Republicans want Obama appointee fired because he's gay

[Peephole]

This letter was written by U.S. congressman Steve King (who has a history of being a racist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_King#Remarks_about_Barack_Obama) as well) and was signed by 52 of his collegues:
Dear Mr. President,

We respectfully request that you remove Kevin Jennings, the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, from your Administration. It is clear that Mr. Jennings lacks the appropriate qualifications and ethical standards to serve in this capacity.

As the founder of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), Mr. Jennings has played an integral role in promoting homosexuality and pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools-an agenda that runs counter to the values that many parents desire to instill in their children. As evidence of this, Mr. Jennings wrote the foreword for a book titled Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue About Sexualities and Schooling. Throughout his career, Mr. Jennings has made it his mission to establish special protections for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students to the exclusion of all other students. The totality of Mr. Jennings' career has been to advocate for public affirmation of homosexuality. There is more to safe and drug free schools than can be accomplished from the narrow view of Mr. Jennings who has, for more than 20 years, almost exclusively focused on promoting the homosexual agenda.

Equally troubling is Mr. Jennings' self-described history of ignoring the sexual abuse of a child. In his book, One Teacher in Ten, Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings' only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the "safe schools" czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.

As the "safe schools" czar, Mr. Jennings is also charged with ensuring our schools and students are drug free. It is clear that Mr. Jennings is unfit to serve in this capacity, as well. His own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse indicates that he is of the opinion that getting drunk and high as a young person is acceptable. In his memoir, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person's life.

Everyone that deals with the education of the most vulnerable must be a positive role model. Our children are not blessed with the wisdom to discern and reject. Children presume the adults who educate them are approved by the larger society and their parents. Kevin Jennings cannot gain the approval of parents who want their children safe and their schools drug free. You should replace him with someone who has a record of educating children in a safe and moral environment.

Given these very serious issues with Mr. Jennings' record, we urge you to remove him immediately.

Sincerely,
Steve King

[Peephole]

Here's a list of the rest of the homophobes:

Alexander
Aderholt
Akin
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Bartlett
Barton
Boozman
Broun
Brown, H.
Carter
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Conaway
Davis, Geoff
Fallin
Fleming
Foxx
Franks
Garrett
Gingrey
Gohmert
Hunter
Issa
Jordan
Lamborn
Latta
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller, J.
Myrick
Neugebauer
Olson, P.
Pence
Pitts
Posey
Rogers (AL)
Rooney
Ryan, Paul
Shuster
Smith, C
Smith, L.
Wamp
Westmoreland
Jones, Walter

The effort to get gay people fired from their jobs, is also apparantly being concerted with Fox News and other Republican party outlets:

http://mediamatters.org/press/releases/200910010017
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910010051
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/hannity-and-coulter-make-lovely-wing
http://mediamatters.org/research/200910080003

[Upchurch]

I've heard bits and pieces of this story, but don't know the full context.

What's the background?

[Peephole]

I've heard bits and pieces of this story, but don't know the full context.

What's the background?
Republicans look for a way to bash Obama, discover he's appointed a gay guy.

[Alt+F4]

"...pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools..."

How the heck can a teacher do this? Is there lesson plans to download or is drawing pictures on the board enough to turn students gay?

[portlandatheist]

It sounds like Steve King is indeed anti-gay and that stance is his motivation. However, not reporting a sex crime is a very serious accusation, if true, against someone promoting safe schools that I would say deserves consideration.

[DC]

"...pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools..."

How the heck can a teacher do this? Is there lesson plans to download or is drawing pictures on the board enough to turn students gay?

you really dont see the danger?
he is teaching young children that Homosexuality is OK, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DC]

It sounds like Steve King is indeed anti-gay and that stance is his motivation. However, not reporting a sex crime is a very serious accusation, if true, against someone promoting safe schools that I would say deserves consideration.

thats indeed a point that has to be looked at.

[Upchurch]

"...pushing a pro-homosexual agenda in America's schools..."

How the heck can a teacher do this? Is there lesson plans to download or is drawing pictures on the board enough to turn students gay?

Generally speaking, a "pro-homosexual agenda" is functionally equivalent to a "not actively anti-homosexual agenda", which includes neutral statements about homosexuality.

[Peephole]

thats indeed a point that has to be looked at.
It's a lie. The person was of age of consent and there wasn't even any sex involved.

[DC]

It's a lie. The person was of age of consent and there wasn't even any sex involved.

when there was no sex involved, why was it important to use a condom?

[oldhat]

It's a lie. The person was of age of consent and there wasn't even any sex involved.

But they were g-g-g-gay!

Eek! A homosexual! Scary!

[Upchurch]

you really dont see the danger?
he is teaching young children that Homosexuality is OK, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It could just be commenting that homosexuality exists or that mumblity percent of the population is gay.

Although I would like to know more about the sexual abuse allegation. How much older are we talking about? 15 and 18? 15 and 81?

[daredelvis]

It's a lie. The person was of age of consent and there wasn't even any sex involved.

when there was no sex involved, why was it important to use a condom?
Go back and reread Peephole's post.

Daredelvis

[Brainster]

This is the statement that Peephole thinks is racist:

"I don't want to disparage anyone because of their race, their ethnicity, their name - whatever their religion their father might have been," I'll just say this: When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States -- I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror. Additionally, his middle name (Hussein) does matter. It matters because they read a meaning into that in the rest of the world. That has a special meaning to them. They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name. They will be dancing in the streets because of who his father was and because of his posture that says: Pull out of the Middle East and pull out of this conflict. There are implications that have to do with who he is and the position that he's taken. If he were strong on national defense and said 'I'm going to go over there and we're going to fight and we're going to win, we'll come home with a victory,' that's different. But that's not what he said. They will be dancing in the streets if he's elected president. That has a chilling aspect on how difficult it will be to ever win this Global War on Terror."

It's a pretty silly statement--"I don't want to disparage anybody because of his name, but we can't have a guy with this name as president"--but I'm having a hard time seeing the racism there. Then again, I don't have the conservative decoder ring that many of you folks own.

[DC]

It could just be commenting that homosexuality exists or that mumblity percent of the population is gay.

Although I would like to know more about the sexual abuse allegation. How much older are we talking about? 15 and 18? 15 and 81?

the problem is propably he didnt point out that gay "humans" will end in hell and Jesus does not like them and God hates fags.

[Upchurch]

when there was no sex involved, why was it important to use a condom?
Well, that assumes that "sex" potion wasn't true but the "condom" portion was. If one is suspect, perhaps the other is too. I don't have enough information on it yet.

[Just thinking]

Actually, if this part is true ...
Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings' only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the "safe schools" czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.

... you can add my name to the list of "homophobes".

[Alt+F4]

you really dont see the danger?
he is teaching young children that Homosexuality is OK, OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The teacher haters are so hypocritical. First they complain that public schools are failures, they can't teach kids anything. However, when the topics are evolution, homosexuality or socialism then public school are 100% effective at not just teaching them, but brainwashing the kids for life.

