Some of the more hysterically mendacious liberal Democrats are all excited and congratulating themselves for exposing what they call "bogus sex offender postcards"
In reference to the above postcard that was sent out to state residents, Democrat blogger David Goldstein wrote
The state GOP leadership ... mailed out a fake “Sex Offender Notification” postcard to tens of thousands of households scattered throughout the state.Except it's not a fake. The person depicted in the postcard is a level 3 sex offender last known to be in Pierce County. He is "considered at a high risk to reoffend" and is somewhere in the community, but "has no supervision requirement", so we can't be sure exactly where he is. There are laws to protect sex offenders from harassment, so I'm not going to post his name, but go to the Pierce County list of Level 3 Offenders and you'll find him listed in an unincorporated part of the county. I post the description of his brutal crimes in the extended entry.
For whatever reason, the Democrats are not as tough on violent criminals as most people think they should be. I suspect that part of the reason that the Ds wanted lesser sentences for offenders who are known to their victims is not, as publicly stated, to ensure more convictions of creepy uncles, but to protect teachers who prey on their students. The fact is, the GOP pressure on the Democrats is working to create better legislation. The Democrat activists who are exclusively interested in partisan advantage and will distort the facts at the expense of protecting kids from dangerous predators should really be ashamed of themselves.
This description of the crimes committed by the real sex offender in the postcard is not for the faint of heart --
According to official documents, XXX approached a 9 year-old girl and her 7 year-old male playmate while they were playing. He asked them if they had seen his dog, and they said they had not. XXX drove his vehicle up and down the street for approximately 20 minutes, supposedly looking for his dog. He then stopped again where the children were and asked if they would be willing to help him look for his dog. When the girl was hesitant to get into the vehicle, he showed her pictures of his children in order to convince her that he was a responsible person. XXX then drove the children to a secluded spot where he tied the boy up, gagged him and put him in the back seat. He then sexually assaulted the girl, threatening to kill her if she did not comply. XXX then returned the children to their original location. The police apprehended XXX after he abducted another little girl. This girl began to scream, kick, and hit him. She then grabbed the steering wheel of his car. When he slowed down, the girl opened the door and jumped out. A police officer happened to be nearby and was able to arrest him. XXX pled guilty to Rape 1st Degree in 1983 and was granted 20 years suspended sentence on condition of entering into and successfully completing the Sexual Psychopath Program at Western State Hospital. In 1985, the Suspended Sentence was revoked due to XXX being terminated from the treatment program for lack of progress. He then began serving his prison sentence and has been in custody since that time.
XXX has no other sex offense convictions; however, he has disclosed other child abductions for which he was not caught. The first occurred during the summer of 1971 in Utah. He saw an approximately 3 year-old girl who had gone into the restroom. When she came out, he picked her up, carried her to his car and drove to a church parking lot. He then pulled her pants off and fondled and kissed her. In 1974, he was looking for girls to molest. He was able to talk two girls, ages 6 and 11, into his car using the pretext of looking for his dog. He drove to an isolated area, put the younger girl in the back seat, and sexually assaulted the 11 year-old girl. XXX’s third abduction was in July 1981 and he was again looking for girls to molest when he came upon a 7 year-old girl. He again used the pretext of looking for his dog to talk to the girl. XXX then pretended his car wouldn’t start and asked her for assistance. He pushed her into the car, drove to an isolated location, and sexually assaulted her. XXX then drove her back to her original location. XXX also disclosed that his deviant sexual behavior began when he was 13-14 years old when he began playing and wrestling with much younger girls, which he found sexually stimulating. He reported that he had been involved with children like this on many occasions and this kind of molesting continued up to the time of his arrest.
XXX is an untreated sex offender and is considered at a high risk to reoffend. XXX will not be supervised by a community corrections officer and, therefore, has no supervision requirements.
Unfortunately he lives near me.
Posted by: Vince Callaway on January 23, 2006 12:34 PMBefore anyone says that he has no superision so "he could be anywhere" this is a low political stunt and I am ashamed of you StePHan for jumping on the "sex offender scare" bandwagon.
The ReThugs deserve to be banished and never again even come close to a majority for this one. Sick.
Posted by: LEFT is RIGHT on January 23, 2006 12:43 PMNobody is going to ram a big sex-offender bill down this Legislature's throats and ask people to sign it on the same day it is introduced, especially when the mailers and robocalls are already in place to smear Democrats on the day the bill is introduced.
We'll deal with the offender problem in our own time, not on some GOP consultant's timetable.
This will cripple you worse than the Lori Sotelo business did, and it will be my pleasure to help make that happen.
We all have families and we all want them to be safe from scum like this. You lot will make a political football out of this at your own peril.
ivan says "This will cripple you worse than the Lori Sotelo business did, and it will be my pleasure to help make that happen."
yes, that's right ivan...kill the messenger. but not the pedophile.i would like to think that all democrats are not this idiotic but ,alas, as time goes by i am beginning to think they are.
and L is R...since this creep has no supervision , how do you know he's not in vancouver? hmmmm?
you don't. that's the point.
Posted by: christmasghost on January 23, 2006 01:11 PM
Why must we lie to make a political point? It irks me. Sensationalism does not become us.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 23, 2006 01:19 PM"It is the honor system, and that's what all elections in the state of Washington are based on," Diepenbrock said. "We believe in our voters. We believe they are telling the truth. Whether it is about molesting children or registering votes. Everyone in Washington is innocent."
I also find it amazing that Dems insist on such high levels of specificity when it comes to one thing (the location of a sex offenders), but zero levels of accuracy or specificity on another (residential address of voters).
Especially when the level of specificity in one case may provide residents with a false sense of security. If sex offenders lived in Pierce County, should everyone in King County feel completely safe?! Of course not.
Let's face it, Goldy and the libs, aren't interested in anyone's personal safety, just government job safety.
Posted by: tired democrat on January 23, 2006 01:24 PMI think we need to just take sex offenders and throw them (literally) off of a bridge. Or at least dunk them in our rivers like witches were in Massachusetts' 300-400 years ago, ACLU be darned (after a fair trial, of course).
