Election 2010 Ballot Measures

[jm21-2]

Completely wrongheaded? 
Your elevator isn’t reaching the top floor today.  Children need and want to be protected from strangers and even from ‘creepy relatives’.   I’m not talking about hovering over them night and day, but I’m damn well interested in keeping close tabs on where they are when they are travelling alone.    It does not have to do with outright ‘fear’ of strangers, but assessing risk with strangers is completely normal. 

Please check out Jeff's link.

Also you can check this study out: http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/documents/nismart2_nonfamily.pdf

"During the study year, there were an estimated 115
stereotypical kidnappings, defined as abductions perpetrated
by a stranger or slight acquaintance and
involving a child who was transported 50 or more
miles, detained overnight, held for ransom or with
the intent to keep the child permanently, or killed."

a quote from Jeff's link:
"Any kid killed is a horrible tragedy. It makes my stomach plunge to even think about it. But when the numbers are about 50 kids in a country of 300 million, it’s also a very random, rare event. It is far more rare, for instance, than dying from a fall off the bed or other furniture. So should we, for safety’s sake, all start sleeping on the floor?"

This country being screwed up doesn't have anything to do with a parent doing his/her job in keeping a child safe.  I suppose you would rather leave it up to fate or dumb luck that a man's children are protected. 

  When you have some kids you can have your little social experiment and let them go up to strangers and strike up conversations while they are alone.  Most children are absolutely helpless against a surprise attack from a full grown man and any decent parent is going to minimize the risk by teaching their children basic safety and by also being around when need be. 


So if the risk is so low, why is that when they set up a sting operation pretending to have 12-14 year old girls available, they can’t keep up with the number of 30-50 year old men that are beating down the door trying to ‘befriend’ these girls?  This is in every major city in our county?    There is just cause for reasonable concern which does not mean everybody is assumed guilty but one duty of the father is to be there.

I said this country is screwed up because it places safety as the first priority. Your comments demonstrate my point. Your children are better off by you putting fences on their bed so they don't fall off than trying to protect them from strangers.

Pedophilia is an interesting phenomena. Actually, a real pedophile doesn't distinguish between male and female.

Setting up sting operations that are greeted by countless men? How many men equates to countless and how many real 12-14 year old girls pay attention to 30-50 year old men? Again, sensationalist media.

I think it would be a wonderful idea for you to let your future 6 year old ride the bus/subway by herself here in the states.  I'm sure she will make it unharmed to her final desination 95% of the time, and that other 5% she only be killed, raped, molested, robbed, or beat up.  Not a big deal and I'm sure it is worth the risk.

When I was a kid I remember going to my first boy scout meeting and was so proud that my parents trusted me with a big sheathe knife whereas the other children had small pocket knives. I loved driving a dinghy with a powerful outboard. I met a new friend climbing up a sandstone cliff far away from my parents.

FINALLY:  I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you believe that we should be letting rapists/ child molesters off easy.  That is what this law was targeting and I stand behind it four square.  If it were up to me, a violent rapist/child molester would be thrown out a 4th story window, anything less is giving him/her a break. 

Completely agree that a violent rapist or child molester should be put to death in a cruel way. However, that's just a small portion of who this law would effect.

Now what exactly should a police force be concentrating on if it isn’t protecting the children and doing everything they can to find them after they are abducted?

I would hope the police would develop an equation where they take into account the frequency of the crime, the amount of harm to others it causes, their ability to negate or mitigate the effects of the crime, and the costs of enforcement (both financial and social) involved. However, I have no hope they will develop that equation.

[fathertime]

In a nutshell and like most people, I’m for strengthening the laws for DUI’s and and Violent sexual offenders or molesters.  If this law can do that, then I am 100% for it.   If the lawyers and justice system can’t process these cases properly then that is what you lawyers should be repairing within your own ranks.  As a regular person, I just want to see these dangerous members of society behind bars were they can’t harm me or my family. 

