I want to start of this article with a bit of a warning. Most of us either know a registered sex offender or a victim of one, so I am trying to approach this topic with a little discretion. If you choose to respond, please keep that in mind when posting.

The death of Chelsea King is the latest in a string of children being killed after assaulted by a registered sex offender. With each death, the wounds held by past victims and their families re-open, making them relive the experience all over again. The responses to these actions are usually that of a mob-mentality, with calls for stonings, hangings, or at a minimum life in prison. However, the first two are not acceptable in a civilized society, and the latter can be viewed as harsh by others.

Brent King, the father of Chelsea, has called for changes in the current laws. He stated on the Today Show, “Kids [need to be] kids and be safe … and predators should not be allowed within their reach.” I can’t think of anyone that would disagree with that statement. As we grow older, we often think back to the days of our innocence, were we would go out and play, with the only worry on our mind is if we’ll be discovered in a game of hide-and-seek. Children shouldn’t be forced to live with the emotional scars of an attack or live in fear of it happening again.

The Sexual Offender (Jacob Wetterling) Act of 1994, also known as Megan’s Law, was designed to help communities deal with registered sexual offenders living in their neighborhoods. Sex offenders have to register with the local community when they move into the area, and that information needs to be made available to the public. Many states and organizations have created websites that compiles this information, so residents can screen their neighborhoods to see if there are any sex offenders nearby.

This practice is handy, but it isn’t fool proof. How can you disclose where a sex offender lives when the person is homeless? In Michigan, State Senator Bill Hardiman thinks he has the answer. He introduced legislation this week that would require the homeless sex offenders to site what area they are living in. That way, the residents would at least know that there is an offender somewhere in the region, even though that can’t pin-point the address. But even still, sex offenders are not under house arrest, so even if they did live in a house, the person could be a threat elsewhere in the area.

One of the ways to keep the movements of sex offenders away from where children are is by limiting their access to housing around schools. But as noted above, sex offenders are allowed to walk around in public, placing them in proximity with children. State Senator Bruce Burns of Wyoming is all too aware of this. Sex offenders currently cannot live within 2000 feet of a school in Wyoming, but in a state where there are many small towns; there are sometimes no places for offenders to live. He has submitted legislation to reduce this radius to just 1000 feet, giving a wyoming sex offender more flexibility in finding a residence.

So how do you balance the rights of the sex offender with that of the general public? You can’t just build a commune and expect all sex offenders to be moved to these “reservations.” Nor can you place a proximity alarm on a sex offender so that it goes off if he is too close to a school, especially if the only grocery store is on the other side of that perimeter.

This is the challenge of the law enforcement and legislatures around the nation. What rights do sex offenders have, and when are we allowed to infringe on them? Any suggestions?

Another problem with

Anyone out there like Starbucks? It seems wherever you turn; there’s a Starbucks. They have stand-alone stores, they’re found at airports, and they are even in grocery stores. There’s even one next door to my office!

I like Starbucks, but not for their coffee. In fact, I hate coffee. The reason why I like Starbucks is for their unwillingness to be bullied into changing their policies in regards to “open carry” laws. (And before I go any further, I want to tell you that I hate guns almost as much as I hate coffee.)

The issue centers around the privilege that California residents have to walk around in public with a gun openly displayed. Most states within the Union allow open-carry of guns by registered/licensed gun owners – a practice that bothers gun-control advocacy groups. One of these groups is the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and they’ve adopted an unusual strategy to fight the open-carry laws.

It started in Northern California when the establishments Peet’s Cafe & Tea and California Pizza Kitchen were identified as popular gathering places for gun owners. The Brady Campaign approached the restaurants and asked them to change their policy on allowing people to openly display their firearms indoors, with which they complied. Noticing this was a coordinated attack, the gun owners decided to shift to Starbucks.

The gun owners hedged their bets that Starbucks was too large of a company to be pushed around while at the same time believe the company would not want to lose the sudden increase in customer revenue. The Brady Campaign approached Starbucks with the same request, but was turned away after citing they were in compliance with state laws. Not happy with the lack of the preferred response, the Brady Campaign when on the offensive publicly. Brian Malte, a director within the Brady Campaign, stated, “Starbucks put out a statement today saying they don’t want to be in the middle of this fight. Well, they are.  They are the middle. Why are they in middle?  Because they chose — they chose — not to bar guns, so far, in their stores.”

Malte is wrong, of course. Starbucks was placed in the middle by the Brady Campaign, not because they “chose” to observe state laws. As a result, the Brady Campaign has decided to harass a law-abiding company over a difference of opinion.

Starbucks has tried to keep this issue below the radar since they didn’t want to get involved in a war of words. However, after protests and press conferences in front of their stores, the company felt that their employees and customers were being pulled into an uncomfortable position and decided to go public.

We recognize that there is significant and genuine passion surrounding the issue of open carry weapons laws. Advocacy groups from both sides of this issue have chosen to use Starbucks as a way to draw attention to their positions.

While we deeply respect the views of all our customers, Starbucks long-standing approach to this issue remains unchanged. We comply with local laws and statutes in all the communities we serve. In this case, 43 of the 50 U.S. states have open carry weapon laws. Where these laws don’t exist, we comply with laws that prohibit the open carrying of weapons. The political, policy and legal debates around these issues belong in the legislatures and courts, not in our stores.

