Alaskans deserve to know who is bankrolling initiative on mining regulations
Published Sunday, August 17, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!A lot of people I know, including my wife, plan to vote for Ballot Measure 4, the so-called “Bill Providing for Regulation of Water Quality.”
I plan to vote against it.
I may not be able to change her mind before the Aug. 26 election, but during the next week, this topic deserves a clear examination by all Alaskans.
One of my reasons for voting no is that the political debate has been muddied by deceptive arguments and secret financing.
I’m going to deal with the second question today.
Don’t be misled by all those TV ads into thinking that this is just about clean water and stopping the Pebble mine. It goes beyond that single project.
Anchorage political consultant Art Hackney, a creative guy who normally sings the praises of right-wing Republicans and pro-development campaigns, is the front man for the pro-initiative effort.
(It was Hackney who came up with the ad campaign in 2006 opposing efforts in the Alaska Legislature to raise taxes on the oil industry, using quotes from the likes of Karl Marx and Winston Churchill to back up his claims.)
The services of Hackney, who is no greenie, and nearly the entire advertising campaign in support of the initiative are probably being bankrolled by Bob Gillam, the Anchorage financier who opposes the proposed Pebble Mine.
That this would have an impact beyond the Pebble mine is clear because the law would mean new regulations, which means new opportunities for lawsuits. The mining industry is spending millions to fight the initiative for that reason.
But Gillam’s wealth makes him one of the most influential people in our state and an individual who commands attention in conservative circles.
(Personal disclosure: My son received one of the generous college scholarships offered by Gillam’s company in 2003, and I remain grateful for that program.)
The Wall Street Journal describes Gillam’s vacation house, which is about 30 miles from the Pebble prospect, as a 10,000-square foot log cabin.
“Packed with trophies from hunting trips Mr. Gillam has taken around the world, the cabin serves as a remote office and a venue for entertaining clients and power brokers,” the Journal reported in 2007. Gillam told the newspaper that the location of his house has nothing to do with his opposition to Pebble.
I say his money is “probably” behind the pro-initiative campaign because an Outside group called “Americans for Job Security” has dumped $1.2 million into the effort, and some people suspect that money may be from Gillam.
Americans for Job Security is based in Alexandria, Va., and it proclaims that it “does not disclose the identity of its members to the general public except as required by law.”
Gillam may be Alaska Member No. 1.
As the Anchorage Daily News put it in an editorial Tuesday, “Americans for Job Security offers him a convenient way to fund the Yes on 4 fight without having his fingerprints on the money.”
Gillam doesn’t want mining 30 miles from his exclusive vacation property, so he has become its most powerful opponent.
The group Public Citizen complained in 2007 that Americans for Job Security “appears to have only one paid employee, spends millions of dollars on advertisements to influence elections without appearing to engage in any other substantive efforts,” and should lose its tax-exempt status.
The group has been linked in recent years to many Republican causes and pro-development campaigns across the country.
One link between Gillam and Hackney and the Virginia group is Michael Dubke, the former president of Americans for Job Security.
In 2006, when Hackney was working with the oil industry to defeat a proposed reserves tax, he was quoted by the Anchorage Daily News as saying that Dubke was an old friend and that he had turned to him for advice on the tax campaign.
Hackney is now a board member of Americans for Job Security.
Hackney said he has “no idea” who donated the money.
In a phone interview Saturday, he said as a board member he does not look into where the money comes from, only that the organization follows the law, which it does.
In 2002, Americans for Job Security ran ads attacking the Knowles administration when Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer was running for governor against Sen. Frank Murkowski. In 2004, it ran ads attacking Knowles during his 2004 race for U.S. Senate against Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
I asked Hackney again to identify where the $1.2 million came from. He said he didn’t know and wouldn’t be able or willing to find out. He said he presumed the money came from the fishing industry.
I also asked him how much Gillam has contributed. Hackney said that on the seven-day report to be filed Tuesday, Gillam will be listed as contributing $520,000. That does not include any amount that Gillam might have given to Americans for Job Security.
Gillam can afford to tell Alaskans if he is the source of the $1.2 million. Hackney, a board member of Americans for Job Security and prime sponsor of the ballot measure, should find out where the money is coming from.
