The Reality Of Modern Politics, We Go After Each Other

So, a White Plains newspaper, The Journal-News, published the names and addresses of every licensed pistol permit holder in three New York counties.

Just unbelievable. It just proves the sanctimonious self righteous attitude of liberals like the publisher and reporters that see the ends justifying the means of their agenda, even if it invades the privacy of citizens. She honestly thought that creating an interactive map with the names and addresses of gun owners, as if they are like sexual offenders, was a great idea.

Well, what goes around, comes around in the age of new media. This blogger decided to post names and addresses of the editor, and anyone who is associated with the story.  On CNN this morning she is showing no remorse, she says people have a right to know who has gun in their neighborhood.

See how politics works now? We used to go after each other’s candidate. Now, we go after each other.

Even Jim Brady said on CNN that publishing the names of gun owners was the wrong way to go, but we don’t listen to level heads anymore.

I can just imagine these counties now. Angry gun owners calling the editor and reporters at their homes, and neighbors refusing to be friends anymore with someone who owns a gun.

It is all so sickening. It was sickening to use the deaths of children for a political agenda to begin with, forcing law abiding citizens to defend their Second Amendment rights at at time when they only wanted to be silent and honor those who had died.

Now, this smug elite media type decides she knows best, and is going to “out” all the gun owners.

She should be ashamed. Anyone who participates in calling or invading the privacy of  another person, on either side in this, should also be ashamed.

I realize the social media makes it easy to go after people we disagree with, but that doesn’t make it right.

It. Isn’t. Right.

I know there is much frustration. One side believes something completely different than the other, but as a civil society we sit down and we talk it out. We don’t resort to Junior High meanness.

I am about fed up with all of politics. I’ve never been as SICK of it in my life as I am now, and I have been in it ALL my life.

This is the time we should be focused on our families. We should be focused on our country getting through this terrible economic time, and terribly sad time.

Focus on what matters. Don’t focus on anger, pettiness, and self righteousness.

The media needs to decide what it is going to be in the future. Is it going to be what it is supposed to be? Reporting fairly both sides? Or is it going to continue to promote a liberal agenda? Because as long as it does the latter, then other news organizations will pop up, like Fox News, that reports on the conservative side, and we have no unbiased reporting whatsoever.

So, decide media. It’s up to you.

If the liberals current political fight continues as “divide and conquer,” then I congratulate them. They are winning. They won the Presidency that way, and they continue to win that way.

But what a price America is paying for that. Neighbor against neighbor. Friend against friend. Brother against brother.

Again, Congratulations.

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

Author: KATHLEEN MCKINLEY, Guest Voice Columnist

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Yes, this is troubling and not called for.

    However, talking about going “after each other,” and about “Neighbor against neighbor. Friend against friend. Brother against brother,” have we already forgotten how “some” have “gone” — and still do — after gays, after minorities, after undocumented immigrants, after those who disagreed with our recent wars or with our political views, etc. Aren’t they our neighbors, our friends, our brothers, too?

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    So, one stupid article in a newspaper, “publishes the names and addresses of every licensed pistol permit holder in three New York counties,” and we extrapolate, generalize, accuse and and infer from this that:

    It just proves the sanctimonious self righteous attitude of liberals like the publisher and reporters that see the ends justifying the means of their agenda, even if it invades the privacy of citizens.

    and that

    The media needs to decide what it is going to be in the future. Is it going to be what it is supposed to be? Reporting fairly both sides? Or is it going to continue to promote a liberal agenda? Because as long as it does the latter, then other news organizations will pop up, like Fox News, that reports on the conservative side, and we have no unbiased reporting whatsoever.

    And, especially, that

    If the liberals current political fight continues as “divide and conquer,” then I congratulate them. They are winning. They won the Presidency that way, and they continue to win that way.

  • ordinarysparrow

    Thanks Dorian…’down to earth’ to non anchored shrill is sanely grounding… thanks i need not say more.

  • yoopermoose

    Thank you Dorian. I would be more likely to agree with Ms. McKinley if she was not attacking liberals at the same time she was bemoaning anger, pettiness and self-rightousness.

  • dduck

    Jeez, you can’t “attack” anyone these days without it ending in a partisan accusation. If, the publisher was wrong/right it would be nice” if we just stuck with whether it was wise/unwise, stupid/not stupid, justified/unjustified or misplaced/OK journalism; but, nooooo, we have to start pointing partisan fingers.