I completely disagree with your take on drunk drivers too.  200LBS 4 beers in one hour and anymore than that and you are too liquored up to drive for an hour or so. That seems like a reasonable number to me.  Break the law more than once and REALLY face the music.  People that drink too much and drive can’t be allowed to put the rest of us at risk. You say that the risk is small, but you can’t say that to the destroyed families, some of which will be shattered this very evening.   

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

In a nutshell and like most people, I’m for strengthening the laws for DUI’s and and Violent sexual offenders or molesters.  If this law can do that, then I am 100% for it.   If the lawyers and justice system can’t process these cases properly then that is what you lawyers should be repairing within your own ranks.  As a regular person, I just want to see these dangerous members of society behind bars were they can’t harm me or my family. 

I completely disagree with your take on drunk drivers too.  200LBS 4 beers in one hour and anymore than that and you are too liquored up to drive for an hour or so. That seems like a reasonable number to me.  Break the law more than once and REALLY face the music.  People that drink too much and drive can’t be allowed to put the rest of us at risk. You say that the risk is small, but you can’t say that to the destroyed families, some of which will be shattered this very evening.   

Fathertime!

I won't argue you are like most people. The fact that you claim you are like most people proclaims your ignorance. You have offered nothing but pure opinion, not even anecdotal evidence, to prove your points.

You never answered my question about how many people the habitually drunk drivers you knew injured or killed. I have watched my dad drive above a .08 and it is not nearly as dangerous as him trying to operate a GPS while driving. So maybe we should make GPS devices illegal? But for me a GPS, especially while driving at night, is a big safety feature due to my vision (I have extremely poor vision in low light). Where is the line drawn?

There is a lot of misleading information proferred by the government about what a "drink" is and how it effects your driving skills. For example, a 12oz can of "four loko," a malt liquor, has about the same alcohol content as a wine, and one 12oz can is equal to more than three standard glasses of wine and comparable to three 12oz cans of piss beer.

If you want to punish a large number of people excessively just to make sure a tiny fraction of the offenders (violent sex offenders and stranger kidnappers) are 100% sure (instead of nearly 100% sure) to receive strict punishment, then that is....well...[snip]ed up.

As I said, I care about the number of children/people killed. I don't care how they're killed. From your posts I gather you would grieve more if your child was kidnapped than if your child died accidentally, and that you would grieve more for a family member that died from an accident with a drunk driver than if he drowned while out boating? To each their own but that style of thinking is hard for me to understand. A death is a death and each passing should be grieved the same. The manner of death has to do with the living, not the dead.

[fathertime]

 

I won't argue you are like most people. The fact that you claim you are like most people proclaims your ignorance. You have offered nothing but pure opinion, not even anecdotal evidence, to prove your points.

You never answered my question about how many people the habitually drunk drivers you knew injured or killed. I have watched my dad drive above a .08 and it is not nearly as dangerous as him trying to operate a GPS while driving. So maybe we should make GPS devices illegal? But for me a GPS, especially while driving at night, is a big safety feature due to my vision (I have extremely poor vision in low light). Where is the line drawn?

Of course I've offered pure opinion, and you have offered pure rubbish.  You can claim how safe it is to operate a vehicle drunk all you want, but it does not make it so.  If you think it is great to drive while impaired then continue to do so, most of us 'ignorant public' will do our best to put you behind bars!

As I said, I care about the number of children/people killed. I don't care how they're killed. From your posts I gather you would grieve more if your child was kidnapped than if your child died accidentally, and that you would grieve more for a family member that died from an accident with a drunk driver than if he drowned while out boating? To each their own but that style of thinking is hard for me to understand. A death is a death and each passing should be grieved the same. The manner of death has to do with the living, not the dead.

What on earth are you talking about here?  I am kinda getting the feeling you have been drinking tonight.  You have no children, and I'd lay even money you never will.  Almost any woman/wife would run if they heard the way you talk so wantonly about how you plan on protecting your fictional future child.  I must forgive your ignorance, I'm surprised at how proud you are of it though.   