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 23, 2006 01:25 PMWhy do you think imposing mandatory life sentences for sex offenders will help, when it will be a less of a sentence if the molestor just kills the victim instead?
We dont have mandatory life sentences for murder,so what do you idiots think a sex predator is going to do when faced with what to do ?
This is why your knee-jerk reactions will never win a majority in this state, they dont make sense, and they make things worse for more people than not.
Posted by: Eric on January 23, 2006 01:27 PM1. The postcards say "This violent predator lives in your community." That is not true. The GOP should not have sent out cards that said that.
2. The GOP could easily have sent out postcards that had the picture of a similarly violent sex offender at large in the community to every community in this state. Lord knows there are lots of them that have been let out without supervision.
3. Whoever is responsible for the error described in (1) should be fired. It has allowed the Dim's to distract from point(2). The underlying point is completely legitimate, a certain equine rear-end notwithstanding.
Posted by: Matt from Olympia on January 23, 2006 01:34 PMThe likes of ivan, eric, lefty, rush to the defense of this piece of sh##.
I doubt they have children, they wouldn't talk the way they do, but then, maybe they are willing to sacrifice their young children for the greater good.
Posted by: dan on January 23, 2006 01:38 PMhttp://www.onestrikelaw.org
Don't wait for the "predator industrial complex" to make inadequate, feel good changes - do it yourself via the Initiative.
Put the predators away for LIFE!
Posted by: NoSecondChances on January 23, 2006 01:41 PMBut let Chester the molester "know" his victim and baby it is a few months and back to the old porno store even with smokin' gun proof! Say what? Next up Dean Logan gets a lighter sentence because he knows who is cheating the elections system.
Thanks Dems you really know how to engender a sense of security. I keep thinking you're a bunch of molesters writing the laws that you know will apply to you! After all if the eeevil R's were a bunch of Chester’s would you not reinstate the death penalty?!
This exact same card was mailed in 6 different districts, and the card boldy states at the top: "This predator lives in your community." That is a lie. It is a lie pure and simple. The GOP House leadership is lying in a despicable and irresponsible way, creating fear and anger in the families who receive this bogus "Sex Offender Notification", and who are wrongly led to believe that this creep has moved into their neighborhood.
Defend it if you want, but this is just plain wrong.
Posted by: Goldy on January 23, 2006 01:46 PMThe irrelevent failure makes an appearance. Posted by: Reporterward on January 23, 2006 01:55 PM
For example, the standard sentence range for FIRST DEGREE MURDER is 240 to 320 months (with no prior record). Judges will usually give the low to middle part of the range, so the normal sentence will be from 20 years to 23 years.
Presently, rape of a child under 12 years of age carries a 9 year minimum sentence. They call it 9 YEARS TO LIFE, but the LIFE part of it generally means that someone is on parole for LIFE after doing their 9 years, and can be sent back at any time for as long as deemed appropriate if they violate their parole conditions.
The GOP proposal would make any rape of a child under 16 years of age punishable by LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE if accomplished through force or violence. And rape of a child under 12 years of age without force or violence would get 30 YEARS TO LIFE.
The Democrat proposal would make rape of a child under 12 years of age punishable by 25 YEARS TO LIFE, but only if one of the two following situations applied: (a) force or violence was used, OR (b) the predator did not previously know the victim.
Otherwise, the Democrats would allow the offender to qualify for a "FRIENDS AND FAMILY DISCOUNT" -- either the current 9 YEARS TO LIFE, or as little as 6 months if the offender qualifies for treatment.
In any event, I don't think FIRST DEGREE MURDER should be punished less severely than RAPE OF A CHILD. Probably there needs to be more prison time for First Degree Murder.
But I would see the following sentences to be appropriate:
First Degree Murder -- Life Without Parole
Rape of Child with Force or Violence -- 30 Years to Life
Rape of Child without Force or Violence -- 15 Years to Life
And no "Friends and Family Discount".
It would also be good to raise the age of sexual consent from 16 to 18 while we are at it.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 23, 2006 01:57 PMgo back where you came from, Seattle is my community, King County is my community, Wa State is my community. I want to know where this piece of sh## is at all times in my community.
Posted by: dan on January 23, 2006 01:58 PMshark, this is a straw man argument--your post does not explain at all what party relationship has to do with this criminal.
i mean you now have a republican party that is equally mendacious about its activities, yet we are told it is a 'bad apple' situation and nothing to do with a culture of corruption plaguing the republican party.
speaking of which, any washington republicans sucking at the teet of jack...off, or have you guys bothered to ask?
Posted by: dinesh on January 23, 2006 02:10 PMThere should be no level 3 sex offenders on the street. If you are likely to rape a kid again, you should be locked away forever.
For parents that live near a level 2 or better, (there are many in my zip code in King county) I only have 3 letters for you... CCW.
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on January 23, 2006 02:12 PMA security guard can carry a gun to protect money for a bank... Why can't parents carry a gun to protect their kids? Posted by: Jason Woodruff on January 23, 2006 02:14 PM
Except maybe in Seattle where the rate of households which consist of parents with minor children is quite low. Those without children (singles, shackups, homosexuals) may not realize the level of fear us normo-americans feel. But we remember how we could go out and play all day when we were kids, but cannot let our kids do so now.
When a level 2 sex offender moved into my Seattle neighborhood, the police distributed prominent notices - warning us of his legal right not to be harassed by us.
The empire is crumbling and the barbarians are near. Be afraid. Posted by: S Adler on January 23, 2006 02:16 PM
Their agenda is based on the premiss that individuals are not responsible, therefore no consequence should following an action.
Get pregnant, no problem, choice.
Can't plan for retirement, no problem, Social Security.
Can't keep a job, no problem.
Can't stay sober, no problem.
Can't stay in school, no problem.
The nanny state will take care of you.
Since no one is responsible, the only logical conclusion is that a child rapist must be sick, and his action out of his control. Therefore he must be helped, not punished. Stiffer laws show no compassion for the poor sick fellow.
