I understand the value of anonymous sources in reporting, too.

But I also know that when I write a news story, and I put my name in the byline, it means that I am responsible for the contents of what follows, it means that the full faith and credit, as it were, of my human being, stands behind those words.

It may be unfair, and even utopian and childish of me to expect the same out of others who publish. But if we seek to utilize the written word to foster discourse towards improving our democracy, we should work to build trust, which begins from our names.

I would just hope people aren’t afraid to use their names because they think that some law enforcement agency is trolling this blog or other blogs looking for those stupid enough to exercise their First Amendment rights in the open.

That’s not the kind of country we live in, right?

Also heard that he’s just changed the title of his constituent mailings from “The Rug Report” to “Toupee Topics”

(that thing couldn’t look more phony if it had a chinstrap…)

Read this – it’s very interesting:
http://www.magic-city-news.com/Editor_s_Desk_34/A_Climate_of_Fear_34683468.shtml

Hamilton used Pacificus and Camillus.
Benjamin Franklin often wrote under pseudonyms, including “Silence Dogood,” “the Busy-Body,” “Obadiah Plainman,” “Robin Good-fellow,” and of course, “Poor Richard.”

etc.

Sometimes using anonymity gets the point out there without the baggage of existing prejudice against the commentator.

Unless you are near the border, having no alcohol sales on Sunday doesn’t mean much in reduced sales. People just buy more the other days of the week and store the alcohol at home. So reducing the hours available reduces expenses (no need to pay someone to man the store) while not reduced revenue that much. It does, however, inconvenience the consumer.

The liquor stores also know that if alcohol were allowed to be open Sunday, the grocery stores would definitely sell beer (since the grocery stores are already open). However, the liquor stores might or might not open, depending on their personal preference for working on Sunday. So people that purchased beer would purchase less from the liquor stores and more from the grocery stores (because if someone was out Saturday and realized they were low on beer, they would currently buy it, whereas if groceries sold beer on Sunday, there’d be no sense of urgency).

Liquor store owners near the MA, RI and NY borders obviously feel differently, because they are competiting with liquor stores across the border.

Politics is not for the weakhearted— you better have the grit and strength to take criticism on the chin, like a man.

See, that’s what I don’t get: Bristol isn’t exactly Nicetown either.

I stand behind what I have written. Colapietro might not like my choice of headline. However, the reality is that this blue law is anti-free enterprise.

Moreover, it violates the substantive due process and equal protection rights of liquor store owners, as enumerated in the Connecticut Constitution. If state legislators fail to bring the law into conformity with legal precedent, liquor dealers will have their rights vindicated through litigation. It is in the interests of no one: liquor dealers, consumers, or the state to litigate the matter.

Moreover, I would add that it is incredibly hypocritical for Colapietro to launch ad hominem attacks on his critics, while complaining about the unfairness of criticism on a blog.

Democrats and Republicans alike should be upset with the tactics employed by Colapietro. Bottling (no pun intended) the Sunday liquor sales bill up in committee and failing to submit it for an up-or-down floor vote is not open government.

Regarding, critical blog posts: Senator Colapietro should not be so shocked to discover the gritty, hardscrabble nature of Enfield politics. The reality is the politics is not supposed to be never-ending sequence of lobbyist dinners, reception lines, baby kissing and rubber chicken civic dinners. It’s not about standing around and eating things— it’s about doing the people’s work.

Politics is not for the weakhearted— you better have the grit and strength to take criticism on the chin, like a man.

Steele described the Internet as a “unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,” and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering…

Steele noted in his opinion that plaintiffs in such cases can use the Internet to respond to character attacks and “generally set the record straight,” and that, as in Cahill’s case, blogs and chatrooms tend to be vehicles for people to express opinions, not facts.

“Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. … The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning,” he wrote.

Steele described the Internet as a “unique democratizing medium unlike anything that has come before,” and said anonymous speech in blogs and chat rooms in some instances can become the modern equivalent of political pamphleteering…

“Given the context, no reasonable person could have interpreted these statements as being anything other than opinion. … The statements are, therefore, incapable of a defamatory meaning,” he wrote.

Anonymity does enable uncivil discourse, but Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was anonymous. You just need to use your judgment if it’s relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/technology/06blog.html

If you moderate here, you can easily look up what my email address is and you’ll know exactly who I am. It’s easy to find out. You’ll know the last name.

Anonymity allows uncivil discourse to flourish, and people who put their name behind their opinions deserve respect for demonstrating the courage of their convictions.

Holy smokes!

ken</b krayeske, got it right!

Give the man a cigar!

I don’t know the back story, but I went through a couple of the blog threads, and I don’t see what Tommy boy is crying about.

If commenters were out and out lying about his record, or somehow threatening his family, I could understand Colapietro’s talk about lawsuits.

But whining about ridicule and insult? C’mon on, that’s what politicians have always gotten, often deservedly so.

Let him have his little outbursts, then he’ll disappear back into obscurity. This happens every year or so with him.