Clearly, that’s the right thing to do.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Normally, I think Dermot has the right idea but this time I have to disagree. To not vote for the ballot measure because the funding source may be murky seems like the least valid reason to go against the initiative. It doesn't make it any the less necessary or desirable because of where the ad money comes from, nor does that affect what it is trying to do which is to protect a fishing industry that has put many millions of dollars and lifelong occupations into the Alaskan economy.
One of the world's premier wild drainages is at stake here. An area that is one of the most productive for not only fish in particular but wildlife in general. To say "no" to the ballot measure because of its sponsors is like saying "no" to a parachute as one exits a plane heading rapidly towards the ground because it is made by a firm you don't like. The ballot measure isn't about funding; it's about protecting something uniquely Alaskan, something irreplaceable.
Heck, I detest George W. Bush beyond the ability of words to describe. But if he had the sense (for once) to pay for the ads supporting Measure 4 I would still vote for it. C'mon, Dermot....listen to your wife. She knows what she's talking about.
This all does sound shady; thanks, Dermot for bringing this to light.
I think your wife's right on this one, though. I grew up in Arizona, where huge mines left scars on the land; scars (and chemicals) I don't want to see in our state.
This measure won't shut down mining.
You're not really a journalist, are you Dermot? Did I miss the column wherein you outline the "bankrolling" of the Alaskans Against The Mining Shutdown? That's also a story filled with deception and intrigue--- should get a few readers for your column.
Wait, all I have to do is scroll up and see who has been placing very expensive ads in the Newsminer for months to know you won't roll on the "Alaskans" Against The Mining Shutdown. I think you probably sold out.
Like Dobie and Rockee said, listen to your wife.
Follow the Money is advice that investigative reporters and truthseekers have used successfully before, and it looks like it's useful in this case too.
Prop #4 is also bad because of its ambiguity. Look at the actual wording in the proposed new regulation/law, (including the grammatical erors): nowhere does it mention what the proponents claim for it. That is,it will not just stop mining in southwest Alaska; it will halt mining in any metal mine currently existing whenever, in the course of operations, another permit is needed to continue operations. That would be a disaster for Ft. Knox, Pogo or Red Dog, which is why the industry is fighting back. Laws should be hammered out in the Legislature, not imposed by simpleminded initiatives passed with emotional ad campaigns.
don gray
Recap:
...one OUTSIDE special interest group & one major financier with a "home" just miles from a major project is for this initiative.
...an entire INDUSTRY including thousands of ALASKANS are on the other side.
Things that make you go, Hmmm.
No Brainer...NO ON 4
mr. gillam is selling out the entire state of alaska mining just because he doesn't want one in his vacation home backyard? hmmmmmm. if this is true i don't know when i've seen something more selfish.
Never miss an opportunity to declare your hatred of your president, dobieman. Well done. Free speech is so revealing.
Vote no on BM4. It's ambiguous, deceptive, dishonest, and arbitrary. On what basis is the 640 acre maximum determined? Clearly written by know-nothing lawyers. They plan to make a billion dollars from this, just like they did with the '89 PWS oil spill.
Dear "Imusually right":
Why not come out in the open and identify yourself so readers will know who you are?
You have posted 822 comments on the News-Miner site, so you obviously have a lot to say.
Contrary to your claim, what I write here has nothing to do with who is buying or not buying ads.
As I wrote in my column, the mining industry is spending millions on the campaign against the ballot measure. That information is available and out in the open.
The Council of Alaska Producers makes no secret of its position. The APOC Web site lists the contributors and the Pebble Partnership is the leading contributor. Look for the complete list in my column Monday.
Alaskans have the right to know where Americans for Job Security got its money and why the source does not want to be identified. It's as simple as that.
We need full disclosure of names for healthy debate in an open society.
Dear Dermot Cole-
Have you seen some of the wackos who post on this site? I value my personal safety. Not always successfully, I try to keep my opinions opinionated and fair at the same time. I am not a journalist and am not held to the same standards that you are. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but it's a "perk" I possess as a regular member of society.
I don't normally criticize the DNM or its staff in these forums (I understand that there are difficulties related to your job that I can't and don't know), but this column of yours was so blatant and over the top that I just couldn't help myself, I guess.