The disease is liberalism.
The cure...
don't let facts get in the way of your rant....
under bush and the republican congress, unfunded fiscal liabilities have DOUBLED to $43 trillion.
you want big govt: no problem, vote republican
you want warrantless searches: no problem, vote republican
growing deficits: no problem vote republican
poor war strategy: no problem, vote republican
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/whitehousewalker1205/index.html
the nanny state you despise is growing under these "pseudo" conservatives.
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/whitehousewalker1205/img5.html
Posted by: dinesh on January 23, 2006 02:33 PMBring up the social security issue, D response, no problem.
Dems war strategy - RETREAT
That was Clinton that did the warrantless search of Ames' US house. If you forgot he is a D.
The dems want more spending (healthcare etc.) so you would have bigger deficits.
More tax revenue was brought in last year than ANY time, showing the economic policies work.
Posted by: fred on January 23, 2006 02:40 PMDemocrats are the anti-nanny party which will give us freedom of choice -
as long as you don't choose to smoke, drink, go to a strip club, send your child to the school of your choice, contribute your life savings to the candidate of your choice, hire and fire whom you choose....
But you all know which is the only choice that really matters - wink wink! Hint - just a blob of cells.
If there are legitimate policy concerns about offender monitoring, raise them properly and try to get bipartisan support for your proposed solutions. Let the debate take place in the House and the Senate.
Then, if you think the Dems are dragging their heels, then you might have some legitimate campaign talking points.
To say we're soft on perps is a L-I-E, and we'll make you pay for that lie. Perps don't care what party their victims belong to. We are all equally at risk.
But no. The GOP dropped a big fat bill on the Dems, who are in the majority, remember, and demanded that they sign off on it in 24 hours.
The GOP had the mailings and the robocalls all ready to go, and everybody knows this. It was a setup job from the beginning.
If you had legitimate policy concerns -- and I'm not saying they weren't all legitimate -- you could have gotten them by raising them in committee.
But no. You'd rather play Gotcha! Well, we can play that too.
Posted by: Ivan on January 23, 2006 02:48 PMYou say, "This exact same card was mailed in 6 different districts, and the card boldy states at the top: "This predator lives in your community." That is a lie. It is a lie pure and simple."
Goldy, how do you know where this guy lives?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 23, 2006 02:50 PMFace it, if this had no impact, the goldys of the world would have cared less. They're terrified that this issue is gaining traction. Thus, the vast majority of their vitriol is aimed at the messengers.... and damned little is spent on the message.
The d's can make this go away by doing the right thing: vote for the bill.
Posted by: Hinton on January 23, 2006 03:00 PMBingo! We still haven't gotton over last year... arrrghhh!!
Posted by: A Watchdog on January 23, 2006 03:10 PMQuit your whining, Ivan. It's called politics and apparently you and yours don't like it when the GOP does it. Tough nuts.
Newflash: The Dems did it just as much when they were in the minority in Olympia. In fact, the whining about 'bi-partisan solutions' (ie, pass our legislation instead) was unbearable.
The purpose of the minority party - whether you agree with it or not - is to make the majority party look as bad and inept as possible. And unlike your brethern in DC, at least the Washington state Rs are proposing ideas and alternatives. So what if it doesn't fit your schedule. Tough nuts.
Pass the bill and the problem goes away, right? But no, you'd rather whine about those mean Republicans who have the audacity to point out the majority party isn't passing tough-enough legislation in order to protect the public from Level III sex offenders.
Posted by: jimg on January 23, 2006 03:10 PMYour all getting bent out of shape for a very trivial reason and completely miss the underlying point... and because of that, you're going to lose this arguement with the voters. Explain to me how this is going to blow up in the Republican's face? What, because this particular sex offender doesn't live in all the districts the card was mailed out to? Big freaking deal, there are scores of others that do live there. I just found out one now lives three buildings down from my condo complex. And the Democrats want to give a discount to perps who know their victims? That is far more offensive to me than some bone-head at the WSRP making a postcard saying pervert X lives in all these places when he only lives in Peirce County.
Posted by: Mike H on January 23, 2006 03:36 PMWeiss says, ” here's what all you wingnuts and the L-I-A-R-S who put out these mailings and organized these robocalls don't understand.”
What lie? Who lied? Weiss . . . do you know what a lie is?
Weiss says, ”If there are legitimate policy concerns about offender monitoring, raise them properly and try to get bipartisan support for your proposed solutions. Let the debate take place in the House and the Senate. Then, if you think the Dems are dragging their heels, then you might have some legitimate campaign talking points.”
Oh I get it . . . talking openly about the fact that liberal democrats like you are soft on crime and the perpetrators of violence against children and refuse to do anything about them is . . . L-Y-I-N-G.
Weiss says, ”To say we're soft on perps is a L-I-E, and we'll make you pay for that lie. Perps don't care what party their victims belong to. We are all equally at risk.”
What are you going to do, make us pay by continuing to ignore your duty as a human to protect children? What about your own daughter moron?
Weiss says, ”But no. The GOP dropped a big fat bill on the Dems, who are in the majority, remember, and demanded that they sign off on it in 24 hours. The GOP had the mailings and the robocalls all ready to go, and everybody knows this. It was a setup job from the beginning. If you had legitimate policy concerns -- and I'm not saying they weren't all legitimate -- you could have gotten them by raising them in committee.”
We shouldn’t have to raise anything in committee. The fact that the subject is raised here and you CHANGE THE SUBJECT AS USUAL just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about, and no desire to address the real issues associated with it. You truly are a fascist pig!
Weiss says, “But no. You'd rather play Gotcha! Well, we can play that too.”
Play what game Weiss? The game of discussing failures of liberal democrats to protect our children from violent sex offenders? Spell it out moron.
You probably beleive that I am writing this to you. What a pathetic joke you are.
How about mandatory Death penalty for child murder as a "disincentive"?
Your argument is fatuous: you suggest a molester will undertake a mental calculation about how heavy his sentence is going to be, and will kill a child he has just molested to avoid a life sentence.
