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

It seemed that when people were not debating who had the better team in the Super Bowl, they were discussing the Focus on the Family ad starring Tim Tebow and his mother. Questioning why CBS allowed an advocacy ad to be aired during the biggest sporting event of the year was second only to the questioning of the content the ad might contain. At no point has a single ad caused such a stir, except for maybe when Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” video aired in 1989 as part of a Pepsi-Cola advertising campaign.

Much of the debate about the Tebow ad was on how CBS could allow a pro-life ad to be aired during the game. In the past, advocacy ads could not be aired during the Super Bowl, but CBS changed that policy prior to the purchase of ad time by Focus on the Family. The ad was never leaked before being aired, causing pundits, talking heads, and otherwise ignorant individuals on both sides of the debate to speculate on the message. Those against the ad automatically labeled it as a 30-second anti-choice sermon. Those for the ad praised it for highlighting the decision of women to choose life. However, both camps were cleverly played.

The approximate $2.6 Million paid for a relatively inexpensive ad to film was a bargain for Focus on the Family. The issue of abortion dominated the talk shows and news media outlets for over a week. In fact, the debate continues, as this article and others around the net can attest to. Here is an example of the point/counterpoint debate raging online.

The Pondering Penguin states:

CBS allowed the showing of a message ad, not allowed before in Super Bowl time. The message? A pro-life testamony given by the mother of widely known college quarterback, Tim Tebow. The silliness of the brouhaha was evident, once the audience actually saw the commercials. Not only were they so benign that if you were not paying attention you may not have realized what the message was, now they are complaining that one of the ads promotes violence against women. Why? Because in one of the ads – they were run in a bit of a story line – Tebow appears to tackle his mother and then she bounces right back up. Obviously done in a campy kind of humor, the loud in the feminist movement have been reduced to whining over a non-act. There was nothing to their concern over a pro-life message ad, so they had to do something to attempt to save face.

Kitsch-Slapped responded with:

I hate to interrupt Townsend, but as this is writing, not speaking, and it’s easier to read if I respond to points as they occur, I will interject. Spelling errors aside (it’s “testimony,” not “testamony”), it’s not wise to label something as a “brouhaha” or “benign” when your evidence is that the message isn’t discernible to those who are not paying attention; “not realized” is the definition of not paying attention, and inattentiveness is quite often a danger to one’s health. The only “silliness” here is that her last statement completely refutes the former statement.

The Pondering Penguin is right on one point – those who were arguing about something they knew nothing about have a lot of saving face to do. For those of you who want to read the anti-choice (or was it pro-life) message of the commercial, here it is:

Pam Tebow: I call him my miracle baby. He almost didn’t make it into this world. I remember so many times when I almost lost him. It was so hard. Well he’s all grown up now, and I still worry about his health. Everybody treats him like he’s different, but to me, he’s just my baby. He’s my Timmy, and I love him.

Tim Tebow: Thanks mom. Love you too.

You tell me … is this pro-choice or pro-life? I’m confused. Was it actually “advocating” anything.

As you might have heard, Pennsylvania Representative John Murtha passed away following complications due to gall bladder surgery.  He served in Congress for 36 years after a decorated career in the Marines.  The following is a collection of thoughts by our fellow bloggers:

The BoBo Files says: Sorry – no tears lost here for that corrupt bastard. I’m sure he’s trying to cut some deals with the devil now as we speak (assuming Kennedy hasn’t already beaten him to the punch).

Chicagoray’s Views and News says: [Unlike] the left when conservatives fall ill and pass on, I’ll wait until he’s buried to celebrate the loss. And celebrate I eventually will his absence from congress hereafter, and for that reason today America just became a better place, however for his family I mourn their sad loss as he was a human being most of the time.

Taxes, Stupidity, and Death says: Few people get to be so damned by their own words and deeds and still remain in their positions of power until the assume room temperature. I’m sorry for his family, but not for the “unindicted co-conspirator“.

Wisdom From Wenchypoo’s Mental Wastebasket says: I, for one, am glad John Murtha’s gone, and you should be too. … Hopefully, John Murtha’s passing will put an end to over-spending on antiquated military hardware and vehicles, and unwanted vehicles and hardware for the sake of bringing home the bacon.

Of the huge list of bloggers on my Political Blog Listing, those four quotes above represents all of what has been said about a man that has served over 3 decades in office. Just four. Most of the liberal blogs were silent on the issue, and the rest simply reposted news articles.

I might come back to this article in a few days, just in case some of the other bloggers have thoughts to share. However, as things look now, the legacy of Murtha’s political career will be focused on pork spending and as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in the ABSCAM scandal.

Until then, our thoughts and prayers go out to the Murtha family at this time.