In the world of media and politics, the use of pen names, pseudonyms, and professional aliases has long been a common practice. From authors and journalists to radio personalities and public figures, these alternate names serve various purposes, ranging from branding to privacy. However, this time-honored tradition has recently been dragged into a perplexing and petty debate by none other than Chris Barnett.
Barnett, a local political figure, who himself uses the nick name, “Commander”, has made it a personal crusade to critique others for using alternate names or unique spellings, framing it as a credibility issue. Yet, this criticism seems to apply selectively. For instance, Barnett took aim at me, John Oliver Riccio, for professionally shortening my name to John Oliver—a choice I’ve maintained for over 15 years due to personal and practical reasons. He went so far as to suggest that this adjustment was an attempt to obscure my identity, a claim that is as baseless as it is laughable.
Barnett’s obsession with names doesn’t stop there. Recently, he launched an attack on his opponent, Colene Martin, questioning her credibility based solely on the unique spelling of her first name. This absurd fixation raises an important question: Is this really the level of discourse voters should expect from someone seeking public office? At a time when serious issues demand attention—local economic challenges, infrastructure needs, and public safety concerns—Barnett seems more interested in playing games of petty name-calling on social media.
The irony in all of this is almost poetic. Barnett himself has appeared on The Bill Meyer Show, a program hosted by none other than William Larry Protzek—better known by his on-air alias, Bill Meyer. Despite Meyer’s use of a pseudonym, Barnett has not only endorsed but actively participated in the show. If we are to follow Barnett’s logic, does this make Meyer “fake news”? Should we question Meyer’s integrity because he chose a professional alias?
Of course not. The use of pen names, stage names, and professional aliases is a widespread and legitimate practice, one that Meyer and many others have employed without controversy. The real issue here is not the use of alternate names but the blatant hypocrisy in Barnett’s approach. He criticizes me and others for the same actions he appears to condone in his allies.
This double standard reveals a troubling tendency: the willingness to weaponize identity when it suits a political or personal agenda. It’s not just about names; it’s about the narratives and intentions behind these attacks. By focusing on trivial issues like the spelling of a name or the use of a pen name, Barnett detracts from meaningful discussions and undermines the trust voters place in their leaders.
In the end, this debate is a distraction. Names, whether legal or professional, do not define a person’s integrity, credibility, or worth. What matters is transparency, consistency, and a focus on the issues that truly affect our communities. If Barnett or Meyer wish to hold others to a high standard, they must first apply those standards to themselves.
As voters, we deserve better. Let’s focus on the issues that matter and hold our leaders accountable—not for their names, but for their actions and the impact they have on our lives.
