It’s no secret that people who work at the state Capitol have posted here anonymously. Staffers, interns, and elected officials have all done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. I know from previous conversations on CTLP that some people here take issue with that. Personally as long as people use a consistent handle I’m alright with anonymity but I still think it’s worth discussing.
Brian Lockhart has an article up about CT politicians who have posted anonymously on blogs. I was both surprised and pleased that people were honest about having done so.
So what do you all think? Is it OK for elected officials to post anonymously? Should they be held to a higher standard? Does it depend on the circumstances?
11 responses so far ↓
Why shouldnt they be able to post anonymously? Last I checked blogs are basically an open forum…regular citizens can post anonymously…why should politicians be held to a different standard. Blogs are no different than the old rumor mill at the local drug store…should politicians be muzzled there as well???
I agree with JSU.
[quote post="787"]Blogs are no different than the old rumor mill at the local drug store…should politicians be muzzled there as well??? [/quote]
Who suggested that politicians be muzzled on this blog?
The rules should not be any different for politicians, state employees, etc. than for the general public. As long as ‘unidentified’ comments are permitted to one, they should be to all. I agree that sometimes an official might float an idea to see if it flies or flops. Still, the blogosphere is just one area and not necessarily, indicative of a majority opinion.
A way of life led and actuated by vision of a role model?
Or
A lifestyle compromised by an opportunistic double-standard model?
You tell me….
Are “We the People”; ethics, morals and values deficient?
…Insufficient?
Supply and demand – one must wonder why “We” can not connote keep up – building a(n) (additional) lock up(s).
Respectfully,
Bo ItsHaky
Anonynimity is wonderful even for politicians. It is more important for those who have something real to lose. Like people the politicians can fire.
On the other hand, care should be given to politicians and others who post using multiple screens names. The effect will be an opinion or position that appears supported but is not.
This happened recently at the Stratford Blog.
In the below blog I jump around a bit & there is continuity issue.
YES, I believe Politicians should be able to post anonymously. Why?
–
I believe I, my family, my former coworkers, my support and others have
suffered REPRISAL under the COLOR of the LAW.
-
I believe “certain political” appointees & people in Local Police, Attorneys,
& Town Committees are CRIMINALS.
-
I believe “certain political” appointees & people in CT. STATE Police, STATE Attorneys, JUDGES & STATE Committees are CRIMINALS.
-
I believe “certain political” appointees & people in FBI, U. S. Attorneys,
JUDGE, DEPARTMENT HEAD, & National Committees are CRIMINALS.
I have NAMES, FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES, TIMING, ANIMUS, KNOWLEDGE, DISPARATE TREATMENT, MENS RHEA, POSITION, MALICE, FORETHOUGHT,
CODIFICATION assiduty toward Violations; MultiJurisdictional.
I contacted 15 TRIAL LAWYERS in CT to SUE for MAL PRACTICE.
100 % claimed CONFLICT or INTEREST, as they claimed they did
Business with opposing Law Firm or/and my FIRM.
> Neat trick, BUY OFF ALL POTENTIAL LITIGATION and get the
RECIPROCAL BUSINESS, to SOLVE their ISSUES????
> Anyone believe the BAR ASSOCIATION is different in CORRUPT-icut?
or is it FAGIN-nomics CORRUPT-my-CUT, in the spOILS system?
DO the above view the CONSTITUTION, as intellectual PROSTITUTION?
I believe the do and actively ABUSE “The COLOR of the LAW.”
-
I believe my RIGHTS & LAWS were violated under U. S. CONSTITUTION,
U. S. CODE; CT. CONSTITUTION; STATE CODE; CT. PRACTICE BOOK;
TOWN ORDINANCES > and a host of REGULATIONS, RULES, etc.
-
I believe others have been THREATENED & ACTIONS done!
-
I have a COURT TRANSCRIPT on a CIVIL JURY TRIAL about much of the ABOVE.
> My firm refused:
>> Trial in Bridgeport or even New Haven > Instead in Hartford;
>> Not request AUDIO / VIDEO
>> To introduce evidence for FOUNDATION for WITNESSES
>> To introduce evidence for REBUTTAL of HOSTILE WITNESSES.
