If you're going to blog, it should not be anonymous. Otherwise, what's the point? If you're not courageous enough to put your name out there with your ideas, then why should I take the time to read them? (Even though, I confess, I do love reading the AL's rants, and I also enjoyed visiting her Flea Libary.)
What's admirable about what the AL is that she's critiquing our profession in a very funny and dead-on manner. What isn't right, though, is that she's carefully hiding her identity while doing it. This all speaks to Steven Bell's post on ACRLog (which I can't find but will link when I do) about our profession's inability to have critical discourse about ideas and initiatives. Isn't this what lies at the heart of academia--taking advantage of the freedom to analyze, criticize, and participate in the process of refining and refocusing interesting ideas?
Feel free to fight with me about this. (Anonymously, or otherwise!)
I disagree. I blog semi-anonymously (some do know who I am) and disguise where I work because sometimes I want to say things that might not sit entirely well with The Powers That Be, or because I want to divulge without breaching my own privacy comfort levels.
People have gotten fired for blogging and have lost jobs (or not been hired) because of what they said in a work-related blog. Given the nature of AL's posts, I can understand the reluctance to go public.