Referring, of course, to the editorial staff of the Bloomington Daily Cat Box Liner.
Caleb has the current skinny.
Remember to contact your legislators to get the database protected. Then the guys at the Bloomington Puppy Trainer will have to go publish lists of other innocent people, like the residents of battered women's shelters, or Jews, or homosexuals.
Further, don't waste time contacting the staff of the Bloomington Pravda directly; contact their advertisers. Then the editors can do an in-depth investigative report on the state’s unemployment benefits system while they freeze in the dark.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
"Then the guys at the Bloomington Puppy Trainer will have to go publish lists of other innocent people, like the residents of battered women's shelters, or Jews, or homosexuals."
Sorry, but I don't follow -- being a concealed carry permit holder is a voluntary, at-will condition. None of the other groups you listed falls into that category. It's apples and oranges to an alarming -- and, frankly, suprising -- degree.
I was thinking about "more or less completely arbitrary lists of people who haven't done anything wrong but probably won't benefit from being in a database."
I know, but I think "People who shop at Kroger" or "People who own red cars" might be more on a level with what we're talking about here. Yes, the database is annoying and ethically unsound, but it isn't quite to ethnic cleansing levels yet. Plus it's run by a college-town rag, not a government project.
No, Tam is on the right track. "People who shop at Kroger" are not likely to be targeted, whereas a list of people with CCW's are now a list of potential weapons locations, much the same way that a list of "people who keep large amounts of cash at their house" would be.
Yes, the database is annoying and ethically unsound, but it isn't quite to ethnic cleansing levels yet.
Publishing lists of Jews & Homosexuals isn't "ethnic cleansing" either, but it's just as irresponsible asa publishing lists of permitholders.
They're publishing the list specifically for the purpose of attacking a group of people and conflating them with criminals.
Joanna, there isn't an effort that I know of to outlaw shopping at Kroger, and folks don't tend to be targeted for theft because they shop at Kroger.
Targeting a group that has active bigotry targeting it is a far cry from targeting folks who shop at a certain super market chain.
Madam,
we write on behalf of The Syphilitic Weasel Self-Help Group.
Our clients, a selfless collection of very wonderful beings, work tirelessly to help, not just other differently healthy weasels, but the greater community of challenged mustelidae. As such, they feel deeply insulted, in a very real and financially alert way, by your insulting comparison of them with journalists. Please withdraw this baseless allegation immediately, or suffer the consequences.
We do feel it incumbent upon us to mention that we are also retained by the Noble and Ancient Order of Leprous Catamites, and the International Associaton of People Who Talk In Theatres, so please take care with your revised comparison.
Yours faithfully,
Sue, Grabbit, and Runne. Attorneys at Law.
I was thinking the same thing, Jeff. There's a considerable body of leftist thought holding that cash should be phased out so that government can inspect the record of even the tiniest transaction. I do a little riff on it over at my place.
Okay, since I don't have easy access to the Bloomington Puppy Trainer I have to ask who exactly purchases half-page and full page ads in said tripe? I only want to protest to those who are paying the big bucks to advertise in it and not waste my time on the little people in the classifieds.
A summary would be most helpful...
All The Best,
Frank W. James
"Joanna, there isn't an effort that I know of to outlaw shopping at Kroger, and folks don't tend to be targeted for theft because they shop at Kroger.
Targeting a group that has active bigotry targeting it is a far cry from targeting folks who shop at a certain super market chain."
Again: I KNOW. My point is that this particular targeted group has a completely voluntary membership. A Jew on a list of Jews can't stop being a Jew. A CCW holder on a list of CCW holders could, if he/she wanted, act to remove him/herself from that list by withdrawing from the group. Is it fair that they're profiling CCW holders and possibly putting them in danger? Not hardly. Is it the same as a list of ethnic or religious targets? No. No it is not.
A CCW holder could certainly withdraw from the group by turning in her permit, but that doesn't keep her from continuing to own guns in the privacy of her own home. (Well, not yet, anyway.)
Likewise, Jews in Spain in 1492 often converted publicly to Catholicism but remained Jews privately (cf. Marranos). It was only under Hitler that being Jewish became genetic rather than confessional in nature.
As a gun-owning Jew, I pretty much identify and agree with Tam's assessment. There are significant similarities.
Nathan: I certainly bow to your experience in this arena. My thought was that putting this apple in with the oranges cheapened the oranges, almost like crying wolf -- overstate one's case too often, people stop taking it seriously. Matters of personal freedom are different from matters of personal identification, and they shouldn't be lumped together if one can help it. Jump too quickly from one to the other, and the general reaction becomes "Oh, come on now" instead of "Hmm -- you may have a point."
Joanna,
I take issue with your comment that "this particular targeted group has a completely voluntary membership". This kind of reasoning has been used before to justify the publishing of permit holder data. To paraphrase: "Well, these folks chose of their own free will to enter into an arrangement with a public safety organization. Because of this 'public arrangement', the expectation of privacy does not exist."
The issue that seems to be overlooked here is that these "arrangements" are not entirely voluntary. What is voluntary is the desire to carry a concealed firearm in order to defend oneself. In states that recognize the right to self-defense by way of CCW, a person can freely chose this path or not. But that choice is just step #1.