>> Allowed me NO WITNESSES. NO WITNESSED? > My LAWYER was NEW to the FIRM, who appointed him to be my case
lawyer, the Satuday before Trial & not involved in JURY SELECTION & did
not try to keep CONSPIRITOR POLICE as CONSPIRITORS?
He was SO NEW, his NAME was not even on Letter Head!
>> I found out from CT. POST STEVE WINTERS my appointed Attorney
was nephew to ex-CITY ATTORNEY, which my OPPOSING FIRM represents
in addition to Stratford.
>> UNCLE graduated 1 year ahead of NAME ATTORNEY, of OPPOSITION. >> UNCLE was CITY ATTORNEY 1986-1989 when TOWN ATTORNEY was
TOWN COUNCIL CHAIRMAN.
>> I & others underwent “GOING POSTAL” ENVIRONMENT 1985 – 1988.
>> Our TOWN ATTORNEY’S father RETIRED from STRATFORD POLICE as
a CAPTAIN IN 1985.
>> Our TOWN ATTORNEY’S brother is extremely competent & NEW POLICE
POLICE CHIEF in 2007.
>> VERDICT was entered SEPT 24, 2004
>> VERDICT was 7th ANNIVERSARY of my UNCLE’S DEATH!
My UNCLE was my GODFATHER/BEST FRIEND!
What is the STATUTORY SIGNIFICANCE of 7 YEAR ANNIVERSARY???
My UNCLE’S DEATH was 2 years after I approach the (by now-deceased)
POLICE CHIEF & the U. S. ATTORNEY, now U. S. JUDGE in next Chamber
about “16 deaths from late 1992 to early 1994.”
> I also approached a Fairfield Police Officer, all in APRIL 1995.
MY FIRM:
Incorrectly claimed FORMER U. S. ATTORNEY, who refused to investigate
“16 deaths from late 1992 to early 1994,” (More before. More Since.)
would be my Judge. His NAME never appeared in CASE FILE.
His Chamber, however, was next to the Chamber mine was held in about
a NOLLE ARREST for “DISORDERLY CONDUCT” by the Police Chief.
> Arrest was the day after a disagreement with him after Town Council
Public Forum comments. Very contentious political meeting covered by
the CT. POST, N. H. Register, Stfd STAR, & Stfd BARD.
All reporters were within 30 feet of our disagreement.
ALL FILED STORIES about the contentious meeting! NONE MENTIONED ME!
> NO WARRANT! NO WARRANT! NO WARRANT! NO WARRANT!
POLICE REPORT with held 74 DAYS, by Police & State’s Attorneys!!???
> 60 DAY limit on CITIZENS COMPLAINT
>>> Authored by Police Chief, who is also final Arbitor.
>>> AFTER I got the POLICE REPORT, I filed 7 CITIZENS COMPLAINTS
about irregularieties & procedures:
* Not arrested on the Spot
* No Black & White Pursuit
* No one sent to my home that night
* Not arrested when I returned & sat behind the Police Chief, who was sitting where I had sat.
* NO WARRANT when 3 officers came to my home the NEXT DAY.
* After a minimum of 12 COURT APPEARANCES (I have transcripts 1 had to be corrected, when the Head guy appeared for the state & they gave
me the Police report. You would recognize the error transcriber name.)
my case was NOLLE.
* DISCOVERY, with COMPULSORY DISCOVERY EVIDENCE PRESENTATION
had ZERO WITNESSES for PROSECUTION. Over 80 people were present.
> In CIVIL TRIAL, I had NO WITNESSES.
> Town Manager had sent me FEB 17, 1999 sympathetic letter about the
lack of Police Report. May 1999, when my citizens complaints went to him
he had an entirely sympathic view. He testified against me. The FEB 17
letter was REFUSED to be introduced to REBUTT & IMPEACH credibility?
> Arresting Officer, serving the Misdemeanor, testified against me. It
appears they were using a loophole vs. Constitutional issue.
> The Town Democratic & former Democratic Town Committee chairmen
were scheduled to Testify against me.
> I told the BAILIFF(?) I wanted to go PRO SE. Opposing lawyer & my LAWYER closed my CASE.
> JUDGE would not allow me to go PRO SE.
- —————————————————————–
CRIME is BIG BUSINESS:
FBI STATS: over 90 % of PRISONERS have ALCOHOL/DRUG ABUSE issues.