But wouldn't that necessarily posit a molester is lucid, aware of the consequences, expecting consequences and punishment? If they were that rational, they wouldn't risk molesting at all, would they?
This is why your knee-jerk reactions will never win a majority in this state, they dont make sense, and they make things worse for more people than not.
Think carefully of how you've constructed your fallacious point: you're saying in no uncertain terms that in order to save children's lives, we must not have a life sentence for sex predators.
I'm trying to imagine you explaining your theory to a future victim of a re-offender: "You see, if we had locked him up for life, other molesters might have killed other victims to avoid a harsh penalty. Letting him out was for the best." You would have no response for the rage you would reap from his parents.
You have no business disparaging anyone else's intelligence with logic as flawed as yours. Put down the bong and study some basic forensics.
Posted by: Brian Crouch on January 23, 2006 03:48 PMCheesy, cheap, and amateurish... Just like the great vote challenge...
Posted by: Playin' Possum on January 23, 2006 04:30 PMYou stick to your mantra of whining about how the Republicans are politicizing an issue, while the Republicans point to the substance behind the politics.
Rs - "Lock up sex offenders."
Ds - "The Rs aren't playing fair."
You'd think a hacked-out, union mouthpiece such as yourself would understand 'kitchen table' issues. Apparently not.
Posted by: jimg on January 23, 2006 04:38 PMYou blustered Goldy, how do you know where this guy lives?.
The answer, which even Stefan could figure out, is that he's in the Pierce County sex offender registry. Not only do they specify that he lives in Gig Harbor, they even let you know which block of which street he lives on.
Such idiots here...
Posted by: someone on January 23, 2006 04:39 PMI'm not saying the R's "aren't playing fair."
I'm saying they are liars. L-I-A-R-S.
And that's an issue that goes beyond the kitchen table. Nobody likes a L-I-A-R.
Posted by: Ivan on January 23, 2006 04:43 PMFor liberal liars like Clownstein to try to nitpick the postcard just because it didn't have a matched sex offender to a particular community totally overlooks the FACT that for any community, the chances are very good that there some sex offender living in their own community in a similar situation.
The excuse that is given is that some Democrat in Vancouver shouldn't care one bit about sex offenders molesting kids in Pierce County. That is BS! We should all care about sex offenders molesting children whether they live in our immediate neighborhood or not. If we ignore them because they are in another county, guess where they will show up next?
Unfortunately the issue cannot be debated at Clownstein's site because he censors those who present facts rather than useless liberal blather.
Posted by: pbj on January 23, 2006 04:49 PMI wonder what they'd say if it was their own 7 year old daughter who was kidnapped and raped?
They'd forgive and forget and never tell anyone and probably hand over their 6 year old son to this animal. Just what is it they are saying?
Posted by: dan on January 23, 2006 04:52 PMWhen have I ever claimed to be a republican?
I am conservative / libertarian.
Which means personal responsibility, and limited government.
As to your off topic points:
you want big gov't: no problem, vote republican
No real argument, the federal government should be held strictly to the tenth amendment.
you want warrantless searches: no problem, vote republican
You should do a little research, the "domestic surveillance" is not what the MSM and dems claim. The calls being intercepted are from know persons of interest with terror links into the US. Congress was briefed. LEGAL.
growing deficits: no problem vote republican
We've just been through the Clinton recession, acerbated by 9/11. Followed by spending on the War on Terror. The economic is in very good shape, unemployment less than 5%, personal wealth at an all time high, GDP is up, and on and on, and most importantly revenues at an all time high. The deficit is only a bugaboo when a (R) is in the Oval office.
poor war strategy: no problem, vote republican
Stay away from the MSM the Iraq war is going very well the enemy can only bury bombs and run away. They have not mounted an offensive operation for nearly 2 years.
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/whitehousewalker1205/index.html
the nanny state you despise is growing under these "pseudo" conservatives.
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/whitehousewalker1205/img5.html
Again the Federal government should not be in welfare (of any form), health care, or anything else.
Now can you point to a dem proposed legislation that increased personal liberty and responsibility?
If this fellow spent almost 20 years in prison, and was still a threat to society, then he should have gotten at least 24 MONTHS for possessing cocaine, and not just 24 HOURS.
The GOP does indeed have some comeback ammunition when Democrats complain about this miscreant being used as a poster monster all accross the state.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 23, 2006 06:51 PMThe Democraps in Olympia say they take this stuff seriously, but all I see is the same old "they just need help" bullsh**. Some people have screwed up brains that we cannot fix. Unless you are willing to put your kids on the line, it is time to put these creeps away for LIFE!!!!
Posted by: Burdabee on January 23, 2006 07:03 PMYet Stephan tries to claim that the card "is not a fake" because (as no one disputes) the guy is really a sex offender. That's like trying to say that it's not a fraud to try to sell someone the Brooklyn Bridge by saying, "No, I wasn't lying. There really IS a Brooklyn Bridge! Really!"
Stephan is a smart guy, more than smart enough to know the difference (or so I've always thought till now).
Isn't it sad to see him reduced to such silly arguments? Really, if this is the kind of thing that the Repubs need to do to try to win political points, it's an especially sad day for y'all.
Posted by: Vonnegut on January 23, 2006 07:16 PMRight now the only ones who have any kahunas in this discussion are those who think these sickos just need a few counseling sessions. So, Ivan, if you want to see who's are tougher, you better get some first. I am appalled at how you can side with the creep on the postcard. What next, call up John Walsh and tell him he can't show pictures of suspected fugitives because we don't know 100% that they committed the crime? Get real!!!
Posted by: Burdabee on January 23, 2006 07:24 PMAnd for anyone who thinks I am over the top on this, I had a close call years ago when my state licensed baby sitting facility got a visit from social services because of an anonymous call that the hubby of the one of the sitters was molesting his teen daughter. Any one who thinks it's easy to get a conviction has never been through the system. The teen wouldn't testify, mom sided with dad, and dad was painted as Mr. Community because he was a firefighter who went above and beyond the call of duty. It was weeks before I could sleep at night knowing my kids were in such a potentially dangerous situation. The good Lord was watching over us.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 23, 2006 07:30 PMYou asked Goldy: "Goldy, how do you know where this guy lives?"