  • Hunter-Seeker

    Partisanship and other labels is how we define ourselves these days whether or not is liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican, pro-gun control/anti-gun control, etc. ad naseum. We define ourselves by the group with which we are most comfortable and that group-think is self-reinforcing and provides those warm-and-fuzzies. Media and social media provide immediate gratification and further define the label we choose. The fact that there is a perceived “enemy” tightens and deepens the bubble layer and provides the visceral emotional context. Everything, even issues totally tangential to our primary label, become group-defined. Everything becomes partisan and we point fingers at the “bad” because we are “good.” As many have written, compromise is a dirty word because you become dirty in the process. It is a sad situation.

  • jdledell

    Kathleen – Don’t you think your rant was a little one-sided? Your point about it being inappropriate for the newspaper to publish the names and addresses of gun owners is well taken and I agree with your position. Why not just write about this aspect rather than having it dissolve into derogatory commentary about “smug elite media types” and the liberal media. I noticed you quickly absolved the blogger who outed the newspaper people. In your mind was it okay for Michelle Malkin to publish the names and contact information of the Santa Cruz anti-war protest leaders so they got inundated with death threats? Is it personal when Rush Limbaugh calls Sandra Fluke a slut because of her Congressional testimony?

    You state that Obama won the presidency with a divide and conquer strategy. After 4 years of one side yelling about he’s a muslim, and anti-colonialist, not born in America, trying to destroy the U.S. etc etc that the conservatives are all love and peace? Does makers and takers and 47% ring a bell?

    You criticize the media for being biased. Can you name one media outlet you think is unbiased? I think they are all biased and they exist along a continuum from very biased on one end to the very biased on the other end but the majority are around the middle. We are dealing with a human endeavor, so the media will to some extent be imperfect.

    I don’t think anyone at TMV dislikes your conservative perspective. Frankly, we could use more of that perspective. But you do yourself and your cause no favors by tossing around pejorative phrases.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Thank you jdledell for saying it so much better, nicer, and effectively than I ever could.

  • The_Ohioan

    Ah, Kathleen

    You are so right. Now the cops are investigating David Gregory for just showing a clip/magazine to Mr. LaPierre. Where will it all end?

    http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigating-whether-nbcs-gregory-violated-gun-170426968–abc-news-politics.html

  • StockBoyLA

    I can just imagine these counties now. Angry gun owners calling the editor and reporters at their homes, and neighbors refusing to be friends anymore with someone who owns a gun.

    I think most people will remain friends with people who own guns. I think people pretty much know who owns guns and who doesn’t.

    But there is also a practical reason, for safety, to know who owns guns. If you have a six year old child would want them playing with their friend whose father was a gun owner? I think if someone wants to own a gun they have that right and I’m not going to not be friends with them for that reason. But if I had a child I would damn sure want to make sure the gun owners were responsible, kept the gun under lock and key and the ammo in a completely different location. Too many children are killed by playing with guns.

    So in that respect this comment is telling:

    She honestly thought that creating an interactive map with the names and addresses of gun owners, as if they are like sexual offenders, was a great idea.

    Both guns and sexual offenders ARE DANGEROUS. I disagree with the implication the author makes that guns are not dangerous and their owners have a right to privacy and hide their ownership.

    And no, I’m not suggesting that names of gun owners be published but given the mental instability of some gun owners, the very purpose of guns (to kill) and the danger they present to EVERYONE I think we should have an honest discussion on the best way to protect the innocent of this country from gun owners who go wild.

  • StockBoyLA

    One side believes something completely different than the other, but as a civil society we sit down and we talk it out. We don’t resort to Junior High meanness.

    I think the media and liberals HAVE been trying to “talk it out” but the response from the right has been, “more guns and no gun control”.

    I think if liberals were trying to ban guns altogether then this would be an appropriate statement. However the people who want THEIR way (including the author who believes that publishing the names of gun owners is outrageous and doesn’t even acknowledge a benefit to knowing which of your neighbors own guns or stock piling assault rifles are conservatives who haven’t wanted an honest conversation in this country about anything in years.

    The mere mention of gun control, which is meant to save lives of innocent people (not take away guns from law abiding citizens) is met with derision.

  • StockBoyLA

    But what a price America is paying for that. Neighbor against neighbor. Friend against friend. Brother against brother.

