It’s been another crazy week at work. Actually, I’ve been working at home most of this week, but the work has been rather intense. When I’ve got deadlines to meet, I tend to work at home more because it gives me uninterrupted time to work on the problem.

I went to bed early last night. I did yard work most of the day, and was really tired. This morning, I woke up to about 12 turkeys in my back yard. I had the window opened slightly, and they were making all kinds of gobbling noises. When I opened the window, they flew away except for this one.

Of course, Mimi, my cat, doesn’t quite know what to do about this...

Yes, I’m still using my flannel sheets. I like to sleep warm and to me, it still feels like winter. This is one of the few moments that Max stuck around long enough to show that he really does care about his sister.

I was going to make a post... something to the effect that I’m still alive and well. But, it’s 75 degrees outside and sunny. So, I’m going to go by the deli, buy a sandwich, grab some drink, and head off to Mashapaug Pond (the word “Mashapaug” is the Nipmuck Indian word for “Great Pond”) for a private little picnic. Kent is on an Iceland/Paris trip and is gone for a week. I’ll do this later... 1:25p.m.

-----------

7:25p.m. - Ok... I’m back, and I had a wonderful time at Mashapaug Pond. So much has happened in the last few weeks. I’ve been submerged in a project for work with little time left to post anything. Hopefully, I’m wrapping up that project a bit, and can move on to things that are personally more enjoyable.

We have managed to upgrade the website a bit. We upgraded to the latest version of our blogging software, along with moving to a new server platform (a fancy way of saying that it’s nicer for us). I’ve also managed to finally spend some time studying RSS (stands for “Really Simple Syndication”) feeds. They used to be a way to read the content of a website if you installed an RSS reader. You would have to go to the site and try to figure out if the site even offered RSS (many still do not). But now, you can do much more with RSS than in the past. In fact, if you are really interested in the postings of this site, you can click on the “Email Subscription to our Blog!” button on the left. That will verify your address and send you an email. There will be a link in the email that will confirm that you are who you say you are, and confirm your subscription. Each morning, if I’ve posted, you will get an email composed from my RSS feed of the latest entries. And all of this is possible via RSS.

I’ve taken RSS one step farther and integrated my photos over on Flickr with my RSS feed. Then, when I post photos online, they become part of my RSS feed (and the feed that would be mailed to you, if you subscribed). I may also add to the RSS feed comments that people post, in addition to the entry itself. The options are endless. I also have an RSS feed of just my photos. All of this is located on the top left side of the main page.

What else has happened? Well, I bought yet another camera. I know what you are thinking... it’s an addiction. Perhaps. This is the new camera.



So why do I need this new camera? Well, the Nikon D70 and D200, my current cameras, are about the most awesome cameras I’ve seen around. There is virtually nothing you can not do with them. But, there is one thing that I was wishing for; a camera that I would always have with me. The problem with the Nikon cameras are their size. This new Panasonic is super small and easily fits into a pocket. And it takes decent photos.

So you gain that advantage. There have been so many times that I wanted to take a photo, and just didn’t have the Nikon. It’s not something that you can just take anywhere with you. The drawback is that it takes decent photos, but they aren’t in the same league as the Nikon. Close up is better. Taking distance photos are ok, but you won’t get the absolute sharpness the Nikon will deliver. It’s a trade off. Also, it costs a fraction (around $350) of what the Nikon costs. But for most people and for a quick snap of something you want to capture, it works well.

If you are like me, we seem to live in a somewhat surreal world where quite unbelievable things happen every day. I never in my life thought that anything would overshadow the war in Iraq. And then the shootings at Virginia Tech came along. How horrible. Sadly, I wasn’t that surprised. Not much surprises me anymore it seems.