We don't need to know where he lives. I can guarantee you that he does not live in three different places at once. Therefore, to send this postcard to three different counties with the statement, "This violent predator lives in your community" is obviously a lie.
Even if they had only sent it to one place, but did not know that that particular sex offender lived in that place, it would be a lie.
The lie is a result of their wording. There are plenty of good ways they could have reworded the postcard that would not have been a lie... but they would have been less sensational.
I hate sensationalism, and the marketers that put out sensationalist lies to sway opinion. I'm a hardcore Washington Republican, but I have no intention of going along with my party leadership on this monstrosity.
It's a lie, plain and simple. Goldy doesn't need to know where the perp lives to know that. Your snide response to him, frankly, just makes you look foolish.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 23, 2006 07:53 PMYou should be more careful with your accusations when your own pot is equally black. How many priests have been accused of sexual molestation? They're generally conservative and Republican - thus should we be drawing generalizations on you? How about all those military officers who rape children in other countries - aren't they generally Republican? And those (Cheney) Halliburton contractors working in Iraq - there are documented cases of those men raping young boys and girls. Is that why the Bush/Cheney administration wants Americans to be above the law in other countries - so that they can let their campaign contributing Republicans walk away from child rape charges? Thus the implication that the Bush administration protects child molestors as well could be made - but I won't lower myself to your contemptible level to make that accusation.
This is a purely partisan ploy - disgusting, low, and completely reprehensible. The fact that you would say something like this only shows your lack of moral character and your desperation to paint Democrats in a worse light than your increasingly repugnant Republican party (they weren't always repugnant - but people like you and those who engineered this despicable tactic are sinking it like a rock - perhaps the decent ones will wise-up and leave). You're pathetic and you have my ultimate pity. Hopefully someday you can regain some shred of humanity.
It would have been enough to simply point at that most teachers would never willingly allow a sexual predator to work among them. I bet you are right about that.
However, when watching the WEA in action, it is hard to believe that they have much interest in what's best for children. They get involved in plenty of "activism" they have no business being involved in (such as trying to arrange a boycott of Walmart) while they are completely against any sort of choice for the parents of public school children.
I doubt the WEA wants to protect child molestors. But, I also doubt they want protect children.
Posted by: BananaLand on January 23, 2006 08:18 PMRichard Pope makes some good points and if you permissive lefties don't think so (no names need be mentioned, but the previous posts tell volumes), I'd be wary about your sordid pasts and so should other people with children and the children themselves.
Posted by: KS on January 23, 2006 08:56 PMYou obviously have NO IDEA about priests and their political leanings. Have you been a regular at a Roman Catholic parish in Seattle within the last 10 years? If so (and I highly doubt it given your statement) you would know that most of the priests in this Archdiocese are so far to the left that they don't need to drink any of the wine to help them fall over. Such a bad, stereotypical example to use.
The product of our schools, the result of what teachers are doing to our children, is "disgusting .... and completely reprehensible."
Posted by: Michael on January 23, 2006 09:15 PMSex offenders fail to register, and maintain a current address with the proper authorities we put up the old fashioned Wanted Dead or Alive Posters with a bounty of $10,000.
Save the taxpayers money and removes scum from the streets. My guess is they would be very diligent about being current with update the authorities about address, after all they only want to stay alive to offend another day.
Posted by: JCM on January 23, 2006 09:32 PMThe so-called "unproved accusations" about the priests and the Halliburton contractors and the military officials are actually well known if you read/watch sources beyond Fox News. Hard to forget the lovely story about the private contractor from Bechtel in San Francisco who raped the young Iraqi boy and got off scott-free because the U.S. has no laws governing the conduct of private contractors. Just the guy you want living next to your kids - right? But the Bush/Cheney administration has refused to pass any legislation that would regulate the conduct of these contractors who work for Halliburton and its subsidiaries - among them Bechtel and KBR - let alone punish them for wrongdoing. And no, this contractor didn't/won't have to register as a sex offender in the U.S. either - nor will any of the others who have done similar things that have gone unreported or unpunished. That concerns me, as they most likely will reoffend, but the hapless neighbors will have no knowledge of their previous offenses - all thanks to the Bush administration.
Try these links - most of them are "old" news - about priests and military officers and contractors if you think these are "unproved accusations".
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/50/102.html
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-priest22.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/10/EDGGG5VKTU1.DTL&hw=military+contractors+above+the+law&sn=002&sc=344
http://jagcentral.org/2004_06_13_archive.html
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/okinawa_rape/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/05/08/MNG0G6IFIP12.DTL
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/14/national/main617462.shtml
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/05/03/usint8523.htm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051227/ts_nm/crime_philippines_usa_dc
Yes, there are public school teachers who are a part of WEA, and there are public school teachers who are not part of WEA. Not being a part of WEA doesn't mean we don't support public education, and being a part of WEA doesn't mean that ANY of us would allow a child to be sexually abused by another member of our profession if we could stop it.
As for your comments about school choice - as a public school teacher, I believe that all children have the right to a free and appropriate public education. School choices can and should be created within the public system - public tax dollars should not be spent to further someone's religious, elitist, or idealistic educational agendas. If you want additional school choice, there are numerous good private and parochial alternatives.