What is not voluntary is the next step: if you do choose to carry concealed, then you must engage the State in the application/approval process or risk imprisonment if you are discovered carrying without said permit. (AK and VT being the exceptions...) So the part of this process that is not voluntary -- assuming you wish to avoid jail time -- is beseeching the State to allow you to defend yourself.
Anything the State coerces you to do under the threat of jail time is no longer voluntary. So states that offer CCW permits are giving you only two choices: (1) go about your daily life unarmed and defenseless or (2) obtain a permit, without which you face whatever misdemeanor/felony of their choice. In my book, defenselessness is not a choice, therefor obtaining my permit was not a voluntary act since the criminal charges accompanying being caught un-permitted were wholly unacceptable.
Strong-arming takes on many shapes, even if at first blush it looks ................ "voluntary".
TCM
In my book, defenselessness is not a choice,
And yet others choose differently. No pun intended, no one held a gun to your head.
...no one held a gun to your head.
Curious choice of forum in which to make that claim.
TCM
Joanna,
While I can see how the "Jews and homosexuals" part can seem kinda Godwin-y, the more I think about "the residents of battered women's shelters", the more I like that part of the analogy.
Jim said "I was thinking the same thing, Jeff. There's a considerable body of leftist thought holding that cash should be phased out so that government can inspect the record of even the tiniest transaction."
If you think there is such thing as an anonymous transactions anymore, look around for camera lenses the next time you're at a bank or a Stop-N-Rob. Well, maybe at a gunshow for various items. Maybe THIS is what makes certain segments of the population spin around on their eyebrows at the combination of the words "gun" and "show".
There are a lot of things ex-partners do not need to know about each other; one of them is whether or not that ex- is armed.
Religion and homosexuality are both voluntary life-style choices. If I wanted to stop being Catholic, no one is going to forcibly coerce me to do otherwise, nor is anyone going to come up and order me to become a Southern Baptist or atheist against my will.
Joanna, I love you dearly and enjoy almost everything you write, but I have to go with Mike W. on this one.
Voluntary or not, being a permit holder exposes an individual to a great deal of personal abuse. I've been there, as recently as last night.
There was simply no reason other than hoplophobia for the paper to single out permit holders. Why not publish an article on population density of pottery collectors or philatelists?
It was because these people have GUNS, and "we all know" that anyone who owns guns is a sociopath.
Journalism has never been a career path I had much respect for (you Ma'am are an obvious exception to that sorry rule).
But by and large, I rate them somewhere between lizards and lawyers, with lawyers ranking a bit higher on the food chain. J.P. Zenger has been dead a long time.
The difference between the National Enquirer and virtually all liberal oriented newspapers (the few conservative papers have to be more circumspect, they're always in somebody's sights) is this: newspapers, being essentially journals of opinion, don't have to maintain the same degree of professionalism you'd find in the "Tattle Rags", which are, due to their subject matter, liabel to massive loss in the form of suits.
So, although I don't do anything more than give the Tattle Rags a surreptitious glance in the supermarket, I have more respect for their writers than I do for people in the New York Daily News, San Francisco Chronicle, and others of their ilk.
It's a genre that deserves to die. I find it amusing that the only paper doing well in New York City, easily the best read burb in the country, probably the world, is the ballsy, conservative New York Post.
All the others are withering on the vine, primarily because liberals don't need someone to agree with them in print, as they only surround themselves with other liberals.
Do I seem touchy on the subject? They tried to make the permit holder information available here in Connecticut as a freedom of information perk.
If I'd been lucky, I'd only have been T.P.ed, egged, or had my tires slashed.
If I'd been unlucky, I'd have been repeatedly burglarized for my weapons ( I could outfit at least a heavy platoon, and friends of mine could do a light infantry company).
To get a permit in this state, I had to be checked out back to birth, three times, by local, state, and federal cops.
I had to present 5 letters of recommendation from permit holders or public officials who have known me for more than 5 years, have my military records looked over, and I had to undergo more firearms training than many cops get.
Yet the very fact that I exist litterally inspires demonstrably unstable people to actual rage.
Unh-unh. They're passive-agressive assholes, slime sucking bottom dwelling back stabbers, pathetic little people with a bad case of penis envy trying to rationalise their own inadequacy.
If that seems extreme, go to jewishworldreview.com, click on Julia Goren (a seriously ballsy journalist), and go to her essay of March 8, 2002, "The anti-gun male".
It's an amazing read, from a nice Jewish girl from a radical socialist upbringing, talking about virtually every man she grew up with.
Okay. Look. My only objection was, as Tam put it earlier, the "Godwin-y" nature of the comparisons. Jumping straight to that level of rhetoric without any steps in-between is more likely to discredit one's cause than advance it. I'm a permit holder. I'm on that list. Houses near my apartment have been burglarized for weapons. I understand what's at stake here. But I don't see the point in looking for persecution greater than what actually exists. It puts one in company with the woman who yells at the salesperson for saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" -- she may have a valid point, but she's erased any potential gain by overstating her case. The stakes are much, much lower there, but the principle is the same. You've all made good points, but I stand by my original assertion.
TCK: "Jew" is an ethnic identifier, not just a religious one, which is why I didn't bring up atheists or Southern Baptists.
Post a Comment