If a tree falls...
caught the charlie baker road show in front of the pollard taking advantage of the photo op to do the "tough on crime" thing. (don't mistake my snarkiness--that judge needs to be asked some very pointed questions about how the taking off a court-mandated monitoring device and cruising the children's section of the public library without supervision does not violate terms of a parole that specifies wearing of said monitoring device, staying away from children, and being supervised).
the thought that occurred to me which transcended the noteworthiness of charlie's foray into "enemy territory" (i.e. the D-dominated city of lowell) was the irony of his recent absence while tens of thousands of registered voters were roaming the streets of the city during folk fest. seriously, i get why pols prefer to play primarily to their ideological constituencies, but there would seem to be little explanation other than rank opportunism (i.e. the photo op presented by the sex offender in the library episode) that would bring him here to play to exactly four reporters, a republican committee chair and two erstwhile candidates for national office (who were eager or could we say desperate to ride charlie's republican-message coattails) while ignoring the largest public folk festival crowd in north america that was here only a few days ago.
but, don't get me wrong. i liked charlie well enough. he's thoughtful, well-spoken, and on the right side of a good issue here. of course, i didn't think so well of one of the coattailers, who was thumping the law-and-order rulebook just a bit too disingenuously for my preference. (while charlie was rightfully referencing past deliberations on fair treatment to all, including those bearing their just punishments as offenders, this not-so-thoughtful public office wannabe was playing the "but they're PUBLIC RECORDS" rant that thoroughly misses the point of what's public, and what's pushed out there via things like google that make historical referencepoints all but worthless, and the whole registry thing SO important to get right, but, of course, i digress).
i did get to ask sam meas directly about his anti-illegal-immigration position, in light of my opinion that we are cutting off our own economic noses to spite our xenophobic faces to be erecting fences and policing borders, and we agreed to disagree on what our first priority should be. (sam says arming the border, and arresting and deporting people everywhere they can be found, while i say finding ways for those who want to be here for all the right reasons to ALL be here for all the right reasons, just like it says on the statue of liberty and in our "all men are created equal" declaration of independence, and keeping effective tabs on them (i.e. ensuring our own security), and collecting all the fairly-owed taxes, but, once again, i digress).
quote of the day, from one of the folks on the crew who has worked for both D and R political campaigns, to my expressed disappointment that party politicians these days seem to spend the majority of their time and resources opposing the other party and it's people regardless of the positions taken, was "you're not wrong".
nope, i'm not.
edited to add: i got the "public office wannabe" part wrong--she's not running for office, despite all indication of being a palm-pressing pol on the trail--she's laurie meyers, of chelmsford, who gives every impression she would be perfectly happy if we were painting door lintels with six-pointed stars. excuse my insensitivity, and please understand i'm a father who puts the safety of his children behind no effort spared, but there's public safety, the public's right to know, and somewhere, SOMEWHERE, there remains the right of every citizen to have their own interests at least considered before the match is set to the pyre beneath their spot on the lynching tree. or maybe laurie can tell me why my daughter and sons are safer once all the offenders are driven from every aspect of responsible society--from their jobs and their homes and their families--and into the street derelict and looking for "something to do".
the thought that occurred to me which transcended the noteworthiness of charlie's foray into "enemy territory" (i.e. the D-dominated city of lowell) was the irony of his recent absence while tens of thousands of registered voters were roaming the streets of the city during folk fest. seriously, i get why pols prefer to play primarily to their ideological constituencies, but there would seem to be little explanation other than rank opportunism (i.e. the photo op presented by the sex offender in the library episode) that would bring him here to play to exactly four reporters, a republican committee chair and two erstwhile candidates for national office (who were eager or could we say desperate to ride charlie's republican-message coattails) while ignoring the largest public folk festival crowd in north america that was here only a few days ago.
but, don't get me wrong. i liked charlie well enough. he's thoughtful, well-spoken, and on the right side of a good issue here. of course, i didn't think so well of one of the coattailers, who was thumping the law-and-order rulebook just a bit too disingenuously for my preference. (while charlie was rightfully referencing past deliberations on fair treatment to all, including those bearing their just punishments as offenders, this not-so-thoughtful public office wannabe was playing the "but they're PUBLIC RECORDS" rant that thoroughly misses the point of what's public, and what's pushed out there via things like google that make historical referencepoints all but worthless, and the whole registry thing SO important to get right, but, of course, i digress).
i did get to ask sam meas directly about his anti-illegal-immigration position, in light of my opinion that we are cutting off our own economic noses to spite our xenophobic faces to be erecting fences and policing borders, and we agreed to disagree on what our first priority should be. (sam says arming the border, and arresting and deporting people everywhere they can be found, while i say finding ways for those who want to be here for all the right reasons to ALL be here for all the right reasons, just like it says on the statue of liberty and in our "all men are created equal" declaration of independence, and keeping effective tabs on them (i.e. ensuring our own security), and collecting all the fairly-owed taxes, but, once again, i digress).
quote of the day, from one of the folks on the crew who has worked for both D and R political campaigns, to my expressed disappointment that party politicians these days seem to spend the majority of their time and resources opposing the other party and it's people regardless of the positions taken, was "you're not wrong".
nope, i'm not.
edited to add: i got the "public office wannabe" part wrong--she's not running for office, despite all indication of being a palm-pressing pol on the trail--she's laurie meyers, of chelmsford, who gives every impression she would be perfectly happy if we were painting door lintels with six-pointed stars. excuse my insensitivity, and please understand i'm a father who puts the safety of his children behind no effort spared, but there's public safety, the public's right to know, and somewhere, SOMEWHERE, there remains the right of every citizen to have their own interests at least considered before the match is set to the pyre beneath their spot on the lynching tree. or maybe laurie can tell me why my daughter and sons are safer once all the offenders are driven from every aspect of responsible society--from their jobs and their homes and their families--and into the street derelict and looking for "something to do".
