Bill O points

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:25 pm

Protecting the Kids - Liberal Versus Conservative

Friday, January 20, 2006

By Bill O'Reilly

Protecting the kids, liberal versus conservative, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo."

Since I am very tired of ideologues on both sides smearing their opponents, I was hoping the protection of children in America would not become a liberal versus conservative issue, but it has. Virtually all opposition to Jessica's Law, which mandates strict prison terms for felony battery on a child is coming from the left.

For example the liberal San Francisco Chronicle today said this, "For parents, no issue is as great as their children's safety. It's time for elected officials to tone down the rhetoric and get to work on an effective alternative to the seriously flawed 'Jessica's Law'."

The Chronicle doesn't like the law because once a sexual predator is released from prison, that person's movements and living quarters would be monitored by the state.

Now reasonable people can sharpen any law, but left-wing opposition to drastic punishment for child molesters is misguided. As we're seeing in Vermont, the so-called rights of child rapists are overriding society's obligation to punish heinous crimes.

For a predator in prison for 25 years, society can worry about rehab 20 years down the road. Right? Predator's out.

Simply shocking that newspapers in Rutland, Bennington, Brattleboro and today, Montpelier have all sympathized with Vermont Judge Edward Cashman's decision to give the rapist of a six-year old 60 days in prison.

There's not one conservative that I know of who doesn't want to see that sentence thrown out and real justice implemented. But many on the left are fine, fine with what Cashman has done.

That is why, ladies and gentlemen, liberals will never come to power in the USA — at least in our lifetime. We are a nation that forms judgments, that knows right from wrong. Most Americans do not live in a world of theory or the gray area of excuse making for everyone.

But the far left does live there. And the far left is now dominating the liberal community.

To be fair, the Republican governor of Vermont, Jim Douglas, has shown weak leadership. And his sympathy for the little girl is almost nonexistent. A few Vermont Republicans like Curt Wright understand the damage Judge Cashman has caused the little girl, her family, and indeed the entire state of Vermont, but most Vermont Democrats continue to defend the judge.

Liberals who are comfortable with excuses will not want to hear this, but there is no excuse for that. And that's "The Memo."

The

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:36 pm

Interesting. He says he's tired of ideologues smearing their opponents and hoping that protecting children wouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue ... and then he proceeds to smear his opponents as an ideologue and turning the protection of children into a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Thus proving that there are no depths to which he will not sink in order to put "liberal" and "evil" into the same thought as often as he can using intellectually vacant straw man arguments. But real answers are messy and confusing, and honest debate confuses the viewers and makes them turn the channels to Jerry Springer or professional wrestling, where we are told who to cheer for, so the brains can relax and enjoy their self-righteousness.

So he's just doing his job as an entertainer.

Post by **rtb** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:39 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Interesting. He says he's tired of ideologues smearing their opponents and hoping that protecting children wouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue ... and then he proceeds to smear his opponents as an ideologue and turning the protection of children into a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Thus proving that there are no depths to which he will not sink in order to put "liberal" and "evil" into the same thought as often as he can.

But that's his job as an entertainer.

I also thought that was funny. I agree with his points that the rights of child rapists are probably the last thing that we should be concerned with however the way he wrote that was completely contradictary to his happy thoughts in the beginning.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 4:52 pm

The actual article that he is talking about (and apparently didn't reference, as people reading the article would prove how silly his straw man arguments are):

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... GOTSV1.DTL

So it doesn't appear that the Chronicle (not always the champion of liberals, by the way) was saying what he said they were saying. What a shock! Bill, misrepresenting his "opponent's" point of view in order to make his viewers think that liberals are unthinking crime loving baby eaters? He certainly wouldn't do something like that, would he?

The article talks about the logistical problems with the bill, and derides people speaking in sound bites about a complex issue. Ironic, huh?

The real message here is that talking heads shouldn't opine on issues they know nothing about, and particularly shouldn't do so with a sanctimonious tone. But as long as his viewers choose not to read the actual facts and instead rely on his fluff to make up their minds, his job is safe.

(Congrats, Rebecca, you got me fired up on this board again ... for that one little burst, anyway

)

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Fri Jan 20, 2006 5:52 pm

Brad

first let me say that my surfing of Foxnews today was a poor attempt to avoid my least fav chore, that being picking up the dozer dumps in my yard. after reading Bill, i thought this article reminded me alot of the dozer dumps still in the backyard.

thought you might enjoy this snip because he is talking out of both sides of his face. Let me say i usually like Bill, but this was just ramblings.

tried to set a joke thread up, but no one added to it. may be you can add some good ones - even if they're about Bill

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 9:45 am

Setting aside the whole "O'Reilly is an idiot" side of this that Brad immediately jumped to, the real scary part of the story is this line:

About 85,000 sex offenders would be subject to satellite tracking today if Jessica's Law had been in effect at the time of their convictions.

THAT'S 85,000 JUST IN CALIFORNIA, FOLKS!