You never answered my question about how many people the habitually drunk drivers you knew injured or killed. I have watched my dad drive above a .08 and it is not nearly as dangerous as him trying to operate a GPS while driving. So maybe we should make GPS devices illegal? But for me a GPS, especially while driving at night, is a big safety feature due to my vision (I have extremely poor vision in low light). Where is the line drawn?

To answer your question, to my knowledge those two knuckleheaded friends of mine have killed no one.  They have both been in accidents and injured themselves only.

Hey if you have extremely poor vision and are driving at night with that crappy vision, then the question must be asked, Why are you so important that you are putting everybody else at risk?  Do you feel entitled to drive? Take a cab or bus before you run over a cat or something, then Researcher will have to get to work and make some catsup.   
I don't think everybody is entitled to drive if they are a risk to other drives/pedestrians.    I wouldn't put a blindfold on myself and try driving.  You don't think any lines should be drawn, because the line can't be perfect. 

I'm not buying into any of your arguments about 'protecting sexual offenders or a person convicted of multiple DUI's'.  If someone is driving drunk multiple times and puts us all at risk then they can face the music. It is cut and dry.
If a person molests or rapes a child, they should hang, but I'll settle for a long jail sentence.  I support laws I think make these things more likely to happen.  I don't like the alternative which is to have them on the streets sooner rather than later.

Fathertime!

[Bob_S]

South Dakota:
Extends smoking ban to apply statewide.
Proposes legalization of medical marijuana.

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there.
 

[thekfc]

I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there.
 

I was thinking the same thing.

They want to ban smoking statewide but at the same time trying to legalize medical marijuana - what are they going to do? drink the weed?

[Jedironin]

Hash brownies, of course. 

[piglett]

I was thinking the same thing.

They want to ban smoking statewide but at the same time trying to legalize medical marijuana - what are they going to do? drink the weed?

maybe they have figured out that cigarettes have more than 500 chemicals in them ?
also who smokes 20 joints in 1 day?
maybe the weed is safer?


pig

[piglett]

maybe they have figured out that cigarettes have more than 500 chemicals in them ?
also who smokes 20 joints in 1 day?
maybe the weed is safer?


pig

maybe i should run for public office?
outlaw cigarettes & have the state sell 5 packs of filtered joints
the state could still get their tax revenue so they would be happy
what do ya think???

[Bob_S]

maybe they have figured out that cigarettes have more than 500 chemicals in them ?
also who smokes 20 joints in 1 day?
maybe the weed is safer?

Nooooooo.
The quantity of chemicals or carcinogens or addictive properties is irrelevant.  The only difference that is important is: you can use tobacco and still operate motorized vehicles and heavy machinery safely.  That's the "where your fist meets my nose" measurement for a libertarian free society.  No matter how poisonous it may be compared to all other recreational chemicals, tobacco does not reduce your capacity to be a productive and safe member of society (while you live).     

[jm21-2]

FT,

My point is the punishment should fit the crime.

DUIS: I don't see why someone should be punished 10-20+ times more for driving while slightly intoxicated compared to a person who drives recklessly by texting while driving or driving at nights with his headlights off. We have laws regarding recklessness and negligence and reckless drivers should be punished for how reckless they were, not the activity that caused them to be reckless. Someone who is all over the road because they are texting should be punished more than the driver who is driving fine but a hair over the legal limit. Yet with the current and proposed laws in OR, the not-really-impaired "drunk" driver would face thousands of dollars in fees and treatment costs, as well as a possible felony conviction and jail time [edit: forgot license suspension and interlock devices], while the texter gets a warning or maybe a small fee.

Sex crimes: Same thing. Having one punishment for a huge variety of factual scenarios and offenses is going to cause some very serious injustices to occur. I saw it personally many times.

I would never teach my children to be scared [snip]less of strangers. It's bad for them and doesn't prevent any real harm. About 100 children are abducted by strangers each year and more than half are returned. It's one of the smallest threats to children in the world. Telling children to be scared of strangers 1. encourages them to be antisocial and 2. could prevent them from seeking help from a stranger if they got abducted by a friend or family member.