[Upchurch]

Actually, if this part is true ...


... you can add my name to the list of "homophobes".
Well, yes and no. It depends on the relative ages and whether or not the state in question has "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions, or the equivalent, to their statutory rape laws.

[Peephole]

This is the statement that Peephole thinks is racist:

It's a pretty silly statement--"I don't want to disparage anybody because of his name, but we can't have a guy with this name as president"--but I'm having a hard time seeing the racism there. Then again, I don't have the conservative decoder ring that many of you folks own.
Yup, nothing racist about not electing a guy because his name is foreign.Actually, if this part is true ...


... you can add my name to the list of "homophobes".
Read the thread, it's not.

The person in question came forward and said he didn't have sex and was of age of consent.

[oldhat]

It's a pretty silly statement--"I don't want to disparage anybody because of his name, but we can't have a guy with this name as president"--but I'm having a hard time seeing the racism there. Then again, I don't have the conservative decoder ring that many of you folks own.

Here's a link to Steve King's other questionable statements on race matters:

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/08/steve-king-record/

– King compared immigrants to “livestock” in proposing an electrified fence for the southern border.

– He has called undocumented immigration a “slow-moving terrorist attack.”

– King said that each senator who votes for the comprehensive immigration reform bill should “wear a scarlet letter A for amnesty.”

– King said the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib amounted to little more than “hazing.”

– King refused to vote for an innocuous House resolution commending the Muslims on the Ramadan holiday. (To attack those who did, he turned around and proposed a resolution commemorating Christmas.)

– King has decried an “assault on Christmas” from “secularists” who want to “eradicate Christ from Christmas.”

– King released a “report” baselessly claiming that undocumented immigrants have murdered more Americans than the combined death toll of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002.

– King praised Joe McCarthy as “a great American hero.”

– After the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, King derisively said he was now at a place where there are 72 virgins who “probably all look like Helen Thomas.”

[Just thinking]

Well, yes and no. It depends on the relative ages and whether or not the state in question has "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions, or the equivalent, to their statutory rape laws.

Come on ... you're better than that. 15 years of age? ... talking about it to a teacher? Much older man? Is there no moral ground here to question?

To me that has the earmarks of someone's cry for help ... or something.

(PS --- Weren't Romeo & Juliet about the same age?)

[DC]

The teacher haters are so hypocritical. First they complain that public schools are failures, they can't teach kids anything. However, when the topics are evolution, homosexuality or socialism then public school are 100% effective at not just teaching them, but brainwashing the kids for life.

very true :)

[Alt+F4]

After the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed, King derisively said he was now at a place where there are 72 virgins who “probably all look like Helen Thomas.”

Come on now, that was kinda funny.

[quixotecoyote]

Come on ... you're better than that. 15 years of age? ... talking about it to a teacher? Much older man? Is there no moral ground here to question?
Question perhaps, but hardly condemn.

Have you seen the media circus the kids get dragged through every time this happens? If I was having legal sex with an older man and I got advice from a teacher, the last thing I need is it blasting all over the media.

If there's no crime, there's no obligation to report. If there's no obligation and his better judgement says the teen is better off without the police involved, then I don't see a problem.




(PS --- Weren't Romeo & Juliet about the same age?)

Yah, it's a misnomer.

[Thunder]

Hmm...this guy is trying to educate kids to not hate and want to beat up Gay kids??

oh my God!! how dare he teach tolerance!!!

instead, he should be teaching gay kids to choose to be straight, since that is what God wants.

:(

[Phrost]

Wait, the OP even bolded the fact that they're specifically accusing this guy of pushing an agenda of homosexual-specific education in public schools, not "being gay".

Sure, this is probably rooted in bigotry. But if someone's actually pushing for separate schools for gay kids, there's a legitimate discussion to be had; one that shouldn't be derailed by wheeling out the "bigot" card.

[Just thinking]

Question perhaps, but hardly condemn.

OK, then ... question it on the better side of caution and report the incident. Even if the boy (15 year-old) is in agreement with the relationship, he's still a minor, and can be somewhat unfit to make these types of judgments even when it comes to himself.

Have you seen the media circus the kids get dragged through every time this happens? If I was having legal sex with an older man and I got advice from a teacher, the last thing I need is it blasting all over the media.

Oh, please ... what percentage of reports such as this make national coverage? Besides ... if the 15 year old is being taken advantaged of, he's still better off comparing media coverage to sexual abuse.

If there's no crime, there's no obligation to report. If there's no obligation and his better judgement says the teen is better off without the police involved, then I don't see a problem.

Lot of IF's in there ... let's clear them up with a proper investigation, not a condom.

[quixotecoyote]

For the record, age of consent was 16, with a 10 year leeway, so he was cutting it pretty fine, even though I don't see it as worth reporting.

Of course, since oral and anal sex was illegal at that time....

[quixotecoyote]

Oh, please ... what percentage of reports such as this make national coverage? Besides ... if the 15 year old is being taken advantaged of, he's still better off comparing media coverage to sexual abuse.

Yeah, still not gonna buy the sex = sexual abuse.

[Just thinking]

For the record, age of consent was 16, with a 10 year leeway, so he was cutting it pretty fine ...

Really ... IIRC 15 < 16. (Sorry, not horseshoes or hand grenades.)

But then again, maybe he wasn't a math teacher.

;)

[Peephole]

OK, then ... question it on the better side of caution and report the incident. Even if the boy (15 year-old) is in agreement with the relationship, he's still a minor, and can be somewhat unfit to make these types of judgments even when it comes to himself.
He wasn't 15. He was 16.

Consenting adults not having sex with eachother is not a crime.

[Professor Yaffle]

Wait, the OP even bolded the fact that they're specifically accusing this guy of pushing an agenda of homosexual-specific education in public schools, not "being gay".

Sure, this is probably rooted in bigotry. But if someone's actually pushing for separate schools for gay kids, there's a legitimate discussion to be had; one that shouldn't be derailed by wheeling out the "bigot" card.

You've lost me here. Since when does homosexual specific education mean separate schools for gay kids?

[Darth Rotor]

It seems politically foolish to me to put the gay thing up front, or even at all.

The later complaint about drugs and alcohol abuse might have been a more acceptable objection to this appointment. From the OP citation:
As the "safe schools" czar, Mr. Jennings is also charged with ensuring our schools and students are drug free. It is clear that Mr. Jennings is unfit to serve in this capacity, as well. His own history of unrepentant drug and alcohol abuse indicates that he is of the opinion that getting drunk and high as a young person is acceptable. In his memoir, Mama's Boy, Preacher's Son, Mr. Jennings describes his use of illegal drugs, without expressing regret or acknowledging the devastating effects illegal drug use can have on a person's life.
Why wasn't THIS the prime point of objection?

Looks like these legislators are going out of their way to be contrary. In doing so, they are abandoning possibly effective tactics.

I predict their objection lses.

They poisoned their own well.