I have a few theories concerning why this happened, in general terms. Basically, it’s human nature I suppose. When someone is put down and bullied long enough, it’s really only a matter of time before it blows up. I know when we were younger, there were times that we were harassed in public, and we basically took it. We did nothing. We went into a restaurant, sat down, and this stranger off the street came in and started hassling us because he thought we were gay. We sat silently because we didn’t want trouble, and the restaurant establishment just watched and let it happen. Being hassled for being gay was just part of being gay, it seemed.

But today, if that happened to me, the restaurant would probably end up being cleared out and the police being called. I wouldn’t resort to violence, but I wouldn’t sit there and take it either. I’ve had enough of that crap and I won’t take it anymore.

I’m a peaceful, level headed, rational person, so my friends tell me. If I were mentally off, as I believe the shooter in the Virginia Tech shootings to be, you would be hearing about it in the national news. We all have to start caring for each other more and, we have to be more watchful for those who are in trouble. There were many signs with this guy, and all of them were ultimately passed over and ignored. And we all know the result.

I also think that there is something seriously wrong with the gun laws in this country. The shooter wasn’t even a citizen of the United States. I thought that the Second Amendment applied to U.S. citizens. So why was this guy able to buy a gun from a gun store? He was able to also order a gun on the Internet from a gun shop in Idaho. I’m so surprised! (sarcasm). Actually, I was surprised that you could buy a gun on the Internet. He also bought bullet clips from eBay. And all of this after 9/11. Have we learned nothing?

Another point.... the Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Alright, but when those words were written, the “militia” that it talks about really did comprise of just regular people, like you and me. Now, we really do have a militia to ensure the “security of a free State”. Why must we all have weapons? I simply don’t get it. I asked my brother this as well. He supports the right for anyone to have a weapon. His reasoning is that if you take all the guns away from law abiding citizens, the criminals would be left with the weapons. So, I guess my next question is, “Isn’t that what the police are for?” Maybe I’m just being dumb about this, but it really does seem that simple.

Moving on to lighter subjects... I woke up to a phone call from Kent (at 9:00a.m. no less!), who is now in Paris. He went to Iceland for a few days, then off to Paris for a week. After his call, I was lying in bed and I kept hearing this noise outside. I looked out my bedroom window that opens to the back yard. This is what I saw....



A wild turkey... which is probably why I chose a turkey sandwich at the deli for my picnic lunch today. I got up, showered, and went downstairs to feed the cats. Maxwell was already preparing for his morning sun bath, just waiting for the sun to catch up.



I fed them, and was off to Charlie’s, one of our favorite places for breakfast.



It was a nice day.

I thought the Connecticut River would be high because of the rain, but I was hoping I could at least have lunch down by the river. This is what I found. To give you an idea of how high the river is, I used to walk on the other side of that tree. The picnic tables used to be around the tree. Now, they've been move up on the banks. A parking lot is where the light posts are sticking out of the water. You can see the very top of a stop sign sticking up out of the water.

I just received this wonderful news from Love Makes A Family, concerning the marriage equality bill in Connecticut. I wanted to share it.

Thanks to your support, we made history today in Connecticut!

By a vote of 27 to 15, our legislature’s Judiciary Committee passed a marriage equality bill, making Connecticut only the second state in the country to win a marriage vote in a state legislature.

The legislators who voted with us today are the first in our state’s history to have had the opportunity to cast an up or down vote on a marriage bill. Whatever happens next, we will always remember them for their strong leadership.

The marriage equality bill will now go to the House of Representatives for a full debate.

Today we will celebrate this incredible victory, but tomorrow we will turn our attention back to the hard work of winning over a majority of House votes.

We will need YOUR help to win the next vote. If you have not made a donation this year to support our work (or if you can make another!), please consider doing so today by clicking here.

Thank you!

Sincerely,

Anne Stanback, Executive Director
Love Makes a Family

How the legislators voted...

Edwards is making a push for gay support in the competitive Democratic presidential primary. In February, he came out in support of legislation that would end the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that prevents people who are openly gay from serving in the military. (source)

That’s nice. As for marriage equality....