I'll at least give the bill's sponsors credit for actually trying to get tough on a situation that is CLEARLY a serious problem in California. Obviously people can find flaws in any legislation but the point here is that we KNOW sex offenders are among the most-likely of all criminals to repeat their offenses and based on the startling # above, that's a whole lot of bad people out there. Maybe if we actually had true PUNISHMENT for these folks, there A) wouldn't be as many of them to begin with, or B) those 85,000 would still be locked up & not a threat to society.

Rather than castigate the folks who want to truly "get tough" on these sickos, we should be applauding their efforts and endeavor to come up with and fine-tune effective solutions.

Just for the record, this issue is one of the many reasons my ex & I decided to move back to Montana in '92 when we started our family; providing "shelter" for your family takes on a whole new meaning when you learn you're going to have a child...

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:39 am

Just for the record, this issue is one of the many reasons my ex & I decided to move back to Montana in '92 when we started our family; providing "shelter" for your family takes on a whole new meaning when you learn you're going to have a child...

That's the reason I want to move us back to MT. Bozeman has 2 level 3's a couple dozen 2's in the area. 2's are more domestic/partner issues, not child related. Or if Ponycat could explain better, not the kind that will hunt down your small kids. The level 3's are watched closely and the two in Bozeman did not assault children under 14. Gallatin Valley has very safe statistics as to sex"predators".

Here in WA, just the capital Olympia has over 300 known offenders. 85 are level 3 - that's 20 miles away from me.

the 85K in CA sounds shocking, but as CA is the most populated state we have, and if broken off would be like the 6th most populated country, it isn't as shocking as it originally sounds.

as I volunteer in advocacy here in WA, I research areas of interest to friends, family and myself, and for MT's small population there were many more offenders in the Missoula, and Billings area than i expected. It's all public record - just type in your street address and it will show you if there are any "known" sex offenders in your immediate area.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:20 am

el gato -

forgot to add that it's really not the "known" offenders that scare me. the offender Robert Rust whom targetted our son was not a "known" offender in WA. He came to WA to live with his mom, and his history was domestic abuse of his wife, and incest with two nieces. Both of those crimes in WA DO NOT get you "listed" as an offender, they may in MT. anyway, all you have to do is contact local law enforcement and they'll give you the site to your areas list of "known" offenders. you may be surprised how many are in your area.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:50 pm

El_Gato wrote:Setting aside the whole "O'Reilly is an idiot" side of this that Brad immediately jumped to, the real scary part of the story is this line:

Well, since Bill's only real point was to point a finger at liberals (without even understanding the issue or apparently reading the article he was citing), and since the Chronicle article actually DID have a tough on criminals tone, I assumed that we were all in agreement that child rapists are bad, and that the point didn't need to be stated explicitly (as only Bill O'Reilly types assume any differently about other people). Bill wasn't "being tough on criminals," he was merely using this issue as yet another prop to take misguided shots at his political "enemies."

If we wanted to have an informed conversation on the topic, the initial post would not have been the blurb from O'Reilly.

It's the same as if someone posted something written by Michael Moore blasting all things Republican regarding their failures in the war on terror (because Bush knows the Bin Ladens, you know, so who's side do you think he's really on, blah, blah, blah...), and then expecting people to, rather than taking exception with Moore's tone and ignorance, instead have a reasoned discussion about whether or not terrorism is bad, and then in unison deciding that, yes, it is bad. Very, very bad.

So a discussion about intellectual dishonesty was the logical first reaction to Bill's talking points. If the Chronicle article had been the starting point of the thread, then a topical discussion would have been the natural progression instead.

So kudos to the CA legislature for trying to address this problem, and kudos to the Chronicle for calling for changes to make the legislation even more effective.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:57 pm

Just out of curiosity, how many registered sex offenders are there in MT? If it had the same number per capita as CA, there would be around 1,900. I'm curious how those numbers compare ... and I hope they compare favorably ... assuming the laws are consistent from state to state in terms of what a registered sex offender is. I have heard stories (that I hope are not true), that a person ended up on the list for peeing in an alley when bar hopping (as most of us have done in the past). Indecent exposure. Sex offender. On the list. I certainly hope that story wasn't true, but it does open the door to suggesting that perhaps not every person on the list is a true threat to society. But those that are ... I am with the law and order crowd regarding them. Keep track of them or keep them locked up ... or have them chemically treated to take away their urges.

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 12:58 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:Interesting. He says he's tired of ideologues smearing their opponents and hoping that protecting children wouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue ... and then he proceeds to smear his opponents as an ideologue and turning the protection of children into a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Thus proving that there are no depths to which he will not sink in order to put "liberal" and "evil" into the same thought as often as he can using intellectually vacant straw man arguments. But real answers are messy and confusing, and honest debate confuses the viewers and makes them turn the channels to Jerry Springer or professional wrestling, where we are told who to cheer for, so the brains can relax and enjoy their self-righteousness.

So he's just doing his job as an entertainer.

I haven't any knowledge about this Jessica's Law. What is your knowledge of it? As an entertainer/pundit, O'Reilly has his spin on the issue but it seems to me that, outside of ridiculing the commentator, you never addressed the area that he is upset about.