Perhaps you need to read up on the research coming out of Florida and Arizona about charter schools. University of Wisconsin also has some very interesting research on the voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland. "School choice" isn't doing any better than public schools in test scores, and charter schools and private schools don't have to accept every child who wishes to attend, unlike their public counterparts. There are many ways to eliminate the "undesirables" from the charter schools/private schools. Don't provide transportation - oops, now you've gotten rid of all of the poor kids whose families don't have cars, and all of the kids whose parents both have to work and can't take kids to and from school or do volunteer work. Those are usually the minority kids too - how convenient. So called "school choice" is quite often elitism and racism in a hidden form - to be paid for by public tax dollars while not being held to the same federal standards as public schools nor forced to jump through the same standardized testing hoops. Thus "school choice" is not necessarily what's best for ALL children. Rather, it benefits a few children, most often those who already have privileges provided to them by their race or socio-economic status. So perhaps the WEA does have an interest in what's best for children - and they're looking at the big picture - and at ALL children? Not just the upper middle class or the rich kids. And I have to laugh at the accusation that an organization comprised of educators would not want to protect children. Educators are most often the advocates for the youngest and least protected members of our society that this Republican administration seems intent on destroying. Don't agree? Check out the Bush budget cuts for free-reduced lunch, Pell Grants, student loans, Head Start, drop-out prevention programs, the Safe and Drug Free schools program, Title I, IDEA, and after school programs - just to name a few. Thus I wonder who really has the best interest of our state's (and our country's) children in mind?
YOU NEED TO FIND A NEW JOB.YOU ARE OUT OF YOUR MIND Posted by: NA on January 23, 2006 10:52 PM
Leave it to Goldy to make a big stink about this lowlife, just like national Libs made a big stink about Tookie Williams.
No one gives a rip about this scumbag, and if anything the blowback will be on the Dems for calling attention to bogus offender postcards about real offenders that are horrible criminals.
Note to Goldy, if you are going to pick a topic to be outraged about, make sure that the subject isn't even more outrageous than the topic.
Oh, and score another one for Conservatives. Canada, the place where all of the moonbats wanted to move after the 2004 reelection of Bush, is no longer a liberal bastion.
I certainly hope the teaching profession won't tolerate predators, but you picked the wrong example when you selected the priesthood. The Catholic church is notoriously leftwinged. During WWII the pope didn't think Hitler was such a bad guy.
All sex predators need to be punished no matter what their profession or political leanings. As for crimes that occur in another country, there is a problem of jurisdiction, which is a whole other issue.
Some of you are still missing the point of Stefan's post, which is the fact Goldy and his ilk are in an uproar over the wording of mailing instead of the fact this is a real sex offender, most likely to repeat, and NOT supervised, so the cops can't check up on him. Since authorities aren't sure where this loser is, I think the cards should be sent out to all counties. Think of Duncan's victims if you don't think an APB is appropriate.
So, Disgusted, why don't you express your indignant outrage at this "fake" notification by inviting this SOB into your class to explain why he doesn't deserve this. And tell the parents after the fact you had a controversial speaker. That will win you many friends. For someone who works with kids, you sure have a twisted sense of whose rights need to guarded. And before your blood pressure goes up even more, read the last paragraph on the bottom of the card over and over until you understand what it says. With your attitude you need to get out of teaching.
Posted by: Burdabee on January 23, 2006 11:23 PM"The Republicans are liars! The Level III sex offender pictured doesn't live in THIS neighborhood, he lives in THAT neighborhood! He MAY live over here now."
That'll make people at their kitchen table feel REALLY safe.
They don't care as long as the guy in the photo keeps voting.
As far as I can see, the only "LIE" is the sentence that "this violent predator lives in your community", everything else is true.
So, rather than using this one person as a demonstrative, I suppose the Democrats would feel better if more violent predators were pictured, depending on the district where the cards are mailed. And that helps their cause how?
As for Disgusting Teacher - grow up. There are some teachers that are sexual predators, the majority are not. Statement of fact. Same with the clergy.
The big concern with the law the Democrats are pushing is that the longer term sentences for predators could be reduced in cases where the victim (child) knew their assailant. While this has typically applied to "family", it could easily be interpreted to mean "others close to" the victim (child).
Some of us do not like this loophole and would like to see it plugged. Others, such as Deb Wallace, do not see a problem and therefore don't want to change the law to plug this loophole.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 24, 2006 07:43 AMChild sex offenders hurt their victims in both a physical and mental way of which some victims never recover. The victims families also suffer by their heinous crimes. Parents of victims feel guilty for the rest of their life for not being able to protect their child.
To suggest that these offenders can be rehabilitated is in most cases futile. The best form of justice is to lock them up and keep them off of the streets where they can't harm any more children.
Between the age of 4 thru 8, I fell victim to sexual molestation in my neighborhood. I speak from a victims point of view.
Posted by: kim in vancouver on January 24, 2006 10:14 AMRead the article "Someone;" no one disputes that this guy is in the Pierce County sex offender registry.
I asked Goldy a question, but obviously he needs an arrogant dim-wit like you to answer for him.
Still, I appreciate the answer because it illustrates the emptiness of Goldy’s views . . . and how humorously hypocritical liberal democrats are.
Since there is no supervision requirement, the authorities cannot possibly be sure where this guy is. You and Goldy gush empty crappola to prop up your empty accusations of “lies”.
This is not a difficult issue to figure out for most of us. Unsupervised sexual predators and other criminals of the type, very often move from one community to another in order to exploit the unwariness of those communities. STATE authorities by failing to meet state administered supervision requirements of sexual predators, endanger communities within the state, and these communities must be alerted to insist that the state protects their children from these criminals.
Obviously you use the word lie in the same dim-witted fashion as Ivan Weiss.
By deliberately ignoring these requirements, Democrat officials are endangering children. By defending these Democrats in this effort, you, Goldy, and Ivan Weiss sacrifice your own children's safety for partisan reasons. Great move . . . this is why you are going to continue to fail in the future. Honest people see the distortions and deceitful implications of your actions here and it sickens them. KEEP IT UP.
Such scummy self destructive irrelevant failures come here with blatantly deceitful comments . . .
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 10:31 AM7 LEVEL THREE OFFENDERS SAY THEY ARE LIVING IN OUR PARKS!!!
Posted by: TACOMA PHLASH on January 24, 2006 10:56 AM"if you read/watch sources beyond Fox News."
"but the hapless neighbors will have no knowledge of their previous offenses - all thanks to the Bush administration."
"public tax dollars should not be spent to further someone's religious, elitist, or idealistic educational agendas."
"youngest and least protected members of our society that this Republican administration seems intent on destroying."