DR

[quixotecoyote]

Really ... IIRC 15 < 16.


:eek:

WOW

You have just exceeded all my expectations of you.

Please continue to do so in the future.

[yodaluver28]

Actually, if this part is true ...

Quote:
Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings' only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the "safe schools" czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.



... you can add my name to the list of "homophobes".

It's not true for the most part. Jennings says that in 1988, a 16 year-old male student spoke to him about a relationship he was having with an older man. At the time, 16 was the age of consent in Massachusetts, where this took place. Even if the age of consent hadn't been 16, an adult having consensual sex with a 16 year-old would constitute statutory rape but not child abuse and certainly not pedophilia, as some have charged. In any case, Jennings argues that he was not aware of any sexual victimization of the student.

[Pardalis]

Even if this guy was/is a drug addicted child rapist does anyone really think the Office of Safe and Drugfree Schools is going to have any impact on what goes on day-to-day in American classrooms?

But if he doesn't show any remorse or indication that his drug use was bad for him, then I would agree he might not be the one for the job.

And if this is the reason some of the signatories agreed to sign, then this doesn't make them homophobes.

[Just thinking]

He wasn't 15. He was 16.

Evidence?

[Darat]

Cleaned up the thread somewhat with quite a few posts moved to AAH. Stop the personal attacks and insults, continuing to breach your Membership Agreement will result in further action, which may include suspension.

[Phrost]

You've lost me here. Since when does homosexual specific education mean separate schools for gay kids?

I must have misread something, I understood that this was one of the things the nominee was proposing.

Let it be clear that I hate bigots and resent the fact that a large number of them exist in the Republican party.

[Just thinking]

It's not true for the most part. Jennings says that in 1988, a 16 year-old male student spoke to him about a relationship he was having with an older man. At the time, 16 was the age of consent in Massachusetts, where this took place. Even if the age of consent hadn't been 16, an adult having consensual sex with a 16 year-old would constitute statutory rape but not child abuse and certainly not pedophilia, as some have charged. In any case, Jennings argues that he was not aware of any sexual victimization of the student.

OK ... buying that, the student was 16, statutory rape isn't victimization?

Again ... I would clearly stand on my original comment that one should err on the side of caution and take this issue to higher levels.

[oldhat]

OK ... buying that, the student was 16, statutory rape isn't victimization?

Again ... I would clearly stand on my original comment that one should err on the side of caution and take this issue to higher levels.

So if you ignore the fact that there was no statutory rape, it still stands that Jennings should have done something about the statutory rape. Which didn't exist in the first place and he didn't commit. And should be fired.

[Peephole]

There's more to the letter than homophobic content. They also raise the issue of this teachers drug consumption. Maybe some of the signatories had something against that...
When you sign a letter, you're telling the world you agree with its full contents.
Evidence?
http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020

(By the way, if you're the one who is slinging around accusations, you're the one who is supposed to provide the evidence.)

[Pardalis]

When you sign a letter, you're telling the world you agree with its full contents.

Says who?

[oldhat]

Says who?

Every custom and law in the Western hemisphere.

[David Wong]

Says who?

Any sane line of thinking.

[Darat]

Says who?

Why would you sign a statement you didn't agree with?

[Pardalis]

Why would you sign a statement you didn't agree with?

You can agree with it in part, sufficiently enough to sign it.

[quixotecoyote]

Says who?

Well, it's not quite Emily Post, but he'll have to do (http://www.medpagetoday.com/images/blogMedia/drrob/Captain%20Obvious%20evil%20scientist%202.jpg).

In other words, if you really don't think leading with anti-gay and moving on to child abuse slander is a good thing to do, you don't sign the letter.

[Pardalis]

In other words, if you really don't think leading with anti-gay and moving on to child abuse slander is a good thing to do, you don't sign the letter.

I guess you're right, a lesson learn the hard way by Van Jones.

[DC]

You can agree with it in part, sufficiently enough to sign it.

would you be that tolerant if it was about signing a new 9/11 investigation letter?

[Peephole]

I think the predictability meter just exploded.

[oldhat]

You can agree with it in part, sufficiently enough to sign it.

Sure you weren't singing a different song when the Van Jones thing went down?

[Pardalis]

See post 51.

[quixotecoyote]

I guess you're right, a lesson learn the hard way by Van Jones.

And thank you for graciously overlooking my snark.

In thanks, I shall laugh at DC for watching the point sail over his head, loop around, and bite him in the rear.

[WildCat]

I couldn't care less about Jenning's "homosexual agenda", but Jumpin' Jesus, do we need a Czar for every social ill?

[DC]

And thank you for graciously overlooking my snark.

In thanks, I shall laugh at DC for watching the point sail over his head, loop around, and bite him in the rear.

:boggled: didnt read the posts yet when i postet mine

[Lurker]

OK ... buying that, the student was 16, statutory rape isn't victimization?

16 was and is the age of consent in the state in question, thus the charge of statuatory rape is moot.

[quixotecoyote]

16 was and is the age of consent in the state in question, thus the charge of statuatory rape is moot.

And even if it wasn't and he was 15 (as I was referring to in my earlier post), it would only be statutory rape if the man was 26 or older.

Although, in fairness, it would still have been sodomy and thus illegal at that time.

[geni]

I couldn't care less about Jenning's "homosexual agenda", but Jumpin' Jesus, do we need a Czar for every social ill?

It's cheaper than actualy trying to do something about them.

[geni]

It seems politically foolish to me to put the gay thing up front, or even at all.

The later complaint about drugs and alcohol abuse might have been a more acceptable objection to this appointment. From the OP citation:

Why wasn't THIS the prime point of objection?

Because even in conservative circles going after people for their youthful drug use is likely to have only limited effect.

[Just thinking]

So if you ignore the fact that there was no statutory rape, it still stands that Jennings should have done something about the statutory rape.

No. The age difference may be well into the realm of statutory rape, as I've earlier indicated. Also, you have a student coming to confide a sexual involvement with a older adult; that too raises a red flag of concern. Either one would make me take the issue up with supervisors, and in this case we have both.

Which didn't exist in the first place and he didn't commit. And should e fired.

Sorry ... doesn't wash in this case.

[quixotecoyote]

No. The age difference may be well into the realm of statutory rape, as I've earlier indicated.

Maybe you missed the linked debunking (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020).

[geni]

But if he doesn't show any remorse or indication that his drug use was bad for him, then I would agree he might not be the one for the job.

You mean you find honestly disturbing? Many people make use of both legal and illegal drugs in their youth and show little real regret or damage. Even more restrained people are unlikely to get though university without one story of alcohol abuse that they don't regret.


And if this is the reason some of the signatories agreed to sign, then this doesn't make them homophobes.

Since there is nothing to stop you putting together a non homophobic document if that is the case you claim is questionable.

[Just thinking]

Maybe you missed the linked debunking (http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910020020).

Maybe the link didn't post the age of the adult ... or did I miss that one?