I will email you with my personal email. You likely have access to my name already, but feel free to engage me offsite as something other than a screen name. I seriously doubt that you are a wacko. You were baiting me, to be sure, but I can take care of myself in that regard.
Yes Dermont,
You can act all insulted that one of us might suggest money as a motive but you still avoid the actual point of the vote. Your wife is correct.
Vote to protect the land and water. Mining interests have been getting away with OUR minerals for next to nothing and leaving a mess in many cases for us tax-payers to either live with or clean up for decades.
Look at Google Earth and see what a nice job Fort Knox has done with what used to be a good local area to use for hiking, biking, and snowmachining. Now it's a huge scar and a toxic looking lake and when the gold is gone I for one expect the final disposition of the land to be less than wonderful.
Every step that makes it harder for a mining company to make and leave a mess is a good thing I'd say. If it costs too much to do it right then maybe it shouldn't be done at all.
I don't give a damn who is funding either argument and I expect in this day and age there will be half-truths and outright lies presented by both sides, so vote YES and be done with it.
Absolutely, Taters. You said it all.
Dermot:
What difference does it make if a person identifies themselves or not?
Why, if IUR does not feel comfortable using their full name on the site, do you think they're "hiding?" As a staff member, you have access to the records used when people signed up. You want people to use their full names not just for your information, but so that the community can also have that information. To what end? What bearing does that have on the situation whatsoever?
IUR is not a journalist. They're not *paid* to simply give their opinion. IUR, along with glacierles, The Curmudgon, polarmark, and a cast of others, give their opinions every day, without names. When the newsminer decided allow comments to the site, they created a new society--one that does not require names. This new society may or may not be one that you agree with, but it does in fact exist. I don't know your experience with online communities, but they are valid in the fact that they have all of the characteristics that a real life community has; One of which is anonymity.
I will say this: Since I've started using my full name, and not my name spelled backwards, there have been several times that I've regretted it. My professional life has been impacted, albeit very small. I will continue to use my name, but I disagree with your position that it should be required.
I imagine there have been several discussions among the staff, some of which might have been heated, regarding this topic. While I am not in charge of the policies of the paper, I think this comment is a good start of a summation of my opinion.
Dermot, you've written a fine column. And I will be voting "no" on this proposition.
Last year one of the front men for this group was on the radio and I asked him where he was getting the funding for the effort. He REFUSED to disclose their source of money.
If special interests are trying to change Alaskan law, we deserve to know who they are.
Those who have read the language of this ballot proposition can see that this is truly an attempt to shut down large mines in Alaska. The list of forbidden chemicals is where the true deception is. They prohibit, for example, "DDT". Well. That sounds fine. Who would not be opposed to some mine dumping DDT in the water? Problem is, no one is going to dump DDT in the water- it is not even a chemical used in the mining industry. But next to "DDT" they list other chemicals that are normally found in the water we drink every day. It is by banning those normally occurring chemicals/elements that will make it impossible to have any large mine operation in Alaska.
So there is two forms of deception by these special interests- the first is that they know if they simply wrote up a ballot measure that was honest- "We ban large mines". That the voters would never go for it. The second deception is as Dermot has pointed out- this is an policy decision that is being funded by wealthy special interests.
Secret special interests should never be permitted to set public policy. And anything promoted by Art Hackney- well, we know what he is. All we have to do is determine his price.
No on 4.
Dermot Cole is a longtime columnist not a reporter per say. His is an opinion piece. I most often disagree with his point of view. But not this time. If the No on 4 people refused to divulge their funding source you tree/bunny huggers would have a fit.
The current regulations are plenty effective. More is not always better. Also how many of these "Alaska Fishing Jobs" belong to Alaskans? How many to outside commercial fishermen? And how many are "Alaska Fishing Guides" that also guide in Arkansas or Texas?
IUR is UW in my opinion.
Dermot,
I have to defend "Imusuallyright" on the use of his handle as much as that of my own. There is a danger in leaving your legal name all over the internet and besides that; I think our handles say a lot more about who we are than our legal given names do. When I see a post by "Imusuallyright", I know who he his right away as well as positions. I don't need to know where he works, lives, or what family he belongs to. Neither does anybody else.
