The past day I’ve been thinking a lot about the somewhat bizarre – though admittedly compelling – Internet feud going on between Anchorage representative Mike Doogan and a woman named Jeanne in Anchorage who goes by the blogger name of AKMuckraker and who writes the hugely popular blog on Alaska politics, The Mudflats. Essentially, AKMuckraker’s real name was revealed by Doogan in a newsletter to his constituents and the people who follow Mudflats are livid, saying she has been unfairly “outted.”

The problem I have though is this: What the hell is the big deal?

As far as I can tell, Doogan is being demonized for doing something any former journalist would be compelled to do, that is, promote transparency and accountability. I might question his motivation and his tactic of using a constituent newsletter to do so, but in reality, those types of newsletters are designed to give news to constituents about what an elected official is doing.

But I’m getting a bit ahead of myself.

As far as I can gather, the situation is this: Jeanne started blogging about a year ago, encouraged by friends and coworkers who liked the way she presented her opinions. She blogged about Alaska politics and, particularly, about Sarah Palin. This theme obviously became an international curiosity with McCain’s pick of Palin for VP last August.

Hungry for the inside scoop on our governor, people started flocking to Mudflats… and kept returning because it was juicy, insightful, and well-written. People started leaving comments on her posts, sometimes numbering in the dozens or hundreds and Jeanne herself said she was getting thousands of hits daily. With the growing popularity, some people might have started getting curious about her identity, but Jeanne was very open about her intention to remain anonymous. Even her gender was not going to be revealed.

Intriguing. Mysterious. A gimmick?

Probably, but that’s not such an issue. A lot of bloggers start out anonymous and it doesn’t really matter if they stay that way – after all, most people don’t care about the last name of the kid in your photo wearing a tutu. But wait, Mudflats isn’t a family blog that might be seen only by curious aunts. And it certainly isn’t a blog that might be potentially embarrassing or emotionally difficult – like one about the personal life of a porn star or the tribulations of living with a terminal illness.

It is a political blog. It’s sortof like being hired as a dancer in a strip club… then getting mad that the men are staring at your boobs.

It does beg the question, however… at what point – if ever – should one step out of anonymity and accept the responsibility that comes with helping to set the tone for the way our society looks at itself?

It is a tough call, but I do think that Mudflats probably crossed the threshold a little while ago and should have accepted the responsibility – and honor – that comes with people have respect for your opinions.

I guess the situation irks me for a few reasons:

1.) I don’t agree with the kind of anonymity that Mudflats was promoting because I think it is more hurtful than helpful.

Anonymous bashing makes people – particularly those who are not inherently combative or attention-seeking – less willing to engage in the public process. This is unfortunate. We need good people to be our leaders – not just those who have the thickest skins.

That translates into people being less willing to run for public office. People being; less willing to be interviewed by newspaper reporters – or bloggers; people being less willing to leave their own anonymous comments on blogs and online newspapers that allow comments. A society takes all kinds of people to work, and I think it shameful that we would set up a system that makes people afraid to be a part of the public discourse. I do think that if you encourage individuals to use their own names, you are elevating the level of discourse – and hopefully limiting the kind of abuses that make some people not want to be a part of the public debate.

I myself stopped commenting on stories on the ADN’s Web site after someone told me that they thought I should be euthanized because I said that the city’s animal shelter euthanasia rate could be lower. Really? I should be euthanized? Not even the biggest asshole would say that kind of thing to my face during a discussion about the topic. Anonymity has this magical power of turning regular people into assholes.

But whatever. I do think there is an inherent value in being able to comment on stories on blogs or online news sites and I think it idiotic and short-sighted that the Juneau Empire recently disabled comments on theirs.

I often don’t read the comment section myself – but sometimes I do and sometimes I enjoy it. I don’t think it is a right or a privilege, however. I just think it is an element that can add to the public dialogue. And sometimes it is just fun, like a college sociology class or a cage boxing tournament.

2.) The other problem that I have with the situation is that I don’t think that anonymity itself is a “right.”

What if AKMuckraker was actually another elected official? What if she chose one day to run for office? As readers, I guess that you are just supposed to trust that she isn’t violating any potential ethical lines.

This is part of the odd irony in AKMuckraker’s irritation at being outted. The blog seems to have piqued people’s interest in part because it reveals interesting things about our leaders and our community. And AKMuckraker draws interesting connections and questions intentions of those individuals. I even recently e-mailed a Mudflats story about Palin’s selection for Attorney General to my dad because I liked the AKMuckraker’s insight. But AKMuckraker doesn’t live in a fishbowl, looking out at a world that she is separated from and that’s why I just don’t think that she should have remained anonymous.

I guess I believe not only in understanding what is said, but who says it. I think AKMuckraker does too, which is why I find it odd that she is so livid about having her name out there.

I think Mudflats just got too big too fast for its author to reassess whether her anonymity was really okay anymore. And now, based on her reaction to Doogan’s “outing” of her, it seems that she – and others – feel a sense of entitlement to anonymity.

Huh, doesn’t this sound familiar? This might seem like a bit of a stretch here, but I get a similar sense in tone from Jeanne’s letter and this op-ed piece in the New York Times last week.

Sure, it might be lame that this guy is getting “punished” for the AIG screw-up when he didn’t even work in the responsible department… just like it might be lame that Doogan felt compelled to “out” Jeanne.

But both are missing the bigger point: That guys bonus was going to be $742,006.40 after taxes! And Jeanne was using her anonymity to feel free to jab (however wittily) at others.

I think Jeanne should be welcomed out of the world of anonymity and supported by both her foes and friends to continue on with Mudflats.

And, she should be proud that she’s created this online community, stop playing victim, and get over quickly the issue of her “outing.” It’s just not that big of a deal.