Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Why are people afraid of truth and facts?

I have just had a lesson in how far those who are opposed to our advocacy are willing to go to suppress the truth.

This started exactly a month ago with this op/ed in the March 13 online edition of the Longview, WA Daily News. RSOL wrote a rebuttal, received assurance from the News' online editor that she would consider it, and sent it off. After a week of hearing nothing, receiving no response to inquiries, and not finding it online, it was posted on this blog and a link sent to the News' publisher. The online editor responded on March 23rd that it would be printed sometime that week. When I looked for it on the 24th, imagine my surprise when, instead of the rebuttal piece, I found another op/ed defending their first op/ed supporting public registration. I updated my blog entry, and she was immediately
contacted about the rebuttal piece; to the best of our knowledge, no response was received.

I looked every day; she was written again on the 29th, and, again, no reply was seen. March turned into April. On April 10th both she and the publisher were emailed with an inquiry. She responded the next day saying that she had replied on the 29th and that the piece had been printed on March 25th. She sent the link and, sure enough, there it was!

How could it have escaped our attention? We scoured the dailynews.com site every day looking for it. And how was the email of the 29th overlooked? We will never have an answer to the second question. The email has been searched repeatedly, and the searches have turned up no communication from her or anyone at the News on the 29th. If she did indeed send one, it has dissipated like the morning dew in mid-summer.

We can, however, answer the first question. It escaped our attention -- and our fervent hunting day after day -- because it appears to have been buried. It was not listed with other pieces printed in the Opinion section. If we had known what they named it, we could have searched on their site and found it. But no one else could have found it. No one else could have seen it. No one else could have determined that it existed in order to find it in order to read it.

When it was printed, all of the hyperlinks to the studies cited were removed. But then if no one will be reading it, no one will need any links to click, will they? Additionally, every op/ed printed there that we saw has a comment section. The rebuttal piece has none. But if no one will be reading something, they won't be commenting on it, will they?

Just out of curiosity, we looked at other types of articles on the site. Whether it was news or sports, opinion or entertainment, it has a comment section. Even the articles taken from AP have comment sections. Certainly we did not look at every article they have posted over a lengthy period of time, but we looked at many, and every one looked at has a place to leave a comment. Only one was found with no comment capabilities, and that is the one rebutting theirs.

So that leaves only one question for the Longview, Washington Daily News: Did you bury our op-ed? If so, what are you afraid of? What do you not want people thinking about if they read that article? What do you not want people seeing if they click the links and read a couple of research studies? What do you not want people saying if they left a comment on the article?

What are you afraid of?


  1. Because they can't handle the truth! (Paraphrase from a Few Good Men)

  2. "What are they afraid of?"

    Some time in the early 1990s BIG BROTHER got a brand new toy. The toy is commonly known as an electronic database. We all know what these data bases are used for, Facebook, Amazon, google, and all other websites including this one use the electronic database to gather and store information. Virtually all of our government agencies have databases for one use or another.

    All 50 states have an SOR database. The Federal government allotted 25 million dollars to each state for them. (Omnibus crime bill 1994) That omnibus bill contained the Wetterling act, which initialized the building of the state SORs for the "protection of the public and to assist law enforcement" For a more detailed history of the SOR see www.oncefallen.org.

    Initially the SORs were controversial, so much so that their use made it all the way to SCOTUS in 2003 where their use was upheld despite having been rejected by most every lower court as unconstitutional behavior by our gov't. The case was argued before the supreme court by our current Chief justice John Roberts.

    It seemed odd to me at the time until I began to do research and look at the facts.

    Fact 1. Placing a persons image and info on a database does not prevent bad behavior.

    Fact 2. Tons of cash have poured into the SORS since their implementation without good effect. So who has benefited? A. Big data businesses (the makers of hardware and software) B. Big labor (those who administer the programs)C. Attorneys (who work both sides of the equation)! Collectively these groups make up the "they" in the question posed by this article's author. It is safe to say that without the SORs these people would be less employed or even unemployed standing in line at the food banks like many sex offenders.