-
Over 9,000,000 Americans are in JAIL, PAROLE, or PROBATION or 1/32 of
the AMERICAN POPULATION.
In 1972, there were 132,000 U.S. in prison.
Now it is over 2,450,00.
> Over 40 % of Black Males have been arrested.
> Over 80 % of Black Families have no male parent.
Between, the SYSTEM, REHAB, BAIL, TRIAL LAWYERS & a host of other POLITICAL FUNDING & JOB LOCATIONS, this COUNTRY is a POLICE STATE.
-
> MLK had a DREAM!
> This COUNTRY’S LEADERSHIP has WILLFULLY turned it to a NIGHTMARE!
———————————————————————
The BLUE WALL needs to go the WAY of the BERLIN WALL.
> CRIME is HUGE BUSINESS to the POLITICAL PARTIES
EVERY ONE KNOWS our COUNTRY is really the MIRROR IMAGE of SO. VIET
PERSONNEL & POLICY!
———————————————————————
WAR is BIG BUSINESS
FOLLOW the MONEY!
> WEEPONS, MUNNITIONS
> OIL / GAS / OIL
> COMMODITIES
> TRADE
> FINANCES
> INDUSTRY
> MILITARY
> SCIENCE
> LABOR
———————————————————————-
What difference is there between the KGB & POLITICAL APPOINTEES?
———————————————————————-
Ironic this web site chastised the “stratfordct/” annex about issues raised
in this posting, & fear of LIE ABILITY!
———————————————————————
what do these randumbly selected politcal & public names seem to have in common?
stanleY twardY
chris droneY
karI dooleY
robert chatignY
larrY merlY
joe merlY
-
“Y” do I ask?
-
Maybe KEVIN O’CONNER knows?
But then the BLUE WALL has OMERTA, doesn’t it?
-
CT & U.S. CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION?
NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE?
But then I am not proposing legalization of some harmful situation, and
am against turning the USA into OPIATED MASSES of 70 % tried the
“CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES” when it was under 5 % in the 1950
I salute those who try to make the system work.
Leave my family & innocents alone.
I read the rules, below, after I created this blog.
I had to delete 2 late lines.
I honestly tried to be within general guidelines anyway.
Please correct me if I errored?
Thank you, I pray there are HONEST PEOPLE in the SYSTEM.
24 YEAR BATTLE of oppression is wearing!
George Mulligan
429 Housatonic Avenue
Stratford, CT. 06615-6025
(203) 378-1888
georgeemcom@yahoo.com
Wow.
I was just going to give a big ‘ol “WTF?” to Bo ItShaky, but then George Mulligan postaled…i mean posted and now I just want to say…
I want to say…
I…uh…I’m a little scared right now.
A press release about this very subject from likely Bridgeport Mayoral candidate Keith Rodgerson just arrived in my inbox.
Mr. Caruso and Mr. Finch: I know you both are reading the internet blogs. Heck, for that matter you two have probably even posted a couple things on them. I also know that your campaign workers are posting…mine are too, I admit. Given this context, I have a challenge for you: Start posting comments under your real names…not the college kids you have hired on as your spin doctors, researchers and idea men…not your spokespeople…YOU. I challenge you to enter a critical discourse where you will be forced to defend the records you tout, the “ideas” you espouse and the borrowed visons for this city that you continue to disseminate. Engage an accountable, open, honest, free-form discourse within the context of the blogosphere (Only in Bridgeport, My Left Nutmeg, CT Local Politics, Connecticut Post, etc.) Hold up to scrutiny the minute details of your policy stances and those of your public service. The voters have had enough of your spokespeople, your tepid “no-commenting” and your mundane transmissions of campaign staff-crafted policy pieces. Give the people the transparency that you continue to promise within the context of your campaigns by doing the unspeakable in politics: making yourselves immediately and directly accountable for what you say and do.
Sounds like Rodgerson, who is not a candidate in the D primary, has no money. FYI, Keith, Sen. Finch has kept a blog for years. And maybe…just maybe…Finch et. al. would rather spend their time talking with people who they know are actual voters from the town in which they are actually running.
And why would anyone take on the “challenge” of someone who spends the majority of his “press release” text degrading them and their dedicated campaign staff and volunteers.
Welcome to amateur hour.
You must log in to post a comment.