As far as the peer review process, I can name more than ten individual examples of shoddy research that has been published solely because of the past work of the senior author, and even more examples of quality research that has been tanked because the data seems to disagree with the prevailing theory.

As for scholarship, I never even intimated that blogs equate with scholarship. Journal articles are scholarship. Blogs are an outlet. The NUMBER ONE reason why the top folks aren't blogging: TIME. They spend so much time writing grants and directing research groups that they don't have time to drop by the lab to see what their group is doing, let alone help, so it stands to reason that blogging is right out.

Speak for yourself.

Academe is a appealing word that, basically, reflects a place of teaching (or instruction). When I see the term "respected academics" it means no more to me than "respected plumber" or "respected street line painter."

Intelligence and insight is not exclusive to any profession. It, certainly, is no more prominent in the classroom than it is at the local hardware store. Instructors, sometimes, focus on a particular discipline that, I suppose, gives them certain insight in that fastidious area. However, given the choice of participating in intelligent discourse with an Urban Studies Professor from New Haven, Connecticut or a lifetime resident of Hell’s Kitchen, I’ll get my facts from the source, not the pontificator.

Of course, there are exceptions. In fact, there are exceptions in both extremes. However, merely bestowing a label of learned on a profession, which tends to be losing the battle in their chosen vocation isn’t what I would call pratical.

There are some many sharp educators residing on the planet. There are many more non-educators that would fit that description as well. That brings up the obvious conclusion.

Who cares?

I am not sure how you can say that blogging is "fundamentally similar to the peer review process that so many of us are familiar with, except that because it’s anonymous, blogging is purer and in most cases fairer as a forum of ideas."

I have no idea what discipline you claim to represent, but blogging is pretty much the EXACT OPPOSITE of the peer review process! I won't object to the notion that personal and ideological politics seeps into the peer review process, but it is theoretically one that respects anonymnity.

Furthermore, the reason for peer review is to give independent and knowlegable analysis of someone's arguments--which is, again, opposite of the blogosphere. On the internet anyone can post practically anything, regardless of how crazy and irrational the argument might be.

I don't know many high-profile academics (i.e. those who are respected for their work in their field of study) who spend a lot of time blogging. For one, if you tried to go up for tenure at a top school and pointed to your blog as "scholarship," you would be laughed out of the room. Serious academics spend most of their time honing arguments strong enough to meet the critieria of quality set by their peers through the review process.

Many academics take up blogging as a hobby, but it certainly shouldn't be mistaken as a substitue for scholarship.

As for the scatological names, I think the impersonality of the internet lends itself to becoming a forum of sorts for that side of the personality. Because it's anonymous, people feel like they can express things they would be embarrassed to say in public, and then it becomes more familiar, and it's no big deal to associate themselves with those names and words. Sensitization is what behavioral scientists call it.