That said, I think you've written a timely, well-written article and I thank you for pointing out some questions that need to be asked.
Not once in measure 4 is Pebble or its geographic area even mentioned. It would be nice to know who really has such a strong interest in strangling Alaska's mining industry.
ABSOLUTELY NO, on 4
Tundra, you've just proven yourself wrong and you don't even know it.
Thanks, Tundra. This may be a perspective thing. I think a lot of the DNM staff get where we're coming from as far as anonymity goes. I like what KenWoods has to say regarding the creation of a new community by the DNM. Spot on, sdoownek!
From my point of view, I love it when people take interest in my field/profession I love it when they pursue it as a hobby, and often I learn things from amateurs. I would never presume, though, to hold them to the same professional standards that I hold myself.
Dermot, I look forward to the list you publish Monday. I hope it is more enlightening than the PR website you cite.
No on BM#4.
Dermot, normally I agree with your stuff, but frankly, I don't really care where the money comes from. Hitler could rise from his grave and pledge five dollars toward supporting the initiative (ooh ... Godwin'ed) and I'd still support it. The fact that someone I may disagree with someone who agrees with me on one particular issue doesn't detract from the fact that that particular issue has merit.
On which point, KenWoods? Measure 4, Dermot's article, or the use of handles, or all of the above.
Dermot,
Thank you for the additional information on this issue. I to am voting NO on this issue.
It appears that some folks are so Greenie that they live in a fantasy world of all things can't not be developed. Shut everything down because we are destroying the earth. No Matter what. Whats Next?
Well, We Might have to close all fishing because fish's dead bodies might destroy our streams for the bears and bear watchers?
That theory makes about as much sense as this BM 4!
Just listen to and watch the ads and it's easy to see that outside big money is trying to hide the true intent of the outsiders controling our state by painting a doom and die picture if this BM4 does not pass.
The mining industry here has the stiffest regulations in the country to abide by and I feel for the miners and industry.
Though I from time to time in the past have not agreed to let the EPA lower standards. I am against this ballet measure.
Remember that the EPA is the watch dog here( and they are quite on top of the miners and industry all the time)
-- We need to keep the right to develop our natural resourses.
Folks don't cut us off from future growth of this great State!
Remember to Vote a big NO on BM 4
Tundra-
I think he's referring to: "When I see a post by "Imusuallyright", I know who he his right away..."
I'm not a "he". ;)
My apologies, Imusuallyright. LOL, Indeed this is a lick on me. I apologize if my statements have been in any way insensitive.
Be that as it may, I still don't consider gender, race, or any other physical characteristic behind a handle to be relevant to most discussion here, nor should it be.
Come to think of it, my own gender has never been disclosed. Is it important?
Not a problem, Tundra. Not a problem at all.
I don't think disclosure of gender is important and speaks pretty well to the nature of online communities.
Don't know why everyone is so touchy. Anchorage and MatSu will decide the outcome of this vote, as it will all State wide elections.
Dermont enjoy your participation on Anchorage Edition. Any chance you could put together a local show like that for the folks north of the Alaskan range?
Tundra: I wasn't clear. Sorry, I was thinking about other things at the time.
Anyway, I think you are correct in that we should be allowed, if we so choose, to use aliases to identify ourselves within the newsminer.com commenting community. 100% in agreement. (see my previous post on subject at 11:10a)
I don't agree with Dermot's article. That's a discussion better left until tomorrow. Either he'll actually answer the questions he's been asked or he'll continue to skirt around them as he did this morning.
I support ballot measure 4, however. It all can be reduced to a very simple question. Is large scale mining good for Alaska? Note that I didn't say, "the people of", "the Native community" or "the economy"
Very simple:
Is it good for Alaska?
I'm not sure. I don't have all the answers, and just like any of you, can only decide something based upon past experiences, new knowledge, plus speculation.
We all know that large-scale mining is, at the very least, disruptive to the ecosystem. Hardline pro-miners say that it's not, but isn't that a fly in the face of logic? One cannot do anything without being disruptive. You can't get out of bed in the morning without disrupting something.
..........So then our question becomes, what's an acceptable about of disruption?