Anyways, this is beating a dead horse and I'm done. Good day.

[Jedironin]

"No matter how poisonous it may be compared to all other recreational chemicals, tobacco does not reduce your capacity to be a productive (person)..."

Like heck it doesn't! Have you seen how many "smoke breaks" some people take during a normal business day?? Each break being 10-30 min. long! The rest of us have to stay at our desks and do they work they aren't doing!  

[piglett]

I would never teach my children to be scared [snip]less of strangers. It's bad for them and doesn't prevent any real harm. About 100 children are abducted by strangers each year and more than half are returned. It's one of the smallest threats to children in the world. Telling children to be scared of strangers 1. encourages them to be antisocial and 2. could prevent them from seeking help from a stranger if they got abducted by a friend or family member.

well hell if 1/2 of them are returned they must be the 1/2 that are real P.I.T.A. 
so just teach your kids to start to really act poorly if ever abducted & they should be good to go.
hell the low life abductor may even try stopping at McDonald's & getting them a happy meal in an attempt to get them to shut up
so you mite not have to even feed your child which can really save on your grocery bill in the long run.

problem solved 
pig

[fathertime]

FT,

My point is the punishment should fit the crime.

DUIS: I don't see why someone should be punished 10-20+ times more for driving while slightly intoxicated compared to a person who drives recklessly by texting while driving or driving at nights with his headlights off. We have laws regarding recklessness and negligence and reckless drivers should be punished for how reckless they were, not the activity that caused them to be reckless. Someone who is all over the road because they are texting should be punished more than the driver who is driving fine but a hair over the legal limit. Yet with the current and proposed laws in OR, the not-really-impaired "drunk" driver would face thousands of dollars in fees and treatment costs, as well as a possible felony conviction and jail time [edit: forgot license suspension and interlock devices], while the texter gets a warning or maybe a small fee.

Sex crimes: Same thing. Having one punishment for a huge variety of factual scenarios and offenses is going to cause some very serious injustices to occur. I saw it personally many times.
 

You know Jim if you were able to make your point like this in the first place it would have been a lot easier.  You are not getting an hourly rate here, so next time if you are able to make your point without all the silly 'one death vs another death' crap, we will be able to go further in our discussion.  Clearly I'm not interested in seeing a truly minor crime receive excessive punishment.  I'm interested in seeing the serious criminals get minimum sentences that are longer than what they are currently getting. It does seem that there might be some disagreement over what constitutes a serious crime, but there is no revisiting that conversation.

Fathertime!

[Jeff S]

I know a guy who is a registered sex offender, because in the 1970s after drinking a six pack, he had to go at an outdoor concert and instead of waiting what seemed like forever to get into a port-a-pottie took off and relieved himself if the bushes at the ripe old age of 19. Yes you can find him on the Meghan's law website with the same sized red star as the 45 year old guy who did 10 years for raping 3 infants. The one size fits all might make for good politics, and it may make for feel-good law, but it doesn't make for a safer world for our kids nor for sane public policy. Foreign bride seeker = sex tourist = international sex trafficker = rapist and pimp... See how neat and convenient everything equates?

[Bob_S]

BTW, tomorrow in the Latin American world is Dia de los Muertos, the Day of the Dead.  You must placate the souls of the dead with colorful offerings of treats.  If not, they may rise and cause chaos by voting Democrat which the dead are oft known for doing.

So if you see any shabbily dressed smelly unwashed figures shambling towards a voting site, distract them by throwing hard candies at them.  If that doesn't halt their progress, go after them with a chainsaw or any other sharp implement.  You can be forgiven for accidentally taking out a slacker, hippie, or union organizer mistaken for a zombie (as they often have the same mental capacity).  But in the chaos or Z-Day, it's the only way to keep your loved ones safe!