[Peephole]

No. The age difference may be well into the realm of statutory rape, as I've earlier indicated.
The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16.
Also, you have a student coming to confide a sexual involvement with a older adult; that too raises a red flag of concern. Either one would make me take the issue up with supervisors, and in this case we have both.
Why should teachers regulate students' sexual life? What two consenting adults do is nobody's business.

[dudalb]

Wait, the OP even bolded the fact that they're specifically accusing this guy of pushing an agenda of homosexual-specific education in public schools, not "being gay".

Sure, this is probably rooted in bigotry. But if someone's actually pushing for separate schools for gay kids, there's a legitimate discussion to be had; one that shouldn't be derailed by wheeling out the "bigot" card.

The "Bigot/homophobe" card is being used by the left with same consideration for truth that the term "Commie/Red" was used by the right during the McCarthy era. To be accused is to be automatically guilty.

[Lurker]

Maybe the link didn't post the age of the adult ... or did I miss that one?

Are you aware of a law that has the age differential you mention for the state in question? If not, you are grasping at straws.

ETA: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0149.htm
Has some info on some states and the age difference you refer to seems to be in place to protect 15 year olds from being prosecuted for having sex with 15 year olds (for example). In other words, the age difference concerns whether both are under or just over the age of consent and their age difference. Or should a 17 year old be charged with statutory rape when she has sex with a 15 year old? Some states say no.

[Just thinking]

Why should teachers regulate students' sexual life? What two consenting adults do is nobody's business.

When a student comes to confide to another teacher a sexual involvement with another adult, it no longer is just the two consenting individuals' privacy. The second error you make is in categorizing both as adults.

[Just thinking]

Are you aware of a law that has the age differential you mention for the state in question? If not, you are grasping at straws.

Here's the actual Mass. law (http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/sex.html#18) ...
Child Under Eighteen
MGL c.272, s. 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse.

Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Analogous to Federal laws 18 USC 2422 and 18 USC 2423 .

Since this differs from Romeo & Juliet involvement, age becomes crucial.

[Peephole]

We've already provided proof the man in question was 16.

Prove us wrong or shut up.

[Lurker]

Here's the actual Mass. law (http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/sex.html#18) ...


Since this differs from Romeo & Juliet involvement, age becomes crucial.

OK, no age differential mentioned there. My understanding is the age of consent was 16 at the time, correct?

[Just thinking]

We've already provided proof the man in question was 16.

Prove us wrong or shut up.

Are you asleep? I long ago agreed to his age being 16.

[Peephole]

The "Bigot/homophobe" card is being used by the left with same consideration for truth that the term "Commie/Red" was used by the right during the McCarthy era. To be accused is to be automatically guilty.
So, wanting people to get fired from their jobs because they're gay isn't homophobic?

[Just thinking]

OK, no age differential mentioned there. My understanding is the age of consent was 16 at the time, correct?

Yes ... but there's more than just his age, as i keep alluding to.

[Peephole]

Are you asleep? I long ago agreed to his age being 16.
Well, the age of consents is and was 16 in Massachusetts. So, even if there was any sex involved (which there wasn't), it was all perfectly legal.

[Lurker]

MGL c.272, s. 4. Inducing person under 18 to have sexual intercourse.

Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than three years or in a jail or house of correction for not more than two and one-half years or by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.

Analogous to Federal laws 18 USC 2422 and 18 USC 2423 .

We could find only one case prosecuted under this law, Commonwealth v. Foley, 24 Mass. App. Ct. 114 (1987). in which a man offered a boy $5 to perform fellatio.

I was wondering why you had come up with 18 while everyone else was saying 16 for age of consent. You will note that the law you cite seems archaic. How does one judge whether one is "chaste" for example? Evidence to support this the fact that nobody is prosecuted for this and the law preceding this one in the link you provided details the age of consent as 16, as I had claimed. Interesting.

[Lurker]

Yes ... but there's more than just his age, as i keep alluding to.


Allude all you like but don't you think it is your responsibility to cite the age differential law that you were supposing might exist? I don't mean to be snarky but maybe there was a law against men who might later be involved in Federal govt from providing sex advice? Can anyone respond to that? Ha, got ya there!

[Peephole]

This is the relevant law:

Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/sex.html

[Just thinking]

Well, the age of consents is and was 16 in Massachusetts. So, even if there was any sex involved (which there wasn't), it was all perfectly legal.

It was ignoring a reasonable caution to report a student confiding such to another teacher. If I was in that teacher's situation I wouldn't hesitate to take this up with my supervisors. It's too delicate an issue. I would also see if there was any coercion being done on the part of the adult by perhaps having the student see a councilor ... but only after getting advice from higher ups.

[Lurker]

It was ignoring a reasonable caution to report a student confiding such to another teacher. If I was in that teacher's situation I wouldn't hesitate to take this up with my supervisors. It's too delicate an issue. I would also see if there was any coercion being done on the part of the adult by perhaps having the student see a councilor ... but only after getting advice from higher ups.


Agreed. Like you, I think the situation could have been handled differently. If it were my daughter or son I would like to think that some action was taken. That being said, I don't consider it to be terribly alarming.

[WildCat]

BTW, the kid denies (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/02/jennings.student/) that he told Jennings he had sex with anyone.

So maybe he's lying about it now, or maybe Jennings just embellished the story for his book.

But it seems to me the point is moot.

[Just thinking]

I was wondering why you had come up with 18 while everyone else was saying 16 for age of consent. You will note that the law you cite seems archaic. How does one judge whether one is "chaste" for example? Evidence to support this the fact that nobody is prosecuted for this and the law preceding this one in the link you provided details the age of consent as 16, as I had claimed. Interesting.

I cited that law because there is still concern for those at age 16. Hmmmm, interesting.

Allude all you like but don't you think it is your responsibility to cite the age differential law that you were supposing might exist? I don't mean to be snarky but maybe there was a law against men who might later be involved in Federal govt from providing sex advice? Can anyone respond to that? Ha, got ya there!

You've got yourself, that's all. It doesn't fall under Romeo/Juliet laws, therefore there is an age difference of concern. Also, since there is concern for those under 18, a 16 year-old confiding to another teacher is reason enough to take up the issue.

Oh ... I now see we are perhpas more in agreement over this than first I thought.

[boyntonstu]

A teacher is approached by a 15-16 year old gay student for advice.

I am OK with the student being gay and/or the teacher being gay.

When the student mentions that he wishes to have sex with an adult, what is the responsibility of the teacher to the parents of the child?

If you have a child in a school, public or private, you expect certain things.

The fact that years later, he wrote about the story is quite relevant.

What would have happened if the sanctioned relationship had ended in a tragedy?

An automobile accident, a STD, etc.?

Would the teacher and /or the school be liable for damages?

[quixotecoyote]

I cited that law because there is still concern for those at age 16. Hmmmm, interesting.


Nope. No such thing.


You've got yourself, that's all. It doesn't fall under Romeo/Juliet laws, therefore there is an age difference of concern. Also, since there is concern for those under 18, a 16 year-old confiding to another teacher is reason enough to take up the issue.