…

As the public debate continues, we are asking all interested parties to refrain from putting Starbucks or our partners into the middle of this divisive issue.

The Brady Campaign needs to stop this gutter campaign against Starbucks and go back to working with the state legislatures around the nation. If they continue, I encourage Starbucks to challenge the Brady Campaign and sue them for damages due to any loss of sales as well as for harassment. They have a right to allow law-abiding customers to patron their stores.

As we continue to digest the information surrounding Joseph Stack’s suicide act by flying his plane into an Austin, Texas office building, one of the biggest questions is if this was an act of terrorism. For starters, let’s check to see how Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism:

The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

This is a fairly generic definition, leaving us with more questions than answers. Was Stack trying to coerce the IRS or the government? While he did leave a rambling letter behind, citing grievances against the government (and everyone else), I don’t think this definition is sufficient. So let’s turn to the Code of Federal Regulations and read how the country defines terrorism:

Terrorism includes the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Again we come across the word coerce, but we also see the word intimidate. It could be argued that Stack was intimidating IRS employees with a direct attack on one of their offices, making them concerned that another person with a complaint against the government might attack their place of work. If we recall the Air Force One fly-by over lower Manhattan last year, where it triggered panic by some New Yorkers by seeing a low flying jet pass along their shore, the fear of a repeat attack can last for years.

Our friends over at the Right Wing Nut House states:

But in this case, we have a terrorist without portfolio. His motivation, given the building housed a regional IRS office, seemed to have been revenge more than anything. His ranting about wanting to inspire people is just that – the mouthings of a madman who wanted to give his death a twisted kind of meaning. It’s not logical or rational. It is delusional.

As the author states earlier in the article, “Why can’t a nutcase just be a nutcase?” Could this simply be an over-glorified suicide stunt? We have examples of people attacking stores and schools in the hopes that law enforcement is forced to shoot and kill them.

Cato @ Liberty continues the conversation by saying:

Whether or not he meets the definition, it’s better to deny this man and those like him any credibility with the word “terrorist.” As my colleague Jim Harper said (twice) about the man who shot Dr. George Tiller, this is an unproductive debate that fulfills their desire to be something more than a pathetic murderer.

I would have to say that Stack’s action might be a terrorist act (based upon the term “intimidate” in the Code of Federal Regulations), but I do not believe he was a terrorist himself since he wasn’t dying for a cause. By mimicking the terrible attack of September 11th, he was hoping to give his death more meaning or maybe more validity. But in the end, this was an elaborate suicide attempt because he was unhappy with his life.

What do you think?

Martin Luther King, Jr. once said:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

It is a noble dream, and one I want to see within my lifetime. There is no reason why we can’t live in an open and free society without being shackled by our skin color. “Red and yellow, black and white, they’re all precious in His sight,” is how the old children’s’ song goes, highlighting how our skin color shouldn’t matter in our relationships and interactions with those of different racial background. This is the goal of King, but I don’t think we’ll achieve it with policies such as Affirmative Action and race-based Hate Crime legislation in the books.

King wanted people to be judged based upon their merit and quality of work, and not by any special “bonus” because they are a minority. Affirmative action did a lot to quickly integrate the whites and blacks together in the workplace and in schools, but now qualified individuals get passed up because of self-imposed quotas, fearing the risk of negative reputations if their workforce doesn’t match the demographics of the nearby communities. Take the National Football League (NFL) as an example. They have the “Rooney Rule” on their books, where they must interview at least one minority for head coaching and football operations positions. It doesn’t matter if they’ve already decided on the hire ahead of time, making this minority a “token” interview rather than a serious candidate. Is that what King wanted? Of course not.

As far as hate crimes go, what is the point of having a two-tiered punishment scale just because the person happens to be a different race? Is it less of a crime if the two persons involved are of the same race? What is the difference between a white man killing a black man (or vice versa) and a white man killing another white man? The end result is someone dying. The punishment should be the same, since the law is suppose to be blind (hence the statue of Lady Justice holding a scale while wearing a blindfold).

These examples above just continue to the division between the races rather than bringing them together. Of course we will never reach a point where the two races are completely blind to the color of their skins (you will still have racist groups similar to the Ku Klux Klan and the Black Panthers running around), but we will get to the point where organizations such as the NAACP cease to be relevant. Some of this will come about as the races continue to blend together through marriage and procreation, but the majority of the change will come from maturity.

I have a dream, Dr. King. I have a dream of a color-blind society before my life ends. My hope is that those who profess to act on your behalf share that dream (no matter their racial background).

I was surprised by this, just as I’m sure Governor Mark Sanford is at the moment.  The legislative panel debating how to punish the South Carolina Governor voted against impeaching Sanford, but rather rebuke him formally.  The panel’s lead Rep. James Harrison stated, “We can’t impeach for hypocrisy. We can’t impeach for arrogance. We can’t impeach an officeholder for his lack of leadership skills.” This might be true, but it can be argued that he abandoned his position – an action that would be an impeachable offense.

Is anyone else surprised by today’s announcement?