Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

The Traveling Wilburys, Volume 1 (1988). Thirty years gone.

Here is Kurt Schlichter's latest column.

Bob Upton of Marshall wants wary Americans to give up their “hate” of Donald Trump (Jan. 30 letters, “Trump Hate Overload”). “Hate” is the wrong word. “Disgust” is accurate.

Mr. Trump has much more in common with King George III than George Washington. His permanent tax breaks for the wealthy are a royal feast for himself and the financial elite; the temporary cuts for the rest of us are wishbones. Look it up.

The diminishing respect for our nation is real. Read the foreign press.

Mr. Trump’s endless lies and misrepresentations are documented facts, not rumors.

His disrespect for women, minorities, the disabled, our international allies, the “others,” are not rumors. Check the words from his own mouth.

His ignorance of governing is no fantasy. Do the simple math regarding how many people have left government service in the past year.

Mr. Upton believes Mr. Trump has done more for the middle class in one year than Barack Obama did in eight?

That’s complete fantasy.

BILL YUND

Marshall

Note from KBJ: Get a grip, Bill. Donald Trump has done more for this country in one year than Barack Obama did in eight. Practice saying "President Trump," because you'll be saying it for another seven years.

My beloved Arizona Wildcats (19-5) lost Saturday to the Washington Huskies on a last-second shot. As a result, the Cats have fallen from 11th to 13th in the poll. I thought it would be worse, so I'm happy.

Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper! Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 5, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I’ve always been opposed to anonymity, especially on the Internet. It has seemed to me to be cowardly. If you have something to say, say it openly and proudly and take responsibility for it. That’s part of what it means to be an adult.

I now think that there is a relevant distinction to be made. Offensive anonymity is motivated by a desire to abuse others. The abuse can take any of a number of forms, from ridicule to vilification to disclosure of private information to attempts to get someone fired. The abuser wishes to harm others without being held responsible for doing so.

Defensive anonymity is motivated by a desire to avoid being abused. In recent months, we have seen many cases in which something someone said online has been used as a basis for getting that person reprimanded, censured, punished, or even fired from a job. To avoid these adverse outcomes, one might hide one’s identity from the public while speaking online. The speaker wishes to express his or her views without being assailed by the mob. That is not cowardice; it is respectable self-protection.

Just as there is a morally relevant difference between attacking someone physically and defending oneself from physical attack, even if the bodily movements are the same, there is a morally relevant difference between abusing someone behind a cloak of anonymity and trying to avoid being abused by hiding one’s identity. Offensive anonymity is despicable; defensive anonymity is defensible. The difference lies in the motive.

What say you? Is the distinction I have drawn morally relevant? Am I carving things in the right place?

Heartbeat City (1984).

Here.