Nope. Completely irrelevant. Romeo/Juliet laws don't apply.

Thank you, come again.

[drkitten]

When the student mentions that he wishes to have sex with an adult, what is the responsibility of the teacher to the parents of the child?

None unless local laws explicitly spell out otherwise. Federal law (FERPA) actually forbids the teacher from telling the parents certain things without first establishing that the parents have a right to know (i.e. without the parents first proving that the child is financially dependent upon them) or getting the child's consent. Even when that condition is met, the relevant Federal law only provides parents with access to school records, not with access to everything-you-know-about-the-student.


If you have a child in a school, public or private, you expect certain things.

You can expect lots of things; whether or not those expectations are reasonable is another matter entirely.



What would have happened if the sanctioned relationship had ended in a tragedy?

An automobile accident, a STD, etc.?

Would the teacher and /or the school be liable for damages?

No. In the absence of a duty to act, there is no liability.

[Brainster]

Yup, nothing racist about not electing a guy because his name is foreign.

Hey, I've got an idea. If this guy ever gets a post in a future Republican administration, we can use that quote to get him fired from his job!

Oh, wait.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I've followed this story and since I can't find any evidence saying he committed a crime, I don't really care any more.

But come on, that first paragraph is clearly about homophobia.

As for drugs/alcohol, I don't care. They might as well leave that position empty for all they could accomplish.

[Puppycow]

Looks like a clear-cut case of bigotry to me.

[GreNME]

When you sign a letter, you're telling the world you agree with its full contents.

Says who?

Um, plenty of people (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/06/obama-green-jobs-adviser-van-jones-resigns-amid-controversy/).

[gtc]

Here (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/head-of-office-of-safe-and-drug-free-schools-expresses-regret-for-controversial-incident.html) is a story about the incident from September. Jennings admitted to handling the situation wrongly but this admission seems to be based on a faulty recollection of the situation.

IIRC, Jennings is also being criticised for his statement eulogising Harry Hay, who wasn't the wholesome gay activist that he is made out to be. He doesn't seem to be alone in this as this (http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/other_stories/documents/02511115.htm) article by a gay activist discusses.

These two incidents and his history of drug and alcohol abuse provide legitimate reasons to criticise Jennings but I don't think they disqualify him from his appointment.

[Upchurch]

Actually, if this part is true ...
Mr. Jennings recounts a 15-year old student confiding in him that he had a sexual relationship with a much older man. Mr. Jennings' only response was to ask if the underage boy used a condom. As a mandatory reporter, Mr. Jennings was required by law to report child abuse, including sex crimes. Mr. Jennings cannot serve as the "safe schools" czar when his record demonstrates a willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child.
... you can add my name to the list of "homophobes".
As most of the pertinent aspects of that part are not true, what is the arguing about?

[The Painter]

As most of the pertinent aspects of that part are not true, what is the arguing about?

What's not true?? Not your opinion but referenced facts.

[Upchurch]

What's not true?? Not your opinion but referenced facts.

15 years old
sexual relationship
child abuse
sex crimes
"safe schools" czar
willingness to overlook the sexual abuse of a child

okay, that last one is just a guess. However, lacking any other information to the contrary, I think that, by and large, it is safe to assume.

[Sporanox]

Jennings thought the kid was 15.

I don't know what the laws stated at the time as far as obligation to report, but it seems to me that it's fairly obvious teachers should counsel students NOT to look for sex in bus bathrooms. That's...dangerous.

Let's put it this way. If a student came to Kevin Jennings, 2009, indicated that he was 15, and told him that he was finding sex in bus bathrooms, and Kevin Jennings, 2009, told him "geez, I hope you wear a condom" [sic], most of you would be okay with that?

[Upchurch]

Let's put it this way. If a student came to Kevin Jennings, 2009, indicated that he was 15, and told him that he was finding sex in bus bathrooms, and Kevin Jennings, 2009, told him "geez, I hope you wear a condom" [sic], most of you would be okay with that?
One, I also hope he wore a condom.

Two, no, I would not be okay if it was left at that, especially with the astoundingly simplified scenario lacking all context.

Three, that isn't even remotely what happened.

[quixotecoyote]

Jennings thought the kid was 15.

I don't know what the laws stated at the time as far as obligation to report, but it seems to me that it's fairly obvious teachers should counsel students NOT to look for sex in bus bathrooms. That's...dangerous.

Let's put it this way. If a student came to Kevin Jennings, 2009, indicated that he was 15, and told him that he was finding sex in bus bathrooms, and Kevin Jennings, 2009, told him "geez, I hope you wear a condom" [sic], most of you would be okay with that?

We don't know what the rest of his advice was. In his book, Jennings just said that he gave advice and the student went away happy.

[Sporanox]

One, I also hope he wore a condom.

Two, no, I would not be okay if it was left at that, especially with the astoundingly simplified scenario lacking all context.

Three, that isn't even remotely what happened.

From the book:

"As the fall wore on, Robertson continued to drop by my office to chat, often updating me on his latest 'adventures.' Sometimes these startled me, and I began to underline the importance of safe sex to him. One day he snapped back, 'Why should I use a condom? My life isn't worth saving anyway.'"

Seems like "you should use a condom" is where he drew the line in terms of advice.

[Upchurch]

Seems like "you should use a condom" is where he drew the line in terms of advice.
Seems like someone has a case of confirmation bias.

eta: Could you please provide the context? What was written just before and after that quote?

[linusrichard]

This is the relevant law:

Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under 16 years of age, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for life or for any term of years or, except as otherwise provided, for any term in a jail or house of correction. A prosecution commenced under this section shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.

http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/subject/about/sex.html

Actually, this is not the relevant law. I'm sorry to pick on you in particular, because a lot of people in the thread are making the same mistake. If the guy is being criticized for not reporting when he had a legal duty to do so, then the relevant law is the law imposing that duty upon him. The reason I bring this up is not to be pedantic, but because sometimes those laws don't say what we assume they say. For example, the mandatory reporting law in my state does require you to report sex with a child, even if it's not a crime, but only if the other person is a certain type of person (e.g. relative, teacher, counselor, priest, close family friend).

I don't have time to decipher the Mass. mandatory reporting law right now, but it appears to be this (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/119-51a.htm) and this (http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/119-51b.htm), at least.

[Peephole]

After quickly glancing over those, I can find nothing that says teachers have to report something if they have knowledge of their students having sex.

(And even if there were, it would be a retarded law that every sane person should ignore.)

[Whiplash]

I think using "retarded" to describe anything other than a mentally challenged individual is rather crass and insulting. It may even be so if you are talking about someone mentally challenged.

It's a terribly over-used adjective these days, and really inappropriate.

[Alt+F4]

As a teacher and a mandatory reporter I see nothing wrong here. If I am understanding the story correctly the boy said he was thinking about having sex with an older man, yes? If that is the case there is nothing to report because thinking about doing something is not the same thing as doing it.