Remember, don't shoot the messenger. You jump on O'Reilly every chance you get. I can see why at times but with your post on this subject, you've resorted to attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, no?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:08 pm

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:Interesting. He says he's tired of ideologues smearing their opponents and hoping that protecting children wouldn't be a liberal vs. conservative issue ... and then he proceeds to smear his opponents as an ideologue and turning the protection of children into a liberal vs. conservative issue.

Thus proving that there are no depths to which he will not sink in order to put "liberal" and "evil" into the same thought as often as he can using intellectually vacant straw man arguments. But real answers are messy and confusing, and honest debate confuses the viewers and makes them turn the channels to Jerry Springer or professional wrestling, where we are told who to cheer for, so the brains can relax and enjoy their self-righteousness.

So he's just doing his job as an entertainer.
I haven't any knowledge about this Jessica's Law. What is your knowledge of it? As an entertainer/pundit, O'Reilly has his spin on the issue but it seems to me that, outside of ridiculing the commentator, you never addressed the area that he is upset about.

Remember, don't shoot the messenger. You jump on O'Reilly every chance you get. I can see why at times but with your post on this subject, you've resorted to attacking the messenger while ignoring the message, no?

Dude, read the article he is commenting on, and then read his blurb. Then you tell me your impressions. Bill doesn't take a stand on the issue at all (outside of "liberals are bad ... tough on criminals"). I actually read the Chronicle article, so I am obviously way ahead of him on this topic, and by repeating that "criminals are bad," I have explicitly matched the substance of his supposed message.

And yes, I read newspapers in CA, so I know about this law. His point was not to comment on the law (as he didn't at all with any degree of substance), it was to rip on the Chronicle (and, in his twisted mind, all liberals).

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:48 pm

http://www.doj.mt.gov/svor/search.asp

you can check your county stats on this site.

there are 81 sex offenders in gallatin county

there are 94 sex offenders in kalispell alone

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:05 pm

missoula has 183 - several are sexual level 3's

2 live on the same street as a friends family business - yikes! Bet he has no clue.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:11 pm

briannell wrote:http://www.doj.mt.gov/svor/search.asp

you can check your county stats on this site.

there are 81 sex offenders in gallatin county

there are 94 sex offenders in kalispell alone

Wow. So on a per capita basis, those two areas have much higher (2x) number of sex offenders than CA as a whole. I would not have guessed that. Again, though, I'm not sure if those are apples to apples comparisons, given that different state laws probably apply.

I would also venture a guess that the number of sex offenders in poor neighborhoods is much higher than in nicer neighborhoods, as your typical sex offender isn't too upwardly-mobile economically. So even within certain jurisdictions, your children's safety is likely greatly influenced by how close you are to a neighborhoods that have higher numbers of offenders.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:46 pm

Of course, the highest irony of this whole discussion is that Bill, himself is a sex offender ... his case just went through the civil process as opposed to the criminal process, so he's not on any lists.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/ ... 0282.shtml

Bill and Kobe ... very similar settlements.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:20 pm

Apparently this issue is still raging. It appears as though any attempt to insert common sense into a political debate will get attacked by the hysterics of emotion-based talking heads and political leaders.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... GVLJO1.DTL

One thing I can't stand is people substituting emotional arguments for logical arguments when making public policy. This is why, when I was growing up, I had the view that the Democrats and liberals were obnoxious. It seemed that the bulk of their arguments were emotion-based and bleeding-heart. I always respected those who I thought were taking the unpopular (it's mean to not spend a lot on wasteful pet projects, but a good idea), but well-reasoned positions.

Now, although the left does still pull a doozy every now and then, it seems that the right is absolutely stunning in its use of emotion-based politics. This issue appears to be a perfect example. If you point out that their approach is too aggressive and might have some really bad unintended consequences (the thing that every policy maker should worry about as part of their fiduciary duty to the voters), they get ripped apart and accused of being in favor of the criminals. It's just stupid.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:44 pm

sorry Brad I'm with Arnold on this one - i think unless you are a parent - you just don't get how hanious these crimes are. if you are one of us unfortuanate ones that have experienced dealing with a sex offender - you'd want to reopen alcatraz and stick them all there. oh hose them down and let them freeze to death as well

Post by **SonomaCat** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 1:57 pm

briannell wrote:sorry Brad I'm with Arnold on this one - i think unless you are a parent - you just don't get how hanious these crimes are. if you are one of us unfortuanate ones that have experienced dealing with a sex offender - you'd want to reopen alcatraz and stick them all there. oh hose them down and let them freeze to death as well

So you want all convicted pedophiles from SF to relocate to rural areas (as the proposed law would make it impossible for such people to live in San Francisco)? If you like Arnold's law, that's exactly what you are asking for. Do you want to be guilty of a felony if some kiddie porn spam ends up in your inbox? Then you'll love the Arnold "one piece is a felony rule."

It's not a choice of being soft on the criminals or being hard on the criminals. Both bills severely punish the crime. It's just that one bill actually thinks through the logistics rationally, and one is more interested in talking tough.

If you can find any flaws in the Leno bill, please let me know, as those should be vetted as well.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Jan 30, 2006 2:00 pm

I just want to annex known offenders away from kids. I like my alcatraz idea. let them suffer in the elements, than toss them in the bay to be shark food