Question: You oppose gay marriage?

EDWARDS: I do. But I believe that this is an issue that ought to be decided in the states. I think the federal government should honor whatever decision is made by the states. I would not support the Defense of Marriage Act today, if there were a vote today.

Question: You would not vote for it?

EDWARDS: I would not. I would not for a very simple reason. There’s a part of it that I agree with, and there’s a part of it I disagree with. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically said that the federal government is not required to recognize gay marriage even if a state chooses to do so. I disagree with that. I think states should be allowed to make that decision. And the federal government shouldn’t do it. The part I agree with is the states should not be required to recognize marriages from other states. That’s already in the law, by the way, without DOMA. The law today does not require one state to recognize the marriage of another state. - Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC Feb 26, 2004

As a gay man, I’m so sick and tired of these wimpy politicians wanting it both ways. They throw us a bread crumb to solicit our help in putting their hypocritical asses into office, and then turn around (in a different speech of course) and say that they are against the protections for our families. Today, would they dare to that for interracial marriages? Of course not, because that is now accepted. Backbone is what I’m looking for here.

On another recent occasion, Edwards was once again asked if he was for marriage equality for gay couples. He summed it up perfectly by simply saying, “That’s a reach for me.”

Well, I can live with that Mr. Edwards (and I do, everyday). So I’m sure you will understand that it is a “reach for me” to support you. And to be fair to his fellow hypocrites, neither Hillary or Obama supports equality either. And each of them fall under the same category as Edwards.

Despite this, Edwards has a lot of support from many in the gay community, as does Hillary and Obama.

Skip Paul, Corporate Executive Darren Star, TV Producer
Julie Johnson, Human Rights Campaign Public Policy Committee Co-Chair
Eric Stern, Former National Stonewall Democrats Executive Director; Former Democratic National Committee LGBT Outreach Director
David Mixner, Former Bill Clinton for President Adviser; LGBT activist, fundraiser, author www.davidmixner.com
Dennis Erdman, TV Producer/ Director
Mary Snider, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Executive Committee Member
David Tseng, Kerry-Edwards 2004 National LGBT Advisory Committee Co-Chair; Former Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) National Executive Director
David Mariner, Former Out for Howard Dean Co-Chair; Founder, www.outfordemocracy.org
James Duff, TV Producer
Ramon Gardenhire, National Stonewall Democrats Black Caucus Co-Chair; Former DNC LGBT Deputy Outreach Director
Scott Benson, Majority Leader Minneapolis City Council
Shane Larson, AFL-CIO Pride @ Work National Executive Board Member; Association of Flight Attendants (AFA)-Communications Workers of America (CWA) Government Affairs Director
Scott Wiener, Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors Member; San Francisco Democratic Party Chair* (for identification purposes only)
Jeff Gardner, Garden State Equality Vice Chair; New Jersey for Democracy Co-Chair
Lynne Wiggins, Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) National Leadership Council Member; Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Governors Member
Ken Keechl, Broward County Commissioner; Former Dolphin Democrats President
Linda Elliott, Human Rights Committee Board of Directors Member
Dave Garrity, Former Democratic National Committee Member
Mark Periello, Former Human Rights Campaign staff member; Democratic strategist
Ron Ginsburg, LGBT Community Activist; business owner
Randall Kelly, LGBT Community Activist; attorney
Stephanie Kornegay, LGBT Community Activist; business owner
Robert D. Horvath, Mautner Project Board of Directors Member
Patrick J. Lyden, LGBT Community Activist; Homeland Security Advisor

Source

You get the idea. I guess I just keep wondering, when are we going to stop accepting our place in society as second best and demand equality from the people who want our support?

This is in response to yesterday’s post entitled Morning Thought. I was going to respond to a comment left on the item, but then realized that it was turning into a full entry in itself.