In my opinion the proper thing to do here would be to advise the kid not to do it then turn the whole thing over to the guidance counseler or school psychologist. While most teachers do understand kids pretty well, we're not specifically trained to give advice on personal matters.

[Peephole]

If you have a child in a school, public or private, you expect certain things.

The fact that years later, he wrote about the story is quite relevant.

What would have happened if the sanctioned relationship had ended in a tragedy?

An automobile accident, a STD, etc.?

Would the teacher and /or the school be liable for damages?
Teachers should do what is in the best interest of their students (which includes protecting their privacy), and shouldn't be subject to every whim of overprotective parents.
Hey, I've got an idea. If this guy ever gets a post in a future Republican administration, we can use that quote to get him fired from his job!

Oh, wait.
I'm really not following you. What guy? Obama? And which quote?
Jennings thought the kid was 15.
Please show the evidence that Jennings thought this at that time.
I don't know what the laws stated at the time as far as obligation to report, but it seems to me that it's fairly obvious teachers should counsel students NOT to look for sex in bus bathrooms. That's...dangerous.

Let's put it this way. If a student came to Kevin Jennings, 2009, indicated that he was 15, and told him that he was finding sex in bus bathrooms, and Kevin Jennings, 2009, told him "geez, I hope you wear a condom" [sic], most of you would be okay with that?
Yes, how dare he try to protect his students from getting AIDS and other diseases.

Seriously, this was the whole point of Jennings' anecdote, that a gay kid couldn't find any place to meet other gay kids other than a bus station restroom.

[Alt+F4]

Teachers should do what is in the best interest of their students (which includes protecting their privacy), and shouldn't be subject to every whim of overprotective parents.

Teacher's don't have that option, that's why it's mandatory not discretionary reporting. If a 15-year old tells a teacher that he did have sex with an older man that teacher must report that no matter how much the kid might beg the teacher not to. Again, if it's just a might then there is nothing to report.

[Travis]

When you think about the optics of a Barack Obama potentially getting elected President of the United States -- I mean, what does this look like to the rest of the world? What does it look like to the world of Islam? I will tell you that, if he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al-Qaida, the radical Islamists and their supporters, will be dancing in the streets in greater numbers than they did on September 11 because they will declare victory in this War on Terror.

It seems that CNN totally failed to cover the raucous Al Qaeda party of victory in the streets when Obama was announced as the winner. I am truly mad about this.

[Brainster]

After quickly glancing over those, I can find nothing that says teachers have to report something if they have knowledge of their students having sex.

(And even if there were, it would be a retarded law that every sane person should ignore.)

If it's a ten-year old having sex with an adult, would you still feel that way?

[drkitten]

Teacher's don't have that option, that's why it's mandatory not discretionary reporting. If a 15-year old tells a teacher that he did have sex with an older man that teacher must report that no matter how much the kid might beg the teacher not to.

I'm afraid that's not the case in any jurisdiction in which I've taught. Perhaps the laws in your state are different, or perhaps there's a Federal statute that I have overlooked. In which case, I'd appreciate it if you would point me to that statute.

There is, for example, a Federal law (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as Amended by theKeeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003) that mandates reportage of child abuse (including sexual abuse) -- but the definition of "sexual abuse" in that law specifically excludes non-incestuous consensual sex. (Section I.111.4, if you want to check.)

[Peephole]

If it's a ten-year old having sex with an adult, would you still feel that way?
We're not talking about ten-year olds, we're talking about students above the age of consent.

[Sporanox]

Seems like someone has a case of confirmation bias.

eta: Could you please provide the context? What was written just before and after that quote?

I do not know, as I do not have the book. I'll work on finding the full page. Meanwhile, though it seems the burden of proof is on you regarding the extent of the advice provided to the boy.

As a teacher and a mandatory reporter I see nothing wrong here. If I am understanding the story correctly the boy said he was thinking about having sex with an older man, yes? If that is the case there is nothing to report because thinking about doing something is not the same thing as doing it.

Actually, the boy was repeatedly engaging in these "adventures" and had already done it with an older guy he met before he talked to Jennings.

[Sporanox]

We're not talking about ten-year olds, we're talking about students above the age of consent.

Sorry, Jennings thought he was 15.

[tyr_13]

Sorry, Jennings thought he was 15.

No, when he wrote the book he thought he was 15. At that actual time of the event there is a better than good chance he knew the student's actual age was 16.

But of course we can't actually know that. What we can actually know is that the student really was 16 at the time.

[Alt+F4]

I'm afraid that's not the case in any jurisdiction in which I've taught. Perhaps the laws in your state are different, or perhaps there's a Federal statute that I have overlooked. In which case, I'd appreciate it if you would point me to that statute.

There is, for example, a Federal law (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act as Amended by theKeeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003) that mandates reportage of child abuse (including sexual abuse) -- but the definition of "sexual abuse" in that law specifically excludes non-incestuous consensual sex. (Section I.111.4, if you want to check.)

I'm in New York State and the law here is indeed mandatory:

Anyone who is mandated to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment - and fails to do so - could be charged with a class A misdemeanor and sued in civil court for monetary damages, so "it's essential for everyone who cares for children to be aware of the law," Allinger said. Mandated reporters who make a report in good faith continue to be protected from any criminal or civil liability.

However the law only seems to apply to child abuse or maltreatment at the hands of a parent or legal guardian, not strangers, so if this incident did happen in NYS there would be nothing to report.

http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/bulletins_6737.htm

[Peephole]

I do not know, as I do not have the book. I'll work on finding the full page. Meanwhile, though it seems the burden of proof is on you regarding the extent of the advice provided to the boy.
No, the burden of proof is on the person flinging around accusations.

[Upchurch]

I do not know, as I do not have the book.
That's what I thought. You took someone else's cherry-picked quote and accepted it with no further scrutiny.

I'll work on finding the full page. Meanwhile, though it seems the burden of proof is on you regarding the extent of the advice provided to the boy.
How did you come to that conclusion, since it was not my claim that he told him "just wear a condom" in the first place?


Actually, the boy was repeatedly engaging in these "adventures" and had already done it with an older guy he met before he talked to Jennings.
"Adventures" that the boy claims did not include sex. What are you claiming these adventures were?

Maybe you should take the time to find out about something before jumping to conclusions. Just sayin'

[MikeMangum]

I think the bigger reason for people flipping out about this guy is the (incorrect) article by Mark Tapscott that said that he had made comments praising the founder of NAMBLA. Turns out, the guy he praised wasn't the founder of NAMBLA, but it apparently went around the socially conservative blogs like a shot before the correction came out.

[Upchurch]

I think the bigger reason for people flipping out about this guy is the (incorrect) article by Mark Tapscott that said that he had made comments praising the founder of NAMBLA. Turns out, the guy he praised wasn't the founder of NAMBLA, but it apparently went around the socially conservative blogs like a shot before the correction came out.

linky (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html)

[mortimer]

linky (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-appointee-lauded-NAMBLA-figure-63115112.html)
OK, so Harry Hay, the guy Jennings said is "one of the people that’s always inspired me" wasn't the founder of NAMBLA, but was a supporter of NAMBLA. This is a good thing for Obama's Safe Schools czar?