Labels: politics
posted by kad barma at 9:48 PM
4 Comments:
This is one of those really, really tough issues where I can hear a persuasive argument on one side, feel like I've been convinced, and then hear an equally cogent argument from the other side and find myself sold, yet again, but 180 degrees in the other direction.
Then, if I think about it some more afterwards, I'm just confused. That's either a good thing (open-mindedness) or a bad thing (wishy-washiness).
I agree with what you said about the beginning -- there's no way that guy should've been able to violate his terms, esp. near kids. I also worry about people who get swept up in the "offender dragnet" for non-serious crimes (i.e. if someone were mooning people as a teenage prank, and then got slapped with some kind of public nudity charge that followed them around and raised the ire of moralist neighbors who lacked context of what happened).
Still, is it fair to say the woman advocating for public registry is thoughtless? Yes, she's passionate, and yes, she's taking a clear stance...but I think there's some substance behind what she's saying, as opposed to a truly thoughtless political statement (i.e. let's just turn [insert name of country] into a parking lot via nuclear bombing)
The offender stuff is tough...I'm not a parent yet, and if I were, I'd hope to be able to protect my kid(s) as much as possible.. I recognize there are some heavy-duty issues involved (vigilantism, double jeopardy) but I would want to know as much as I could about which adults might be potential predators.
This is one of those really, really tough issues where I can hear a persuasive argument on one side, feel like I've been convinced, and then hear an equally cogent argument from the other side and find myself sold, yet again, but 180 degrees in the other direction.
Then, if I think about it some more afterwards, I'm just confused. That's either a good thing (open-mindedness) or a bad thing (wishy-washiness).
I agree with what you said about the beginning -- there's no way that guy should've been able to violate his terms, esp. near kids. I also worry about people who get swept up in the "offender dragnet" for non-serious crimes (i.e. if someone were mooning people as a teenage prank, and then got slapped with some kind of public nudity charge that followed them around and raised the ire of moralist neighbors who lacked context of what happened).
Still, is it fair to say the woman advocating for public registry is thoughtless? Yes, she's passionate, and yes, she's taking a clear stance...but I think there's some substance behind what she's saying, as opposed to a truly thoughtless political statement (i.e. let's just turn [insert name of country] into a parking lot via nuclear bombing)
The offender stuff is tough...I'm not a parent yet, and if I were, I'd hope to be able to protect my kid(s) as much as possible.. I recognize there are some heavy-duty issues involved (vigilantism, double jeopardy) but I would want to know as much as I could about which adults might be potential predators.
it wasn't calling for a public registry that got me going, it was her advocacy of a torches-and-pitchforks approach to using that public registry to further hound those on it without (to my mind anyway) reasonable limit. there was a guy working at mcdonalds in the area who lost his job awhile back owing to his presence on such a registry, and it troubled me to wonder where those on such a list would end up having to go if they couldn't be left alone enough to even find work. (i sure hope that guy found another job, anyway, though i can imagine all sorts of other outcomes that i'd prefer not to have to think about).
i'm in favor of close and careful monitoring, and i'm in favor of affording the public the sort of information that will let them know the threats faced by their children, be it by registry or any other reasonable means. i'm appalled that the library i frequent with my children isn't protected by my judiciary against unmonitored offenders who slip their monitoring devices on and off with impunity. APPALLED.
and i want to once again take my hat off to the library personnel and the police for taking swift, fair and effective action, despite the court's insult to their better example.
just spare me the rants that refuse to respect the importance of ALL citizens, and even the ones who are troubled and in need of rehabilitation. i am confident that my children are best protected when previous offenders are guided to find another way. the alternative is making them further desperate, and dangerous. and NOBODY wants that.
I see Kad's point and in fact have talked about it in the past. Long ago I decided that given the restrictions on sex offenders that we should just deport them all to North Adams and let them form up their own community—not as a form of punishment but as a chance to live relatively normal lives without fear of crossing some invisible line that gets them into trouble. That said, the person in question here crossed the line either deliberately or with such thoughtlessness as to warrant the action of the community. The judge was just flat wrong to let him off the way she did.
Bringing the convicted back into society is hard and is even harder in this economy, where employers can be particularly picky. There is some good news in trying to help folks rehabilitate themselves in terms of legislation past this past week. Boston Globe Columnist Adrian Walker talked about it today.
There is a way to help. As part of the Lowell Plan to End Homelessness in 10 Years there is a subcommittee looking into this issue. If anyone is interested in serving on the subcommittee they can contact the City or they can contact me (crk at theworld.com).
There is also organizations like New England Prison Ministeries trying to help those in jail and those who have been released and are trying to lead a straight life. If you go to the site you will notice that NEPM is out of Lowell. The reason is the leader lives in Lowell. But, money for this kind of outreach is in limited supply.
There is a lot of work out there to be done. Work to help the victims and work to help those who are trying to turn their lives around. Also work to prevent there from being more victims.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home