[michaelb]

BTW, tomorrow in the Latin American world is Dia de los Muertos, the Day of the Dead.  You must placate the souls of the dead with colorful offerings of treats.  If not, they may rise and cause chaos by voting Democrat which the dead are oft known for doing.

But if they're all foreign muertos, they can't oh, wait, let me rephrase that.....aren't supposed to vote in our elections anyway.

Hear the one about the Acron guys working voter registration at Rose Hill Cemetery in Chicago? They're going along together, one reading names off the headstones and the other writing them down on a clipboard.

"Smith, Tom"

"Got it, next?"

"Jones, Harry"

"Got him, next?"

"Ullanuowiztez, Gergorijal"

"What?"

"Ullanuowiztez, Gergorijal"

"How you spell that?"

"U-L-L-A.....oh screw it, let's move on to the next guy."

"You call yourself a voter registration worker? I'm ashamed of you! Now let's get his name right. Don't you know that this man has as much right to vote as everybody else in this cemetery?"

[thekfc]

But if they're all foreign muertos, they can't oh, wait, let me rephrase that.....aren't supposed to vote in our elections anyway.

Take a look at what is on the ballot in Oklahoma - that is telling me that people there can vote without "proving" who they are.

Oklahoma:
English is "common and unifying language of Oklahoma".
Potential voters must provide proof of identity. 

[fathertime]

I know a guy who is a registered sex offender, because in the 1970s after drinking a six pack, he had to go at an outdoor concert and instead of waiting what seemed like forever to get into a port-a-pottie took off and relieved himself if the bushes at the ripe old age of 19. Yes you can find him on the Meghan's law website with the same sized red star as the 45 year old guy who did 10 years for raping 3 infants. The one size fits all might make for good politics, and it may make for feel-good law, but it doesn't make for a safer world for our kids nor for sane public policy. Foreign bride seeker = sex tourist = international sex trafficker = rapist and pimp... See how neat and convenient everything equates?

I've argued the same point in the past. The registered sex offender log is so watered down that it frightens parents.  There are numerous sex offenders in a few mile radius, but when you look up what they did to get on the list it seems rather stupid, similiar to your example...other times they do appear rather dangerous.

Fathertime!

[jm21-2]

I know a guy who is a registered sex offender, because in the 1970s after drinking a six pack, he had to go at an outdoor concert and instead of waiting what seemed like forever to get into a port-a-pottie took off and relieved himself if the bushes at the ripe old age of 19. Yes you can find him on the Meghan's law website with the same sized red star as the 45 year old guy who did 10 years for raping 3 infants. The one size fits all might make for good politics, and it may make for feel-good law, but it doesn't make for a safer world for our kids nor for sane public policy. Foreign bride seeker = sex tourist = international sex trafficker = rapist and pimp... See how neat and convenient everything equates?

When I was in Portland they were cracking down on the sex crime Private Indecency. Neighbor is walking by your house in the morning and sees you walking out to the kitchen in your birthday suit to make some coffee...bam.

[Researcher]

      Just a side note.There is little known legislation that is up for vote this year.For example, in Illinois there is a vote as to whether or not Rod Blagojevich's haircut should be illegal!!!


   Researcher

[Jedironin]

When I was in Portland they were cracking down on the sex crime Private Indecency. Neighbor is walking by your house in the morning and sees you walking out to the kitchen in your birthday suit to make some coffee...bam.

Waitaminnit... shouldn't the guy on the sidewalk be charged as a "peeping tom"?     I would have filed a counter-suit.

[piglett]

Waitaminnit... shouldn't the guy on the sidewalk be charged as a "peeping tom"?     I would have filed a counter-suit.

as long as his name isn't "Tom" i don't think those charges would stick


pig

[Jedironin]

Well then, let's hope his name isn't "Richard", hhmmm? 

[jm21-2]

Well, it's obvious to all right-minded people that a guy or girl who would do such a horrendous thing as walking behind a front-facing window nude is only doing so because they get sexual arousal from their exhibitionist behavior.

So glad I can't see or hear my neighbors and don't have to deal with the typical suburban melodrama.