources and AKM has a right to know who outed her!
For those who don't see a problem with Doogan's action: Consider the scenario of a peaceful protest gathering that you want to attend regarding a controversial political issue. Would you like to show a "guard" your ID so that your name can be put on a public or government list before you can attend?? BTW...those neighbors of yours who don't agree with you are sent The List...and unfortunately the neighbors don't care about peaceful expression of views...so a brick comes through your window where your 2 yo is playing with Legos on the floor....Or a local politician who's been criticized and is privy to The List sends the sheriff out for a little harrassment...or they don't show up at all when you dial 911?? Or maybe a little cross-burning? Dragging a "fag" behind a truck?Actually...these scenarios have happened. They're not made up....SO, concentrate really hard and maybe the following will get through to your shallow neurons: This is EXACTLY why anonymous free speech via internet or pamphlet has been upheld multiple times by the Supreme Court of the US. The people have a right to anonymous free speech WITHOUT the fear of reprisals from the government or other entities which may be hostile to your views.
Robert H and HistoryGoddess,
Hopefully, we're learning from this process. I'm far less concerned with whether or not the name comes out on Doogan's source or sources than I am in the answers from the six journalists or bloggers to whom I wrote the letter.
If Doogan is, as RH claims, a journalist, he wouldn't have wasted taxpayers' money to spite somebody who had crossed before he had two sources, eh...?
One person was overheard by many at a party on March 27th, claiming to be Doogan's source. He was way into his cups by then, and may not even remember having said what he said at the party.
"He was way into his cups by then, and may not even remember having said what he said at the party."
Yes Phil..."too much holiday cheer doogan" needs to spend less time stalking AKM and maybe some time @ AA! I'm sure he doesn't remember all the asinine emails he sent to all of us!
I wasn't referring to Doogan, I was referring to a person who was claiming he had provided the information on AKM to Doogan. He also bragged about other stuff most reporters would rather people didn't know...
Sorry Phil misunderstood your post, but I stand by the bottom of my post about doogan...
I have never seen such unprofessional, irresponsible emails to people in my life as what he sent out over christmas eve last year.
Post a Comment