Thursday, January 14, 2010

Funny, I don't feel very child molester-y.

The Muncie Puppy Trainer wrote a charming editorial yesterday, containing such gems as
Say, for example, you want to find out whether there are any convicted child molesters living in your neighborhood. You have young children, and like any good parent, you look up the information on available Web sites. Your research uncovers several living in your neighborhood. If you want to know whether they have permits to carry a gun, you can get that information.
What are you trying to say there, Mister Journalism Major?

See, there are a few issues with your example:
  1. Child molestering is a felony. Since felons are barred by state law from having toter's permits and banned by federal law from so much as touching a gun, your fears start looking a little straw man-ish.
  2. There is a little bit of a difference between a sentence handed down to a guilty criminal and a license bestowed upon successful completion of a clean criminal background check. See if you can guess what it is.
  3. I fail to see how the fact that my neighbor has successfully swum upstream and spawned gives them some magic right to get all up in my business. I'm sure you're all about my "right to privacy" when it comes to my reproductive organs or my medical records, so why the two facedness when it comes to whether there's a pistol in my purse or I'm just unhappy to see you?
It's against the law for a child molester to own or carry guns. It's not against the law for a child molester to write newspaper editorials, however. Not that I'm implying anything, of course. But don't parents with small children have the right to know?

Pound sand, newspaper lad. I'd say "I hope you freeze in the dark," but you're in Muncie, so that would be redundant.

26 comments:

Brian J. said...

Can child molesters (and other sex offenders down to the sixteenth degree) own pit bulls?

Because that doubles the bane, too.

Turk Turon said...

Well said!

BangBangMedic said...

*sigh*...nevermind the wishfulness in the idea that a person who would molest a child would go through all that trouble and hassle to actually get a permit to carry his gun. Especially since, according to the libs, guns are everywhere and easy to get on the street. All he'd have to do it go to a scawy gun show and he'd have an assualt pistol that kills kittens for fun when it's not busy washing the streets blood.

reflectoscope said...

If you ever wondered why the legacy media is fading into well-deserved irrelevance, this sort of thing is it.

I'll grant you, at least they confined it to the editorial.

As for limiting your right to know, I think is called minding your own damned business, which a lot of people need to do more often.

Jim

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

You don't LOOK very child molestery, either.

rickn8or said...

All they are saying is that CCW holders are one step removed from being a child molester is all.

Just like in my neck of the woods: Commercial Appeal.

perlhaqr said...

Well, at least they aren't accusing us of draining children's blood to make crackers. Yet.

Anonymous said...

This is an obvious and intentional swipe at the recent controversy; the last sentence had no bearing at all on the rest of the story, and was added gratuitously and with malice aforethought.

reflectoscope: Not "at least" it was an editorial, but "at most", because these vacu-heads are the self-appointed leaders and directors of the "public" attitude. And we all know about the wonderful and carefully considered judgement of that group of Einsteins. Scary shit.

westofthewest said...

Jesus that is some kind of Samurai grade, darn near poetic disemboweling. Please tell me you submitted it to that twit's editor.

Tam said...

I think that twit was the editor.

The problem with the Gannett empire is that the editors of papers like the ones in Muncie or Lafayette are not part of the surrounding community and view it as a temporary assignment, until they get a good newspaper job like reviewing restaurants in Phoenix or emptying pencil sharpeners at USA Today in McLean.

jimbob86 said...

"It's against the law for a child molester to own or carry guns. "It's not against the law for a child molester to write newspaper editorials, however. Not that I'm implying anything, of course. But don't parents with small children have the right to know?

Pound sand, newspaper lad. I'd say "I hope you freeze in the dark," but you're in Muncie, so that would be redundant. "

That's Tamara-Class Weapons Grade Snark right there.

wv= "prost" ..... it's a bit early for ein Weitzenbier, no?

Frank W. James said...

I can remember when the Indy Red Star was actually, you know, CONSERVATIVE in its editorials and promoted good writing and true journalism from its staff. (Yes, I'm old.)

