On the topic of Kluwe, who last time I checked had no problem attaching his name to everything he said, “First Ringer” on the conservative blog site “True North” says: “Kluwe’s tactics are the epitome of his generation — foul-mouthed personal attacks against anyone who disagrees. ... In truth, the media needs Chris Kluwe’s release to be about his vocal and abusive activism. Because admitting to solidarity with Kluwe’s political views, and his ability to deliver good copy to sportswriters and sports radio networks, is harder than portraying the SoCal punter as a victim of a 1st Amendment NFL crackdown. Does anyone seriously believe that if Kluwe had come out passionately against gay marriage (ala Matt Birk), and saw his production dive, that those arguing against Kluwe’s release today would be defending his penchant to ‘hanging 10 on any issue that stirs his emotion?’ … Here’s hoping that Chris Kluwe finds the time to focus on realizing that being a public relations bully to those who don’t share his worldview isn’t the best way to advance what’s left of his career.” So help me out here. What comes first? "First Ringer's" bravery to speak out? Or his anonymity?
Okay, Brian, I'll help you out. The merits of FR's arguments aren't affected in any way by whether or not he writes under his own name or a pseudonym. I'd also mention that it's not especially brave to use ellipses to remove the context of what FR is talking about when he uses the term "foul-mouthed" to describe some of Kluwe's deep thoughts. I'd further suggest that Lambert consider (a) the difference between bravery and bravado, and (b) whether FR's observation that "being a public relations bully to those who don’t share his worldview isn’t the best way to advance what’s left of his career" might also apply to a guy who works for MinnPost, too.