On the comment left by Dave (and thank you Dave for the comment! :) ), he said, “Until God is taken out of the argument about basic human rights, there will always be a place for hatred and irrational persecution in the name of God.”

Dave, you are absolutely right. I was only trying to address the issue of “tolerance” versus “acceptance”. I’m tired of being “tolerated”, and I really don’t have time of day for people who “tolerate” me. If they see me on an absolutely equal footing with them, then they have “accepted” me.

On the religion issue, there will always be people around who use religion and God as an excuse to hate certain minorities. There’s really nothing I or anyone else can do about that. 9/11 was carried out, after all, for religious reasons.

I’ve come to a place in my life where I no longer care what people like this think. I do care about the actions that come out of the message that they send espousing hate in the name of God (gay bashings). But I see these crimes being prosecuted more and more with more appropriate sentences.

I realize that so many issues facing our community are driven by religion...

...we are denied equality in the name of religion
...people commit horrible crimes against us in the name of religion. In some places in the world, that means DEATH.

Yet, I try to believe in a right (in this country at least) for people to practice their religion. Some of us believe in God, and some do not. And what so many Americans still fail to understand is the fact that just because they have a right to believe in their God, does not give them the right to make the lives of people like me more difficult because of those laws.

This is extremely clear to me when I go to a hearing at the Legislative Office Building in Hartford. This year, we are, for the first time since civil unions were passed in Connecticut two years ago, trying to pass a bill that would allow gay couples to get married. And all through the hearings were speeches about God, religion, and the Bible. People were even quoting scripture at the hearings.

Now, I understand that these were open and public hearings, but one fact seems to elude people. We are talking about civil marriage here - NOT religious marriage. It is even part of the civil union bill that no religion would be required to perform a “gay wedding”. Therefore, all this religious talk in a civil discourse over equality under the law is absolute nonsense. It has no place in the argument. This application of religion when weighing the merits of a public bill violates the very nature and spirit of the separation of church and state.

Yet, no one sees that. It’s not as if people talking at the hearings are ignorant to this fact. They are after all, speaking directly to the legislators that we elect to represent us. And yet, my legislator would not even meet with me. He’s not interested in a) hearing what a gay man has to say and b) not interested in meeting a gay man.

So, I suppose, using his terminology, he can “go to Hell.”

As long as we allow religion into state and federal politics, these things will happen. And they’ve been happening for many years from the time that we introduced “under God” into the Pledge of Allegiance to placing monuments of the Ten Commandments into public parks. In a public school, speaking to school children, “under God” has no place being in the Pledge of Allegiance. The same goes for all the Ten Commandment monuments adorning our public parks. Take them out!

Keep your God and your religion where it belongs: IN A CHURCH!

I started my day by reading this over on Straight, Not Narrow. It set a good tone for my day.

You’ve got to love a writer who uses the word “poppycock,” but I wish Mr. Pimentel had not focused on the word “tolerance.” Sure, that would be a major improvement over the attitudes he derides in his column, but is that the end goal we’re seeking with the GLBT community? Should I walk up to the gay and lesbian members of my church next Sunday, hug them, and say, “I tolerate you.” I know at least with a couple of them, I’d better plan on ducking if I pulled something like that.

Tolerance is an incremental step, much like civil unions are in the issue of same-sex marriage, but acceptance of GLBT people as full-fledged members of society needs to be the end result. A bad rash, you can tolerate. Traffic at rush hour, you can tolerate. Gay and lesbian people should be accepted.

Why? Because they’re people and God made them.

The crocus in front of our home is blooming! Always a welcome site to see.

Just a warning... This is ADULT MATERIAL!

Leah Vader and Lynne Huskinson, a lesbian couple who got married in Canada in August, sent a letter recently to their state legislator decrying a Wyoming bill that would deny recognition of same-sex marriages. The lawmaker read the letter on the floor of the Legislature.