    Which party ostracizes anyone who does not toe the party line? Which party wants to break families apart by deporting certain undocumented immigrants (and even if you are legal, you’re still not welcome)? Which party is passing constitutional amendments BANNING marriage between two people simply because that party doesn’t like, much less respect, people who are different? Which party says they’re going to “take back America” by armed revolt from the liberals? Which party appeals largely to one demographic and offers no plans to address the needs of other communities?

    People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

    I disagree with the author that liberals are turning people against each other just because liberals want to have a conversation about improving the quality of life for everyone and explore ways on avoiding gun violence as much as possible.

  • StockBoyLA

    I do not accept the deaths of innocent people when many of those deaths can be prevented by sensible gun control.

    I do not accept the notion of “meet guns with more guns” is a way to respond to violence.

    I do not accept the inevitable place where this country will be in another generation if we follow the NRA’s prescription, which is armed to the teeth, with police officers on every fire truck, armed guards at every school, more armed police, guards, etc. roaming the beaches and parks, armed security guards in every store, bar, library, etc. Checkpoints entering into certain sections of the city, etc. And all because some people want to own and carry a gun.

    I refuse to live in a prison-like state and have to watch very carefully what I say because some nut carrying a gun might misinterpret what I say (or the way I look at him) and shoot me on the street and then claim self-defense.

  • The_Ohioan

    The information was on public record, but it took a FOIA request to get it? It’s not like anyone can walk in and check out his neighbor before allowing his children to enter their home. I don’t have an answer as to whether it should be private like voting and party registration is. I suppose an argument could be made for being able to check it out if you have a neighbor who is …odd… even if it takes a FOIA request. The confidentiality once breached can only, like taxation and regulation of products and/or services produces an underground economy, drive the owners underground and unregistered.

    Having many inlaws that are gun owners (including a DNA officer), I must admit I’ve never been concerned that they wouldn’t handle their weapons properly – it never crossed my mind. After all they have children, too, and are as concerned about them as I am for mine.

    I dislike both the original publication of owner’s names and the publication of the names and phone numbers/facebook/etc. of the newspaper’s employees – whether they had anything to do with the newspaper’s publication or not. These things spiral out of control quite quickly, especially in today’s wired society.

  • ordinarysparrow

    I refuse to live in a prison-like state and have to watch very carefully what I say because some nut carrying a gun might misinterpret what I say (or the way I look at him) and shoot me on the street and then claim self-defense.

    I agree with StockBoyLA…From time to time there might be a few of the ones that swagger around in places where no guns should be… i might would want to speak freely…but with a gun on their hip it would likely restrict my free speech..Which is the First Amendment Right….

    Kathleen, hope you have a New Year filled with joy and peace…

  • ShannonLeee

    The NRA has no one to attack, so they are going after the lame stream media. The author is very right about how very wrong it was to publish the names of gun owners, but she then had to take it so very extreme in how she painted elites, liberals, and the media with one large brush.

    This is the problem with extremists. They tangent into the wrong, even when they are right.

    And….if I wanted to steal a gun… I know where to look.

  • The_Ohioan

    SL

    :-) Too late; any thief worth their salt has already acted.

  • SteveK

    And… if I wanted to steal a gun… I know where to look.

    To paraphrase the NRA, ‘these are good guys with a gun’ so this shouldn’t be a problem… They’re armed and therefore able to ‘get’ the ‘bad guy.’

    So there’s nothing to worry about. ;)

  • sheknows

    ” It was sickening to use the deaths of children for a political agenda to begin with, forcing law abiding citizens to defend their 2nd Amendment rights at a time when they only wanted to be silent and honor those who had died”

    By “political agenda”, you mean the issue of gun control. Nobody USED their deaths for that. The horrendous event brought it to light…AGAIN.

    Forcing “law abiding citizens”, you mean the NRA, to defend their 2nd amendment rights. That is all the NRA does. They defend the right to own any and all of the most deadly weapons imaginable.

    “At a time when they only wanted to be silent and honor those who had died”. You mean the NRA refused comment because they HAVE no rational answer as to why any sane human would want to own a semi-automatic weapon with high capacity magazines. When they finally DID break their silence of “honor”, they refused to take questions in a press conference for the same reason.

    Clearly, the second amendment ranks higher to you and the NRA than a persons right to ” life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” that was taken from innocents.