Gannatt is a major reason why newspapers in this country are dying. They are out of step with their readers and reality.

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Midwest Chick said...

It was only a matter of time that the connection was made between the two databases. When this issue first hit, there were folks who scoffed and said that it couldn't hurt and that we were being oversensitive about the publication of the concealed carry permit holders database.

This is just the first volley in what could be a VERY long battle.

Tam said...

"When this issue first hit, there were folks who scoffed and said that it couldn't hurt and that we were being oversensitive about the publication of the concealed carry permit holders database."

Who said that?

John B said...

I'd offer marriage to Tam yet again for this days work. But I shudder to think what she'd say if I ever left the milk out. :D

theirritablearchitect said...

#3.

Case closed.

SpeakerTweaker said...

Last sentence in the post. That is one of the reasons I read this blog daily.



tweaker

Skip said...

Damn lady!
That is some fine snarkiness right there.

Murgy said...

Arizona Is Full! We need 0 leftists and/or journalists. (But I repeat myself.) We want fewer than we have now! If you must, make them visit in June when it's 120° in the shade, and then the sun rises!

Joanna said...

I'd tell you what I think of journalism in general and Gannett in particular, but my mother cries when I use that kind of language. I don't miss them.

Anonymous said...

Yep, there was substantial malice aforethought in the last sentence of Tam's post, too.

And in this one:

"The problem with the Gannett empire is that the editors of papers like the ones in Muncie or Lafayette are not part of the surrounding community and view it as a temporary assignment, until they get a good newspaper job like reviewing restaurants in Phoenix or emptying pencil sharpeners at USA Today in McLean."

Yeah, that's just one sentence. Please be forwardin' ths along to the lad in question as well.

Anonymous said...

Of course, as others have said, soon enough the only "good newspaper job" will be the night watchman keeping an eye on an empty tomb where once there was a fountain of truth.

Laughingdog said...

Nevermind the initial flawed logic that leads people to believe that knowing the location of every convicted sex offender in their area makes them safer. First, that group is heavily diluted by people who had the audacity to do things like have sex with their girlfriend while both were teenagers, or urinating in public at 2am because they didn't think to do it before leaving the bar.

Then, even if that list was restricted to actual rapists and child molesters, you'd only know the location of the ones that were sloppy enough to be caught.

joe said...

Sounds like they're taking notes from our local fishwrapper...

The Roanoke Times published an online, searchable database. You could enter a person's name and find out if they had a permit. You could also filter by street/town/county/etc. In the accompanying editorial, the writer basically said that since we have online access to sex offenders, it's only reasonable that we similarly have online access to CHP holders. The firestorm was so fast and so intense that it was up less than 24 hours.

Stiff Man said...

The Star Press is becoming more of a news aggregator than doing actual reporting because of another round of layoffs within the last year. There aren't many reporters left on staff so they take, as happened in this case, what was written for the Indy Star and throw a very small bit of rewrite into it and present it to the public like it is original thought. Many people that I know in Muncie tend not to read any other newspapers so the TSP is where they get a good bit of their news.

Just over a year ago I was part of a "citizen's panel" for the TSP to try to help them gain some feeling for what the public thought of the paper as a whole and in part, in print and online. Many suggestions were made, not many adopted because Gannett pretty much ruled the roost for what changes could or would be made at TSP. From what Gene Williams of TSP told us at the time, Gannett wants a cookie-cutter template between all of their holdings. Make as few waves as possible.

Windy Wilson said...

These people who confuse child molesters with non-criminals are fulliy capable of recognize the need to keep non-criminal databases private -- Has anyone gotten any DMV information lately? I mean, since Rebecca Schaefer was murdered, it has really been hard to locate hit and run drivers (even to protect the children!).

It really has gotten to the point that William Randolph Hearst's joke about the Los Angeles Times applies to every legacy (what an accurate term) news media operation.

("I was traveling by train, and I asked the Porter to get me a newspaper. The poor man mustn't have understood me; he brought me a Los Angeles Times")