Soon after, the local paper interviewed the couple on Ash Wednesday and ran a story and pictures of them with ash on their foreheads, a mark of their Christian faith.

It wasn’t long after that that the couple received a notice from their parish church telling them they have been barred from receiving Communion.

“If all this stuff hadn’t hit the newspaper, it wouldn’t have been any different than before -- nobody would have known about it,” said the couple’s parish priest at St. Matthew’s, the Rev. Cliff Jacobson. “The sin is one thing. It’s a very different thing to go public with that sin.” (source)

Does this mean that a private citizen can not have a personal opinion about a social issue without being punished by their church? I could see this action taking place if they made a public announcement of their relationship in church. But that is not what happened. They simply wrote a letter to their legislator stating their concerns and their opinion. It became public after that legislator read their letter on the floor of the Legislature - something the couple did not ask him to do.

So now, their church is punishing them for basically being active and interested citizens. So much for the separation of church and state.

But I can honestly understand this action. We are talking about a church, after all, that will quickly take an action on the issue of homosexuality, and spend decades covering up and transferring priests who are known to the church to be molesting young boys. That sounds “intrinsically disordered” to me.

I read this entry from Will over on DesignerBlog concerning the firing of gay translators.

IBM has announced that it will supply major amounts of Arabic-English translation software to the U.S. armed forces. The gift is to fill the yawning gap left in this vitally needed service caused by the dismissal of hundreds of human translators solely on the grounds of their being gay or lesbian. The government itself has recognized that the current lack of Arabic translators has caused a critical situation in American-Iraqi communications that is highly counterproductive to Bozo’s current reincarnation of “stay the course”.

Yet in the face of all reason, Bozo himself has endorsed the dismissals under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in a recent White House Rose Garden press conference. Asked if he agreed with General Pace’s controversial comments that gay and lesbian soldiers, sailors and marines are “immoral”, Bozo said he would make no moral judgments; asked if he still supported DA,DT he said yes indeed, because it’s a good policy.

In a perverse way (unless it were to further endanger any American serving in Iraq or Afghanistan) I kind of hope IBM supplies the kind of translation quality that you get when you feed text into any of the on-line translation systems.

I have used the online translation programs a bit and I can tell you from personal experience that some of the return results are not exactly what you want to say. So, I couldn’t resist. I just had to leave the following comment...

“In a perverse way (unless it were to further endanger any American serving in Iraq or Afghanistan) I kind of hope IBM supplies the kind of translation quality that you get when you feed text into any of the on-line translation systems.”

TYPED INTO TRANSLATOR: “What do feel the United States can do to alleviate the violence from suicide bombers?”

TRANSLATED TEXT: “I would like to have fun with your donkey, if he is willing to wear red without suicidal alleviation.”

Republicans on Wednesday threw the first political salvos after the collapse of the gay marriage amendment.

House Minority Leader Brian Bosma called a news conference to denounce Democratic leaders in the House -- particularly Speaker Pat Bauer -- for orchestrating the defeat of the joint resolution.

“When a measure is overwhelmingly supported by the public and a few leaders thwart it from moving forward, that may catch the public’s attention,” Bosma said about possible political fallout in the 2008 House elections.

The proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman tied 5-5 in the Democratic-led House Rules Committee Tuesday night.

Five of the six Democratic members voted against the measure based on the ambiguity surrounding the second section of the proposed amendment. That language says, “this Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.” (source)

“When a measure is overwhelmingly supported by the public”....

Slavery was overwhelmingly supported by the public. Why wasn’t that placed on the ballot for a public vote?

Preventing women from being able to vote was overwhelmingly supported by the public. Why wasn’t that placed on the ballot for a public vote?

Keeping the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from being enacted was overwhelmingly supported by the public. Why wasn’t that placed on the ballot for a public vote?

Keeping interracial couples from being able to marry was overwhelmingly supported by the public. Why wasn’t that placed on the ballot for a public vote?