-Disgusted teacher
After reading your diatribe which could've come directly from MoveOn.org, I'm inclined to think you involve yourself in politics a lot more than you say. The mask comes right off, doesn't it?
No need to lie about your true intent. You're a lefty teacher who hates Bush and Republicans. Shocked! I tell you.
Posted by: jimg on January 24, 2006 03:04 PMThanks for the great talking-points post.
You prove the worst of everything that I have ever thought about liberal socialist communist nonsense.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 03:21 PM"But no. The GOP dropped a big fat bill on the Dems, who are in the majority, remember, and demanded that they sign off on it in 24 hours.
The GOP had the mailings and the robocalls all ready to go, and everybody knows this. It was a setup job from the beginning.
If you had legitimate policy concerns -- and I'm not saying they weren't all legitimate -- you could have gotten them by raising them in committee.
But no. You'd rather play Gotcha! Well, we can play that too."
Sounds like whining to me.
The only 'lie' I see is maybe the postcards reading, "This violent predator could live in your community." Hang your hat on that one. I'm sure the public will understand your semantics. Oh, and be sure to push that "should've been addressed in committee" argument. They'll love that one.
Pass the freaking bill, and the issue is moot, no?
Posted by: jimg on January 24, 2006 03:21 PMI agree with most of what you say, but a portion of the text in a postcard reading,
"This violent predator lives in your community." is not a lie just because it is sent to communities away from the one
where the subject was last known to live.
At the very worst, it is an inaccuracy (absent actual specific knowledge), and nothing more.
Please don't give any more credit to these liberal assholes than you must. They are completely full of disingenuous shit.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 06:59 PM"is not a lie"
What, then, is your definition of a lie? If saying that you know something to be true, when you do not know it to be true, is not a lie... then you have a different definition of the word than the rest of us.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 24, 2006 07:51 PMLying or telling a falsehood is having knowledge that something is not true and saying it anyway. You cannot honestly say that, "This violent predator lives in [any] community," and know for (especially with liberals in charge) that it is true. More importantly, this jerk—like Ted Bundy—could be anywhere doing anything, because the authorities refuse to do their job and thus cannot possibly know. That's the point.
Sending a notice to communities away from the community where the subject was last known to live, doesn’t make the text within the notice a falsehood. Are you really that fu@king stupid?
Thanks for the instruction on insipid thinking from your corner of the universe. I hope for the sake of any of the innocent few of your fellow liberals that you never serve on a jury. As for the rest of us, you show the classic simplicity of liberal stupidity that diminishes all of us.
Amusing in a pathetic way.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 24, 2006 09:27 PMHow about this: "If you say something is true when you know it isn't, that is a lie". See how much straightforward and intellectually honest that is?
It is all tangential to this thread anyway - there are no lies on the postcard, so where's the beef?
The central argument of this thread should be: do you value your community sufficiently to back up this legislation? Do you care enough about your kids to give them protection against the sort of monsters that are currently free to prey on them?
It's easy enough to see that goldy does not - probably because if we took these pervs off the street goldy would lose his fan club...
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 24, 2006 09:36 PMI'm not a liberal. I'm not a Democrat. Feel free to check my own personal blog for clarification of that point if you're confused. Sorry to disappoint you.
Amused, you live in San Francisco.
Alphabet soup, you live in Hawaii.
Actually, of course, I don't know that either of those statements is true. I don't know that they are false. But I am presenting them as if I know them with certainty.
The lie in those two statements, and in the postcard, is giving the impression of certainty about something where it doesn't exist.
As a conservative Republican, I am finding this thread particularly depressing.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 25, 2006 09:28 AMYou claim to be a conservative..do you believe that the GOP intentionally set out to deceive someone with these postcards? This seems to be the focus of the trolls. If so, then I'm done with ya. Amused & I have tried to clarify to you that the info on the postcards isn't a lie, and that the spin that the 'rats have tried to put on this is just that - spin.
If you don't believe it to be a lie, then what is your beef?
"But I am presenting them as if I know them with certainty."
In your mind perhaps. But then you are presupposing an inference that I (for one) have not drawn (and would not expect a reasonable person to draw). You made two statements, one referencing me and one referencing Amused. As they stand, they are neither true or false, unless you claim one way or the other. You made no such claim (until later). Contextually, either statement could be entirely true (but you didn't describe a context). Without context it doesn't matter how you think you're presenting them - it is completely and legitimately appropriate to view them as broadly as your context (or lack thereof) allows.
Do you understand the difference between implication and inference?
Think about it.....
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 25, 2006 11:02 AMI guess you're done with me, then.
I don't care what any Democrats have said about these postcards. Haven't even been to the other site that was referenced. I just read the postcard that Stefan was kind enough to present for us.
If I understand you correctly, this is your position:
"When the postcard says 'This violent predator lives in your community', that is equivalent to the postcard saying 'This violent predator may live in your community'. The two statements are functionally equivalent."
Is that accurate? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Thanks,
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 25, 2006 11:43 AMMark Congdon says, ”Amused, you live in San Francisco,” and I call you a liar? No. I might say, I don’t live in San Francisco and you are either mistaken or foolish for saying so. This isn’t a matter of “impressions,” but the quality of knowledge combined with intent. If you knew otherwise and said to someone ”Amused, lives in San Francisco,” it would be a lie because you knew it was not true when you said it and it was calculated to deceive. Otherwise it is just untrue for any number of possible reasons.
Presenting something as if you know it is a certainty is not in-itself lying! It is a lie only if you know that it is not true when you say it. Otherwise, it may be many things, articles of faith such as belief in God or socialism, a mistaken “impression” that was certain in your mind until you found otherwise (or not), a matter of semantics or the meanings of words, a matter of contextual interpretation, or simply a foolish assumption on your part. Often it is jumping to hasty conclusions. More often it is forming accurate inductive inferences, but lacking relevant information.
Further, if giving the impression of certainty about something is definitive of a lie, it is always up to the recipient of a claim to interpret the impression. Based on this, any time you perceive that I meant to impress you with my certainty of a claim with which you disagree, by your definition, I am a liar. This equivocation is part of the quintessential relativist liberal misuse of the word “lie.”