Is driving a truck across 4 miles of tundra disruptive? How about taking a D6 and driving it straight across the tundra along the haul road? One of those things happened a short time ago. (last year? year before?) One of those things happened in 1976. One can see the aftermath of both of things. It's even more pronounced from the air. Most Alaskans seemed pretty tweaked off that those two guys drove their trucks across the tundra. (Personally, I was more upset that they were stupid enough to try it twice...)
It's a hard question to answer--what's disruptive? Is digging giant hole in the ground bad? Even if you fill it back in when you're done, and 200 years from now, there will just be a sign there that says "Former site of the 'XXX' Mine" ?
Both sides of this discussion are trying to focus their arguments on issues that are so very extreme, so very "out there", that those of us left here in the middle are wondering what the hell just ran us over.
Not having answers, I decided to do some digging (pun intended) to find out for myself.
Most people seem to be under the mistaken impression that it will take an accident, some catastrophic event, for "something" to happen at a mine. That's simply not true. Just for an example, let's look at a copper mine. Copper is most often suspended in a rock called chalcopyrite, a metal sulfide. When you expose a metal sulfide to air and moisture, it oxidizes. Oxidation of metal sulfides leads to acid production, often sped up by surface based bacteria. That acid _will_ drain into the ground water. All copper mines on the planet produce mass amounts of acid. Sure, it's not as if they're standing there with 55 gallon drums of acid--this acid is a product of bringing the rocks out of the ground.
It's not a matter of "if they will", it's a matter of "when will it pollute things downstream."
As mentioned before, it becomes then a question of greed. Are we willing to disrupt that ecosystem for our own benefit, and if so, how? How much acid (pollution), at what scale, are we willing to produce inside a concentrated area to give us the natural resources that we need to support our growth as a society?
Now, I'm sure that some prominent pro-miner is going to say that a constructed wetland, or ionic bombardment, or whatever is enough to fix the pollution.
I ask this: Why? Why are we as a society, so greedy and selfish that we're willing to suck everything we can out of the ground RIGHT NOW!?
I'm in support of small scale mining, for many reasons, and very few of them have anything to do with mining, resource development, or ecosystems. The majority of them have to do with worldwide economics, the commodities market, and overall resource availability.
So, going back to what I said in the first place: Are you sure you know the effects of allowing big scale mining? Are you sure about what you think about IUR? Are you sure about your pronoun usage? As IUR mentioned, she's a she, not a he. Your assumption that voting against ballot measure 4 will create whatever you perceive to be a benefit might also be just as incorrect.
Just a thought.
BM4 is just the camel’s nose in the tent....just the same as listing the polar bears as endangered. Do you really think they will stop at “large scale” mining? It will lead to endless legal battles and eventually the end of mining in Alaska. But hey there will be more of those fine tourist oriented service sector jobs.
Dermot -
I, too, agree with the others on your condemnation of Imusuallyright.
You have finally created an issues both I and IUR can agree upon.
The DNM gives the opportunity to sign up as a 'handle' and then whenever someone hurts a writer's feelings - you guys come out and say we are chickens since we 'hide' behind them. Kelly B the ex-editor did the exact same thing on several occasions.
Are you hoping some nut will track those of us down that don't conform with your opinions? C'mon Dermot - you are better than this!
I will vote NO on this since I think its absurd - but I will stand together with IUR when you attack her so for giving an opinion...even an opinion I fully disagree with.
Why would the IUR opinion have any more or less relevance if the name was revealed? Responses may be more tactful at times...but there are a hell of a lot more racist and inflammatory commenters on this site that you haven't asked to give their names....you only did so because he/she hurt your ego....
step back and apologize!
oh - and how does the number of comments IUR has made relate to anything other than I can see he/she is beating me???
you should thank he/she for using the forums so much - isn't that what you all wanted when they were created???
or can people only comment that much and be opinionated when they use their legal names?
As for BM4, I will probably vote "no", but I haven't researched the issue quite enough to know for sure.
As for the handles, there are many times that I wish certain people would be forthcoming with their real names, but I have to agree with Ken about the personal life suffering because of it. There are "dangers" involved with having your name available across the internet for anyone to google, and I've commented (in jest) to friends of mine that if anything ever happens to me, to check the newsminer website. I sometimes wonder if when I finally earn that degree and start ye olde job hunt, if anything I've said here will hurt me...