Why does the gay community deserve the special treatment under the law of selectively, as a group, having our civil rights voted on? Or should I say, voted away?

Vice President Dick Cheney revealed that his sixth grandchild, the first out-of-wedlock child for lesbians Mary Cheney and Heather Poe, will be a boy. He broke the news to ABC News Radio, the Washington Post column Reliable Source reported today.

Said Cheney: “I’m delighted I’m about to be a grandparent for the sixth time. I’m looking forward to the arrival of a new grandson.” [...]

Mary Cheney spoke about the child in February at Barnard College. She said: “When Heather and I decided to have a baby, I knew it wasn’t going to be the most popular decision. [points to womb] This is a baby. This is a blessing from God. It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate, on either side of a political issue. It is my child.” (source)

Well, to me, seeing Mary Cheney pregnant has proven to me that she is not a man! I used to think she was. She was cutting her hair shorter and shorter and looked more masculine than feminine to me. I thought that if she kept going, she was going to end up looking more like G.I. Jane.

...and the evil queen inside of me wonders...

Mary Cheney and her partner live in Virginia, a state that does not allow for a marriage between the two, does not allow for a civil union or a domestic partnership between the two, or even the ability for a same sex couple to adopt.

Dick Cheney states, “I think each state ought to have the capacity to decide how they want to handle those issues...And I obviously think it’s important for us as a society to be tolerant and respectful of whatever arrangements people enter into.” Right.

SO.............

Let’s suppose for a moment that it’s Heather Poe, Mary Cheney’s partner who is pregnant and having the baby. She has the baby. The relationship sours between Heather and Mary. Heather, being the mother, has decided that she no longer wishes for Mary to have any further contact with her child. And since Mary has no legal bond to the child, or to Heather, Mary, and presumably all the Cheney’s would be denied access to their new grandson.

I have to wonder, if this were the scenario, would Dick Cheney still feel that “each state ought to have the capacity to decide how they want to handle those issues”, or would he order the National Guard to invade Virginia? Oh wait, they are in Iraq. I forgot. Enough of that....

IT’S SPRING!!! ...even though it dropped some snow on us last night...

To celebrate spring, I’m feeling... LEMON! Yeah I know, you think Bill has lost it (more than usual). This week I made chicken piccata (with lemon, capers, and artichoke hearts), have embraced the new “lemon drop” martini (light and refreshing), and last but not least, a lemon cheesecake that I love (and it loves me too!).

A few days ago I posted an entry entitled, What To Do With Sex Offenders. Well, it appears that Florida has found a solution to the problem. In Miami, they can stay under a rat infested bridge with no running water, power, or utilities.

I received this story from a friend. He sent it to me because of a previous posting about this. It’s quite an unbelievable story.

The sparkling blue waters off Miami’s Julia Tuttle Causeway look as if they were taken from a postcard. But the causeway’s only inhabitants see little paradise in their surroundings.

Five men -- all registered sex offenders convicted of abusing children -- live along the causeway because there is a housing shortage for Miami’s least welcome residents.

“I got nowhere I can go!” says sex offender Rene Matamoros, who lives with his dog on the shore where Biscayne Bay meets the causeway.

The Florida Department of Corrections says there are fewer and fewer places in Miami-Dade County where sex offenders can live because the county has some of the strongest restrictions against this kind of criminal in the country.

Florida’s solution: house the convicted felons under a bridge that forms one part of the causeway. [...]

With nowhere to put these men, the Department of Corrections moved them under the Julia Tuttle Causeway. With the roar of cars passing overhead, convicted sex offender Kevin Morales sleeps in a chair to keep the rats off him.

“The rodents come up next to you, you could be sleeping the whole night and they could be nibbling on you,” he said. [...]

The convicted felons may not be locked up anymore, but they say it’s not much of an improvement.

