Rosencrantz & Guildenstern, Ltd.

Archive for June, 2009

Here I was, thinking that as soon as the summer started I’d have tons of content up on all of the sites, and I have managed to fail entirely on several fronts.  However, I’ve got several things in the works.  First, I’m planning on bringing back “Adventures in Bad Sci-Fi,” starting with the recent Sci-Fi Channel movie premier from Saturday (the title of which has escaped me).  Second, I’m going to move all of my political commentary over to detocqueville.us to give this site more focus on more fun stuff.  Third, I’m going give video a shot, once I figure out what I want to do with it.

Over on puddleglummusic.com I’m going to be uploading some new music as well as starting one of th primary reasons I began the site: to review every album in my collection.  I’m going to especially focus on all of the Christian rock and alternative that I have.  There is a lot of music from the late-80s and 90s that has become fairly obscure, and I want to draw more attention to these acts.

That’s all for now.  I’ll be much more productive once I finish Assassin’s Creed.  (I”m on the last level!  Only a couple years late!)

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Poll: When is it OK to “out” anonymous bloggers?.

The above brings up an interesting question about anonymity and the Internet.  It’s been a long time since I ever used a pseudonym or handle exclusively online; even on websites where my user name is not related to my real one, I still tend to sign posts with my first name.  I also don’t have a reason to write anonymously.  I write here the same way I would talk to anyone were we discussing the things I discuss here, and I do tend to look down on the idea of maintaining a different identity online than one maintains in real life.

So, I’m of two minds about ‘anonymous blogging.’  On the one hand, I believe that people should be real and honest wherever they are.  The lawyer from the above article, who had been publishing blog posts under the name ‘Publius,’ (seriously, couldn’t he have come up with something original?) felt that what he was saying online was something he preferred his family and colleagues didn’t know about.  I have to admit that I immediately question why that is.  I’m not saying that he doesn’t have his reasons, I just think that speaks of some level of disfunction in his other relationships.

On the other hand, I don’t think thta it’s usually anyone elses’s business if someone chooses to be anonymous online, and there are definitely ciricumstances where that would be necessary.  For example, a political dissident from an oppressive state would certainly have very good reasons for remaining anonymous, as their activities could bring real harm to their family and friends.

I think the line at which ‘outing’ somone online is fairly clear.  In the majority of cases, it’s not alright.  To out someone requrires you to place yourself in a position of judgement on someone else, and that’s not a good thing.  I feel the same way about people like Perez Hilton who make their job to decide for others when they should be ‘outed’ as homosexuals (which in most cases is much more serious than one’s family finding out your not as conservative politically as they think).  If the anonymous person is using that for harmful reasons (forms of defamation, for example), then the line has been crossed.

Overall I agree with Ed Morrissey’s analysis.  I think Ed Whelan overreacted and overstepped his bounds.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/31/737368/-More-proof-that-its-anti-choice,-not-pro-life

I don’t usually read the Daily Kos, the Huffington Post, and other liberal blogs; I’m just not masochistic.  My argumentative side goes crazy when I read stuff like that, and I just don’t have the time to respond to people who probably wouldn’t listen anyway.  The above article, however, deserves some sort of response.

Satchel Robinson, the writer of the above article, attempts to generalize about the pro-life movement from the specific act of the murderer of Dr. George Tiller, and this is where you basically don’t have to read any more of the article.  Robinson commits one of the most egregious acts of illogic so often perpetrated by political punditry, both left and right, which is to apply the actions of a single individual of small group of individuals to a larger group.

I am quick to point out that the right often does the same thing.  There have been plenty of left-wing terrorists (Bill Ayers, for example), yet it would be absurd to say that every liberal is violent and wants to blow up the Pentagon.

What’s interesting is that Robinson contradicts himself.  He essentially blames Bill O’Reilly for influencing the murderer (who, by the way, Robinson never mentions by name, as if the name doesn’t matter because, in Robinson’s view, he’s just a stand in for every pro-lifer) while criticizing Bill O’Reilly’s criticism of music, video games, and the internet as influences on youth violence.

The problem here is that you can’t have it both ways.  Either we’re blaming the “influences” or we’re not.  Robinson rightly points out the ridiculousness of O’Reilly’s freak-outs over youth culture, and then immediately turns around and does essentially the same thing.

What I dislike the most about Robinson’s article is that fact that at no time does he actually blame the person who is actually to blame.  A murder was committed.  The murderer is entirely to blame.  Robinson should quit trying to shift the blame wherever it is politically expedient.  But, of course, liberals have been trying to mitigate individual responsibility for years.