[Upchurch]

OK, so Harry Hay, the guy Jennings said is "one of the people that’s always inspired me" wasn't the founder of NAMBLA, but was a supporter of NAMBLA. This is a good thing for Obama's Safe Schools czar?
Do you really think Jennings was inspired by Hay's defense of NAMBLA?

Not the least bit curious about the context? Would you like to know or would that spoil the anti-Obama goodness?

[bpesta22]

Although, in fairness, it would still have been sodomy and thus illegal at that time.

Would atm be considered like double jeopardy (derail / curious)

[Darat]

OK, so Harry Hay, the guy Jennings said is "one of the people that’s always inspired me" wasn't the founder of NAMBLA, but was a supporter of NAMBLA. This is a good thing for Obama's Safe Schools czar?

Well since actually signing a public letter does not mean we can assume that someone agrees with what is in the letter they have added their signature to it would seem rather strange to assume.... ;)

[quixotecoyote]

Would atm be considered like double jeopardy (derail / curious)

I suppose if you count it as two acts you could get two charges out of it.

[mortimer]

Do you really think Jennings was inspired by Hay's defense of NAMBLA?
He said that Hay always inspired him. Not always inspired him except when he was supporting NAMBLA.
Not the least bit curious about the context? Would you like to know or would that spoil the anti-Obama goodness?
I saw the context.

One man who has always inspired me is Benito Mussolini, who always made the trains run on time...

[Upchurch]

He said that Hay always inspired him. Not always inspired him except when he was supporting NAMBLA.

I saw the context.
That last sentence contradicts the first two.

[Lurker]

He said that Hay always inspired him. Not always inspired him except when he was supporting NAMBLA.
Oh Jesus take the wheel! Now we are going to parse words for a rather cavalier statement and hold him to the literal interpretation? You are being rather pedantic here, aren't you?

So next time I say, "My Dad always inspires me" I should include disclaimers of any behaviors that my Dad engages in which I do not approve of (whether I am aware of them or not since my utterance will be dissected and interpreted as canon law years later)

[mortimer]

Oh Jesus take the wheel! Now we are going to parse words for a rather cavalier statement and hold him to the literal interpretation? You are being rather pedantic here, aren't you?

So next time I say, "My Dad always inspires me" I should include disclaimers of any behaviors that my Dad engages in which I do not approve of (whether I am aware of them or not since my utterance will be dissected and interpreted as canon law years later)
I'll admit I am being overly pedantic. However, I have a hard time seeing how anyone who supports NAMBLA is deserving of praise, no matter what other good deeds were done.

[Lurker]

I'll admit I am being overly pedantic. However, I have a hard time seeing how anyone who supports NAMBLA is deserving of praise, no matter what other good deeds were done.

Agreed. Now, do we have confirmation that Jennings knew that Hay supported NAMBLA?

[Upchurch]

Regardless, it is arguable whether Hay supported NAMBLA or simply defended it. Hay was zealously pro-gay during a time when it was very dangerous to be so. NAMBLA, for better or worse, was on "his side". He was probably more concerned with the overall movement than infighting.

[GreyICE]

And some conservatives wonder why we call these things witch hunts. Pathetic. I love how people don't even change their opinions when the so-called 'facts' they are basing them on are shown to be baseless. They just hop onto the next little game.

Hey people, it's a real good idea to base your opinions on facts. When you realize your 'facts' are wrong, it's a good time to reevaluate your opinions, not look around for another bunch of 'facts' so you can look halfway rational again.

[Brainster]

Regardless, it is arguable whether Hay supported NAMBLA or simply defended it.

Okay, he was just defending NAMBLA.

:rolleyes:

[GreyICE]

Okay, he was just defending NAMBLA.

:rolleyes:
Ah, like the ACLU :rolleyes:

Conservative rhetoric, so predictable.

[Upchurch]

Okay, he was just defending NAMBLA.

:rolleyes:

"I don't like what you're saying, but anyone who defends your right to say it is a bad person."

[mortimer]

"I don't like what you're saying, but anyone who defends your right to say it is a bad person."
"I don't like what you're doing to that little boy, but anyone who defends your right to do it is a bad person."

[gtc]

There is a difference between the way the ACLU defends NAMBLA's right to free speech and the way Harry Hay demanded NAMBLA be included in Gay Rights marches and actually chose to march alongside NAMBLA and boycotted marches that excluded NAMBLA. I posted the link to the article that discusses this up the page.

I don't expect Obama fanatics to be able to appreciate the difference.

[KoihimeNakamura]

ah the ad hom river.

[gtc]

ah the ad hom river.

Nope, just stating my opinion. I think many of the participants in this thread are way too enamoured of Obama to apply critical thinking to the actions of him or his appointees.

I will happily retract that if you can show me otherwise but I won't hold my breath.

BTW, WTF is an ad hom river?

[GreyICE]

Nope, just stating my opinion. I think many of the participants in this thread are way too enamoured of Obama to apply critical thinking to the actions of him or his appointees.
No, I'm just tired of witch hunts. If an appointee did something wrong, fine, great. Go criticize them.

All the Republicans ever seem to do is go through every speech they ever gave or interview they ever made, find someone or something they mentioned, and viciously attack them for it. Sotomayor, the guy who signed the petition, now this. They take apart their entire life history looking for any errant statement and go to town.

NOBODY has gone through life without making a single statement that was objectionable. NOBODY has gone through life and never admired or liked someone who turned out to be a totally bad person, and been embaressed by their previous admiration (I used to think Colin Powell was an amazing person, for instance. Once upon a time, I had a lot of respect for Ralph Nader. Do I particularly feel like defending everything they've ever done because at one point in my life I liked and respected them?).

They're witch hunts. It's pure bias that you are not seeing that. Harriet Miers was criticized because she was incompetent for the position she was nominated for. Sotomayor was criticized because she once said it was a good thing that latino girls had a role model, and managed to phrase it in such a way that it sounded racist.

If it wasn't every single time, more of the same, mroe statements that 'sound bad' more 'words taken out of context' more vague implications and 30 year old remarks and implications that at one point they were known to be near someone who isn't a nice person, I would care. But it's just witch hunt, witch hunt, witch hunt.

Come on, find one person as incompetent for the position they were nominated for as Harriet Miers or Michael Brown. And I'll agree you have a point about Obama nominating duds? Fair?

Incompetence, dishonesty, obvious political sycophantism (HI ALBERTO AND MIERS), those charges I'll pay attention to. Someone said something sometime and now he's in a folder of known communist sympathizers? Heh.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Nope, just stating my opinion. I think many of the participants in this thread are way too enamoured of Obama to apply critical thinking to the actions of him or his appointees.

I will happily retract that if you can show me otherwise but I won't hold my breath.

BTW, WTF is an ad hom river?