“Jail is anytime much better than this, than the life than I’m living here now,” Morales said. “[In jail] I can sleep better. I get fed three times a day. I can shower anytime that I want to.”

Morales said that harsher laws and living conditions for sex offenders may have unintended consequences.

“The tougher they’re making these laws unfortunately it’s scaring offenders and they’re saying, ‘You know what, the best thing for me to do is run,’” Morales said.

A Miami Herald investigation two years ago found that 1,800 sex offenders in Florida were unaccounted for after violating probation. (source)

I want to make something very very clear before I say anything else about this story. And that is, I support the need for all children to be in a safe environment without fear of having sexual predators around. If you think that I support these predators and what they’ve done, you are misreading what I’m saying.

The people we are talking about have served time for their crime. Some of them have been incarcerated for years. Sexual predators don’t have the same rights that someone who commits a murder has. Murderers go to prison as well. Later, they get out, and are on parole. They have to see a parole officer for as long as the court deems necessary. But, that is never for the rest of their lives.

With sexual predators, this is a life sentence. They will be on a predator watch list, which is usually on the Internet, for all to see, and for all time. I don’t have a problem with most of them being on this list. I do have a problem with the guys that have been out for the last 25 years ago, who the police say pose no further problem, with no legal way at their disposal to have their names removed from the list. That seems wrong to me.

Some may live in a place that is acceptable. Some may have their homes paid for and are minding their own business. Then, the city makes plans to build a school a thousand feet from the home they’ve had for the last 30 years. Now, they have to sell their home and move for something that happened half a lifetime ago. That seems wrong to me.

Having laws on the books that make it virtually impossible for these people to live anywhere than under a bridge seems wrong and inhumane to me. Surely we can do better than this. Honestly, I would rather they be put in jail than be subjected to the elements like this. It’s really a form of prolonged torture.

Many will criticize me for saying these things. That’s fine. I would simply say that if you want these people to pay for the rest of their lives for what they did, we should at least be a little more honest about it, and make it a life sentence. It’s fair that they should be kept some distance from a school, but they should have the right to own a home at least. They could be forced to wear an ankle bracelet to keep tabs on them.

I believe these laws are out of control. No civilized society would do this.

BOSTON -- Another community is considering new restrictions on where sex offenders can live.

The central Massachusetts town of Holden has a public hearing planned for Monday night on Selectman James Jumonville’s proposal.

The selectman’s plan would prohibit Level Two and Level Three sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of any school, park, day care center, elderly housing or anywhere else where children congregate. (source)

Before everyone starts saying that I’m being soft on sex offenders (that sounded bad, didn’t it?), I just want to point out the obvious.

Let’s say that you are one of those “level two” or “level three” sex offenders. I’m not sure what those categories are, but it really doesn’t matter for the sake of this argument. You have done your time in prison for your offense, and you are now out of prison, presumably being carefully watched by law enforcement personnel.

Now, my challenge to you is to pull up the map of a mid-size city or even a good sized town. Try to find a place you can live that is not “within 2,000 feet of any school, park, day care center, elderly housing or anywhere else where children congregate”? I’m not even sure that is possible. So, I suppose the question is, where are these people going to live?

I suppose some will comment or write, “Too damn bad”, “Their problem, not mine”, or, “They should have thought about that before going after an innocent child.” I too have those feelings, but beyond all of that, we are still stuck with the issue of where they will live. Making it impossible for them to legally live most anywhere just seems to be a cop out to me. One thing that comes to mind is electronic monitoring. They may have to stay within the confines of their property for a period of time. But, then you get into the issue of how long that must go on. Is it any different than prison to say that these offenders cannot leave their homes for the rest of their lives?

If that’s the case, perhaps we should be a bit more honest about this and just give them life sentences in prison. Of course, that doesn’t really help those who committed a crime once, twenty-five years ago that even police admit is no longer a threat. But, we live in the days of Guantanamo, where we can send people away for however long we want without a trial.