Friday, April 6, 2007

The Spin Zone...

But she conceded a point that many experts have made: This "is a problem that is going to have to be addressed. If we drive these offenders so far underground or we can't supervise them because they become so transient, it's not making us safer."

This is a point being made about laws that are growing more popular across the country, limiting where sex-offenders can live. I am not suggesting that we should treat sex offenders lightly, and allow them to live next to schools, but I think we need to put more thought into the consequences of the actions we are taking. Statistics show that a majority of children who are molested are molested by people they already know. Changing where people live doesn't solve the issue if parents that know these offenders are either unaware, or uncaring of the threat that they present to their children.

There are loop wholes in this strategy as well, the biggest threat isn't where these people live, but where they go, and how they gain the trust of their victims. Living miles from the nearest person could serve to protect offenders and their crimes if it means that no one will hear the victims screams, or that victims have little ability to escape. If a offender is able to access victims at a park or a school, the offender doesn't have to live near either, just to have access.

You can go that one step further and limit their access to parks, and under most circumstances they have no reason to be on a children's school campus. What you can't do is prevent them for waiting near the park or the school and watching for an opportunity. Again I am not arguing against these laws, my point is two fold. One that these laws are not as strong at protecting children as those who support them may believe. Two that it could make offenders harder to track.

There are some cities where the area that offenders can live in is extremely restricted. While I understand the concept behind limiting an offender from living across the street from a school or a house. At a distance of a half-mile or more the threat seems to be as equal as one mile. If our goal is to find a solution to this crime, we need to find a balance. These laws could backfire by not only pushing offenders into the streets, but they could choose to not register, which would push them out of the system that could help them and track them.

The Soup: The Reaping

TV Squad Daily with Brigitte: 04-06-07

Video Links

Village Sniper

Who do we invade next?

Dressing in drag to offend...

Nights of Legos...

A boy goes surfing

Can't get away...

Why Sanjaya is still on American Idol

Star Catchers

Hannity Sulks Over Release Of Iranian Captives Pt2

Hannity Sulks Over Release Of Iranian Captives Pt1


Cruise ship sinking.

Bill O'Reilly - Drunk Driving Outrage

Two Missing After Greek Cruise Ship Sinks

KO'd - Cheney Named Worst Person

The Spin Zone

What do I think about the recent events, well let me tell you.

The argument between Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera was great TV, and if you missed it you should see it. There is a video of it a couple posts down. To the point that they were talking about though. O'Reilly is on the war path about two teen girls that were killed in an accident with a drunk driver. The driver as it happens was an illegal immigrant. Rivera rightly points out that the fact that these two girls died is sad, and it is sad that they were killed by a drunk driver, but it is irrelevant that he was not a legal citizen. I agree with Rivera on this point very strongly, that crimes are committed is always sad, when young people die, it is sad. It is not however more sad or less sad based on the citizenship of the person involved. An unfortunate number of people are killed every year in alcohol related accidents that involve only American citizens.
I have been watching Fox News on my cell phone, so I am seeing a lot of Bill O'Reilly, also there are a lot of videos of him at YouTube. In his fued with Rosie, I really don't support either party in this. I can't support the idea that O'Reilly is putting out there that O'Donnell should not be able to voice her opinions. On the other hand I do find that O'Donnell is not doing herself any favors by making these outrages statements. There are times when we talk about what people say, and there are times we talk about how people say what they say. I don't think that O'Donnell is choosing the best platform or language for communicating her ideas in a way that will reach other people. Her language has done more to upset, and make people angry. The people who support her here that and get angry in agreement, those who oppose her hear that and get angry in disagreement. There is little to no real communication taking place between one side and the other when communication takes these terms.
Moving right along, Nancy Pelosi is in the Middle East. She is talking to leaders in Syria, which angers many people in the administration, and in the country. I think that her trip is poorly planed and could result in further attacks on America. When a country becomes divided the way her trip makes the world believe we are, it invites attack. There are no doubt forces of evil in this world that will manipulate this for their own ends. It could even threaten her life, by being an international player she becomes an international target by those who think that targeting her. If a group cannot get the attention of the president through terror, I can see how they might attempt to target that terror at Pelosi, hoping that she will open discussions that will make their cause legitimate.


Dante Rose Pleiades's Facebook profile