Reviewing Manuscript: Anonymous authors and anonymous reviewers?

In the month of May, 2010 I peer reviewed two research manuscripts. First manuscript was for "Environmental Pollution" Journal and the second one was for "Electrophoresis" Journal. The first manuscript was related to the measurement of "Bisphenol A (BPA)" in the aerosol particles collected from around the globe. BPA has been studied extensively in water and other media but there are few studies in atmosphere. So, the manuscript was the one of the few stidues on BPA in aerosol particles. Second manuscript for Electrophoresis had reported the pre-concentration of mini Y STR genotyping using capillary electrophoresis in micro-devises by using sample stacking method which is caused by the difference between the ionic strength. 

I tried my best to give biasness reviews and comments to both of the manuscripts. In both of them name of the authors and their address were provided. The most common mode of peer reviewing in chemistry related field is that reviewers remain anonymous to the authors. The main idea on anonymous reviewer is that (s)he can identify and flaws in the manuscript without confrontation or enmity from authors. But it comes with obligations of the reviewer to write in an objective and respectful manner. Now there have been concerns raised to not to have authors identity on the manuscript so that reviewer has no idea about the author. Also, there are arguments against and for this issue. Some people argue even for not anonymous reviewer. But my feeling after reviewing two manuscript is that we get some kind of pre-occupied opinion which may influence our judgement. So, my point is anonymous authors and anonymous reviewers.

What do you have to say?