I wasn’t lying when I referred peripherally to you as a liberal no matter what impression I intended or you perceived. I formed an accurate inductive inference from your definition of a word. Given more information, I might conclude that you are a conservative with what I consider a liberal or relativist definition of the word “lie.” Your definition of the word “lie” impresses me as a liberal definition; so when you call yourself a conservative, are you lying simply because of the certain impression of relativist liberality you made? Of course not. It may have been foolish or irresponsible (or not) for me to conclude that you are a liberal, but it was not a lie.
There is no lie on the postcards, unless you are willing to assume an impression of certainty about something where it doesn't exist and re-define this as a lie. I don’t buy it, and neither do most academic logisticians on the subject because it is a faulty definition condemned to overgeneralization and equivocation of the term “lie.” Misuse of this power saturated word is a vitally important part of what is destroying the Democratic party, because it has lost it's very specific and limited meaning, and thus it's impact on the discourse.
Careless use of the word "lie" is for liberals.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 25, 2006 12:01 PMI may be simple-minded, and if so, I apologize. Let me ask you the same thing that I asked alphabet soup.
If I understand you correctly, this is your position:
"When the postcard says 'This violent predator lives in your community', that is equivalent to the postcard saying 'This violent predator may live in your community'. The two statements are functionally equivalent."
Is that accurate? I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Thanks,
Mark
I don't consider you anything of the kind. This is a search for the truth and a rational debate about meaning.
I apologize if I am overtaken by excessive use of strong rhetoric.
You ask, “When the postcard says 'This violent predator lives in your community', that is equivalent to the postcard saying 'This violent predator may live in your community.” The two statements are functionally equivalent?" No they are different, but given the context, neither would be a lie, because no one actually knows where this guy is.
Definitions are important. This is mostly a matter of contextual interpretation. The postcards, just because they were sent outside of the community in which the authorities say the perpetrator lives, are not lies but claims when taken in context are either true or false (possibly both as I pointed out earlier). That doesn't make them lies.
Thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 25, 2006 12:22 PMThanks for the response.
"Contextual interpretation". It would appear to me that the context of these postcards (certainly the context I would put it in if I received one) would be a warning about a violent sexual predator who was known to be living in my community. The ID card layout, personal information, etc., all appear to give the impression of a government warning. Therefore, based on the "contextual interpretation" of the presentation of that quote, it appears to me... oh, what word can I use... deceptive... misleading.
I consider it to be "below the belt", and it frustrates me that representatives of my political party would use such means. From what I can tell, it's a cheap marketing trick.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 25, 2006 12:56 PMIn your careful examination of this postcard did you happen to see the following:
"Representative Deb Wallace refused to impose life sentences for violent sex predators. Call Deb Wallace at 260.786.7976 and tell her to protect children and not violent sex offenders."
Do you still think it's a "government warning"?
I don't want to belabor the point but that's either really gullible, or really dishonest!
I certainly did see that part. I never said it was a government warning. I said it was designed to give the impression of one.
I'm neither gullible nor dishonest.
I just hate deceptive marketing practices.
Mark
Lets say for the sake of argument that these notices were sent to Spokane County, Grant County, Skamania County, and Peirce County, and subsequently it is proven that unbeknownst to anyone except the perp, he lived in Hawaii. You are saying all of the postcards in that context were lies?
What if it is proven that unbeknownst to anyone except the perp, he lived in all of these counties. Are the postcards still lies?
What will happen when it is proven that WMD's were in Iraq when GW Bush said they were?
Will liberals admit that Bush's saying there were WMD's was not a lie?
Its hardly a cheap marketing trick to err on the safe side. It may be uncertain exaggeration, hyperbole, as you say, “deceptive... misleading,” and even untruthful, but that does not make it a lie.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 25, 2006 02:36 PMVery well. I will accept the words "deceptive and misleading" in lieu of "lie". The difference isn't worth arguing about.
I am sickened by the use of deceptive and misleading marketing practices. It's doubly irritating when my own party's leadership uses them.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 25, 2006 02:54 PMFair enough.
The main reason I don't think the same way as you do about this is because hyperbole serves the purpose of alerting people to take notice of issues that they otherwise would not. Deceptive and misleading public advocacy by degrees can be fair play depending on the context and purpose for which they are used.
What I hate far more than deceptive public advocacy is the deliberate refusal to protect our children from scumbags like the perpetrator of these assaults. If it took a lie to force the Democrats to do their duty, I would gladly tell one, but the real deception here is misdirection where Goldy and his ilk focus the attention on "lies" that are not lies in direct substitution for telling the damned truth about the real central issue. They would sooner sacrifice your and my children's safety than admit that liberal public officials are ignoring the requirement to supervise the offenders.
Check out Ivan Weiss on this thread at January 23, 2006 12:45 PM. He is more concerned with blathering on about political "committee" procedures than talking openly about the fact that liberal democrats are soft on crime and the perpetrators of violence against children and refuse to do anything about them.
There are many people who live in different places around the state from one time to another, especially criminals, who have very good reasons to sneak around. My Recognition of this fact is not only not foolish, but for anyone to believe otherwise is startlingly naive. Such complacent gullibility is part of the reason why hyperbole in service to alarm about exigent criminal activity is appropriate.
Thanks.
Fu@k bullshit impressions of certainty, sex offender scare rhetoric, committee formality crappola, or scummy Goldy polemic garbage.
Those who support the campaign of misdirection and deceit about this issue play directly into the idiotic smoke screen created by those like Goldy and Ivan Weiss who put partisan objectives ahead of the safety of children—both theirs and ours. They are dispicable disgusting partisan enablers of crime against the most vulnerable of our population.
How foolish and liberal can anyone get?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 25, 2006 08:58 PMWell, I'm glad we can at least agree to disagree with civility. :)
Mark
Thanks. You define yourself.
Vote Democrat--it suits you.
Mark
Posted by: Mark Congdon on January 26, 2006 10:01 AM