I can say that with my real name out there, I must stand by every word that I write and suffer the consequences or reap the benefits. Nothing I say here is different from what I would say anywhere else. In all fairness though, I have met a few of you out there who have pseudonyms, and I really don't think that those people say anything less valid or less honest because their "real" identities are hidden.
There's my four cents on the subject. Please continue with information on #4.
KenWoods: No problem. Your thoughts and ideas are well taken.
I don't have time to address all of your concerns tonight, but I'll try to address as many as I can here, in a nutshell.
First I disclose that I work in the mining industry and have for many years, within an engineering department. My experience is with coal, platinum/palladium, as well as gold throughout Alaska/Lower 48 in both underground and surface mining environments. In earlier times I worked as an aircraft mechanic throughout Alaska and elsewhere.
"Is large scale mining good for Alaska?"
Keeping in mind that I cannot separate Alaska from its people, my answer is "yes". Mining produces real hard capital and distributes that wealth generously to anyone fortunate enough (self included) to work within or around it. I know a lot of miners that still complain they're not paid enough and often times I can only empathize, but few are willing to trade it up for a dishwashing job at Pikes.
"Is mining disruptive?"
Absolutely it is, although the effects of that disruption can be mitigated through sound containment systems, wastewater treatment, and good mining practices. A good example I like to use is the Stillwater Mine Complex which straddles two blue ribbon trout streams in Montana, less than 50 air miles from Yellowstone Park. It processes over 3000 tons of ore per day, employs 1500 people, and has not killed a single fish since the mine was established in 1983. Surface disruption, when I worked there some time ago, was probably less than 10 square miles and not all of that was so disruptive. I recall seeing Bighorn Sheep wintering on Mine property and permit areas almost every day that I traveled to the upper portals.
Copper mining I can't really address, because I don't have any experience with it. But suffice to say that the Kennicott Mine near McCarthy, despite 1920 mining/containment practices, porous Chitina limestone base and the after-effects of the 1964 earthquake did far less damage to the salmon population of the Copper River than the Exxon Valdez spill did.
"Why? Why are we as a society, so greedy and selfish that we're willing to suck everything we can out of the ground RIGHT NOW!?"
I don't see it that way. Alaska is a very big place. When I worked as an aircraft mechanic, I could ride along for hours in a light plane or helicopter and besides the occasional village, not see any sign of human activity whatsoever. The only mines I ever saw from the air in Alaska were Fort Knox(because it was so close to town and I knew where to look) and Red Dog(because we were flying directly to it. When I compare Alaska to my old home state of Wyoming(which mines over 300 million tons of coal per year and is 1/6 the size of Alaska) I can only visualize current Alaska mining environmental impact as neglible.
"Are you sure you know the effects of allowing big scale mining?"
Within the scope of my experience, yes.
Are you sure about what you think about IUR? Are you sure about your pronoun usage?
Like you and I, IUR is a person with ideas and opinions. Sometimes those ideas and opinions run counter to my own, sometimes they don't. As to pronoun usage I'm not terribly worried about it. A person's gender is not reason to take their ideas/opinions any more or less seriously or as an invalidation.
"Your assumption that voting against ballot measure 4 will create whatever you perceive to be a benefit might also be just as incorrect."
Again within the scope of my experience. If the mine I work at is unable to obtain new permits, we would probably have to shut down within 2,3, maybe 4 years.
I think a shame that the News-Miner has taken a position opposes pseudonyms (registration makes it quite clear that the DNM thinks posts without real names are worth less; see also the comments made by Dermot here and by other newspaper staffers). I realize it must be frustrating to have armchair journalists and other 'experts' question and argue everything said on the site.
However, internet pseudonyms are not something we should throw away. Yes, it does mean that we cannot check to see if--and this is a fake example--AKMINER49 is really a miner with 30 years experience, but it also means that AKMINER49 is protected from any in the community who take offense with his words. Yes, anything we say in public could be recorded and repeated back to us, but the internet's ability to spread our words to everyone and anyone changes our notions of public and private. What I say to friends is not necessarily what I would say to a newspaper... or post online. Unless I have a measure of anonymity.