    Yet I believe there is an underlying insidious reason why the SORs (what RSOL call the "Megan franchise") have continued to thrive and that is to keep those already in power to remain there. Both Dems and Repubs constantly work together to expand the range and scope of the program's information requirements. It is to their political advantage to do so. There are many examples.
    Here in Wisconsin we have had two supreme court elections in the last five years each time the contest was won by the judge who ran TV commercials exposing their opponents record as soft on the sex offender.

    I submit it is the same benefit the two parties gain from imprisoning persons who committed no crime at all.


    DNA exonerations prove that a citizen can be convicted without actual evidence. What governmental system will survive that level of fairness? NONE! This is what those in power fear.

  3. Here's the truth these media outlets can't handle.

    "Sexual violence is a significant problem in the United States." - U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    If one's definition of SO is a registrant, there are some 800,000 in the U. S. If one's definition is anyone who has ever committed an act that could get you on the registry, the number runs well into the millions (including perhaps 3-5% or more of ALL males, and a number of females that would shock the public).

    I just read an article about a woman whose husband sexually assaulted her daughter (his step-daughter). She urges other mothers to check the registry. Was her husband on the registry at the time? The article doesn't say, but if he were a registrant he would likely have received a much stiffer sentence than the one reported. Therefore, I'm guessing he was not a registrant. Neither was Jerry Sandusky. Nor Jimmy Savile. Or Ariel Castro, or Dennis Hastert.

    If some parents in this country knew how significant the problem is, they would confiscate all of their kids' communication devices, never let them leave the house, and eye each other with suspicion from this day forward.
    (In fact, that is the very plot of a South Park episode titled "Child Abduction Is NOT Funny!")

    So, the registry is a straw at which the public grasps.

    The other (sad) truth is that some media outlets have placed business interests over journalistic ones. People grasping at straws need information that reinforces the belief that they aren't grasping in vain, and media outlets need eyes on their pages to sell advertising.

    "A marriage made in heaven."

    That is the truth.

  4. Because 'they' are really in favor of vigilantism and their criticism of WAR and of Vicki Henry and of all advocates Organizing for WAR or for justiceforall is that this podunck newspaper really does support vigilantism by the police and even ("Soto- voiced") supports those who would google families and then take 'the law" into their own hands" pronouncing death sentences upon people and families "that soft-on- crime juries" and registries and neighbors somehow forgot to punish sufficiently.

    News papers and "editors' like these spout about free speech but silences all opposing voices and delete even their own comment buttons when saner voices protest. When families (experiencing collateral damage from "editors" and news papers like these read cr*p opinion pieces in their local papers they become even more afraid to join organizations like WAR (or RSOL) or Cure and Tyranny Reigns while Lynch Mobs March on waiving the Constitution before them as though they are right and we (ALL of US) are wrong to even think of freedom from of speech and lawful protection fear and prejudice. Thus googlers and trollers and haters runs rampant at the local level while we sneek around the internet hoping for some where there are people 'like us"
    Well, I'm with WAR and RSOL and CURE (and with Vicki and with Daily Strength for Families of Sex Offenders and with Prison Wives and with Janice Bellucci anyone else with the good sense to Advocate and even VOTE haters and their ILK out of office in local elections. Am while I'm at it I'm with the "Lucy's and Snoopy's United" of this world so to GHAHRRRRR over stupid editors everywhere. and on to WAR... Unite!)

    Silly? But then I must say...the paper must have received quite a few "united" comments from the "Lucy's" of this World... why else would they remove the comment button from their stupid editorial page anyway???

  5. The Daily Planet had better stories . The Washington Daily news writter made a big mistake and tried to hide it . But how did it get passed the editor . This is the mind set not supporting fact from fiction . That does not deserve reward but recognition .
    What are they afraid of is a national headline getting a check from the Washington Daily News tieing the first amendment in a knot to sell the publication .
    What are they afraid of should be directed too past accusations and the department of justice, the courts and the judges remain responsible for their final judgement's led by media conviction . ( True to date the Jesse Friedman case ) . The secrets, the sealed documents, and how law inforcement and the courts would be exposed to doing business as usual to calm the public ; and the registry is the freedom . And they say a confession is not guided as a bribe . Or spend the rest of your life in prison . That would be a great story for the Washington Daily News . Guilty or Innocent .


No personal attacks, profanity, or obscenities.
Thank you.