I don't think the consequences of being public are quite as dire as stated above: it isn't likely that an angry reader will track down attack someone. But there other consequences. I know a friend who had a job offer taken off the table because they discovered her sexual orientation (this was not through the paper; she was observed in public). I have various views on behavior some might consider strange or deviant (like gender, religion, body modification, polyamory, and so on) that I wouldn't shout to the rooftops for anyone to hear. I don't hide them, but on a publicly-accessible website, I would worry about current or future employers discovering them. I maintain a divide between who I am as a professional, as a citizen, and as an individual. Pseudonyms protect us. They allow us to debate without coloring our perceptions of each other as fellow citizens and friends. In a town our size, that matters.
My problem with pseudonyms is that there are people out there who post things they absolutely would not say if they had to use their real name. I think a lot of the comments would be much more civil if some people weren't hiding behind a screen name. That being said, I didn't comment on the gang shooting articles because my wife didn't want my name anywhere near that stuff. I tried to figure out how to change my username, but when I hit edit profile it says the page cannot be found. I guess there are pros and cons either way. Folks should be civil no matter what name they are using.
IUR-
You're not a he? And you can type?
You here that Dr. C?
P3T.. Did you and Dr C. have drinks together?
Maybe you missed the sexes pig portion of his posts.
The article was about who was funding the bankroll for the mining initiative... maybe we should get back on topic?
Mike S-
Your comment regarding not commenting on the gang violence topics shows the strength of the handle versus the true name, doesn't it???
If real names are the way to go - why would you want to change it for that topic?
Yes - the use of the handle does make the users a little more brash and rude...but also allows you to comment on sensitive articles without worry, doesn't it
Or, in some cases, wherein the poeple just don't give a fart, they just say what they want.
....and stay away from gangland shooting threads.
AKguy--if you read the end of my post you will see that I conceded the fact that their are pros and cons to using handles, and I can see I wasn't clear on my intentions regarding my desire to change my username. My intent was to change it permanently, not just for the one topic. This will be my last post using my real name.
I have lots of videos on youtube and with millions of views, some of the comments were just appalling. I had to turn them off on some videos. Youtube then set it up so the comments themselves could be rated, and exceptionally poorly rated comments hid themselves automatically.
I think comment rating would be an exceptional addition to this web site... because lets face it, moderating the comments is time consuming and error prone. so why not let the commenters police their own?
It would be quite a feat as well in the newspaper community.... one step closer to a digg-like environment for a newspaper website.
The newsminer already tracks the most popular stories, which is a form of voting. Maybe someday online interactions will determine the priority of stories in the print edition, based on user interest/voting.
Mike -
I reread my earlier comment and you are correct and I was mistaken -
Sorry...
I am just kinda sick of the DNM - who gives you the option of being anonymous - then saying you are chicken for doing so. This is clearly the thorn in Dermot's side - see his blog for more on this - in April I believe.
The DNM staff chose their profession but then don't like differing opinion....would my opinions change if my name was posted - I think not. Get rid of the comment section if you don't want your ego hurt, staff!
I have served my country and was evac'd twice when injured in foreign countries, I have been nominated for community awards and only have a few moving violations, I have a thesis published by my college on the web, and have volunteered for the Suicide Hotline in town for quite a while...what more, exactly, would my name give beyond this information - - and now Dermot implies I am a bad person since I use a handle....
Seems Dermot just wants this so he can maybe search your name in his database or court records and then discount you if he finds something relevant...and thus feel better about himself
Again, Mike - I am sorry I misread your comment!
Thomas - I like you idea on the posters policing their own...if the editors, etc would read our comments - - they would recognize that the backlash is harsh for those commenters who are way off base or rude!
Not only that, but then the "silent" readers could pitch in their approval and disapproval, even if they are the type that doesn't want to make an actual post. There are a LOT of those people.
VOTE NO ON BM # 4!
END OF STORY!
"VOTE NO ON BM # 4!
END OF STORY!"
Wow. What an argument. I always do what people tell me to do...it's just easier that way... don't have to think about stuff.
Thanks jrkh!
P3T: Sorry I'm so late getting back to you. Took me this long to hunt'n'peck all the letters. I'm pretty, but I can't type. But please, don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
listen to your wife.....she's right.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.