I was a little annoyed at when I was typing it up, but between this and a few other threads, I just saw a constant stream of ad homs.

I apologize.

[gtc]

All the Republicans ever seem to do is go through every speech they ever gave or interview they ever made, find someone or something they mentioned, and viciously attack them for it. Sotomayor, the guy who signed the petition, now this. They take apart their entire life history looking for any errant statement and go to town.

And you don't think Democrats do the same? Do you remember the number of threads tearing Palin's background apart?

The guy who signed the petition was signing a truther petition and ran a truther rally. He was also on record saying deranged things about Bush and Republicans in general and is an avowed communist. His qualifications for his position promoting 'environmental jobs' was running a community organisation as part of the woo-filled Institute of Noetic Science.

The faults of the Obama appointee in this thread are less serious but he did do wrong. His eulogy for a long time supporter of NAMBLA isn't compatible with his current position nor was his stated handling of the child sex case during his tenure as a teacher. However, it turns out that he was wrong about what happened in that case and his actual actions weren't out of order. I don't think he needs to resign or be sacked and I have said this.

Anita Dunn is an avowed supporter of Mao Tse Tung. Which reflects stunning political naivete considering the number of people he killed.

The bottom line is that Obama is politically naive - his association with his Pastor and with Ayers demonstrate this - and his administration reflects this. Hopefully he can overcome this; we will see.

[Leif Roar]

And you don't think Democrats do the same? Do you remember the number of threads tearing Palin's background apart?

I'm sure Democrats to the same (but I'm not sure they necessarily do it as often and to the same degree as Republicans), but from what I remember the criticism against Palin focused on her lack of experience, and in particular her lack of foreign policy experience, questions of whether she'd misused governmental powers ("Troopergate"), her rather lackluster education and, to be fair, her daughter's pregnancy.

I don't remember any criticism on who she'd associated with or any old, unfortunate quotes being dragged out and wrung for blood like a stone. There was the "I can see Russia from my house" thing (which wasn't her quote at all, of course) but that was more a short-hand for her lack of experience rather than an argument in itself.

[gtc]

I'm sure Democrats to the same (but I'm not sure they necessarily do it as often and to the same degree as Republicans), but from what I remember the criticism against Palin focused on her lack of experience, and in particular her lack of foreign policy experience, questions of whether she'd misused governmental powers ("Troopergate"), her rather lackluster education and, to be fair, her daughter's pregnancy.

I don't remember any criticism on who she'd associated with or any old, unfortunate quotes being dragged out and wrung for blood like a stone. There was the "I can see Russia from my house" thing (which wasn't her quote at all, of course) but that was more a short-hand for her lack of experience rather than an argument in itself.

The raking over of her husband's association with the Alaskan independence movement. I think that was the most relevant to this discussion. Don't forget the suggestion by at least one member of this board that she had travelled back to Alaska after her waters broke to try to induce a miscarriage.

Here are the links to what I mentioned above:

1) (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4867447&postcount=69)
2) (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4195109&postcount=12)
3) (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3992393&postcount=47)

and here is another suggestion that she was having an affair (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4199365&postcount=54).

[Leif Roar]

The raking over of her husband's association with the Alaskan independence movement. I think that was the most relevant to this discussion.

Hmm. Yes, I'd forgotten about that. I'm not sure it's really equivalent, though. Didn't much of the criticism deal with Palin's direct contact with the AIP and that she had wanted to hush up her husband's prior membership?

Don't forget the suggestion by at least one member of this board that she had travelled back to Alaska after her waters broke to try to induce a miscarriage.

Eh. I don't think someone making a mean-spirited and hateful comment about a political candidate means much.

[gtc]

Hmm. Yes, I'd forgotten about that. I'm not sure it's really equivalent, though. Didn't much of the criticism deal with Palin's direct contact with the AIP and that she had wanted to hush up her husband's prior membership?

I think you are being overly generous about the tone of the criticism aimed at Palin compared to that aimed at the Democrats. I don't mean to sound snarky with that statement but I think you are wrong to suggest that it isn't really comparable.


Eh. I don't think someone making a mean-spirited and hateful comment about a political candidate means much.

It is evidence that Democrats aren't immune from making viscious attacks.

[Leif Roar]

I think you are being overly generous about the tone of the criticism aimed at Palin compared to that aimed at the Democrats.

Oh, I'm not commenting on the tone of the criticism at all, but that the criticism leveled at Palin here on these forums doesn't strike me as a good example of "Democrats do the same" as it was a lot more substantive and consisted of more than harping on about old quotes or associates: a lack of experience and a possible abuse of power are weighty matters when debating the suitability of a candidate for the vice presidency. Even if you believe those criticisms are wrong, you have to admit that they are relevant to the discussion and should be considered.

It is evidence that Democrats aren't immune from making viscious attacks.

I didn't even realise that that was up for debate.

[Lurker]

The guy who signed the petition was signing a truther petition and ran a truther rally.

Have you seen the statement he signed? I mean the actual verbiage of the statement? Most of it is innocuous and is not truther in tone (and I say this as someone who has vociferously opposed truthers for many years - check out my posts on the conspiracy forum). Only one statement can be construed as "truther" directly. My point in this is because someone signs a petition does not mean they read the petition as carefully as we with hindsight do today. He very well may have missed the "truther" part of the petition.

He was also on record saying deranged things about Bush and Republicans in general and is an avowed communist. His qualifications for his position promoting 'environmental jobs' was running a community organisation as part of the woo-filled Institute of Noetic Science.
I don't think you know what an avowed communist is. 20 years ago I espoused some communist thinking. Does that make me a communist today?


Anita Dunn is an avowed supporter of Mao Tse Tung. Which reflects stunning political naivete considering the number of people he killed.
Dunn is an avowed communist? Let's take a step back and allow me to ask you, do you really think this is the case? She quoted Mao and said he was one of her favorite philosophers to illustrate a specific point. Does that make her an avowed communist? Do you see communists throughout the makeup of America? I've quoted Goebbels in the past and noted his knowledge of the uses of propaganda. Does that make me a Nazi?

The bottom line is that Obama is politically naive - his association with his Pastor and with Ayers demonstrate this - and his administration reflects this. Hopefully he can overcome this; we will see.
Agreed.

[GreyICE]

And you don't think Democrats do the same? Do you remember the number of threads tearing Palin's background apart?
Yes, I do. I do very strongly. They addressed the issues of whether or not she had enough experience to become President if it was required (as is the duty of the VP). They discussed whether she had foreign policy experience, experience in general governorship, and other qualifications necessary to be the VP and possibly the President. They questioned quantifiable things about her and her experience.

The fact that you think this is exactly the same as going through every speech she ever gave and parsing it for any statement you can take for a witch hunt is telling.

Please defend how this appointee is unqualified for his position, under the standards that were applied to Palin (experience similar to the duties he will have, or other related experience to his position).

If you cannot defend it, please withdraw your suggestion that the criticism of Jennings and Palin are comperable, because I assert that your suggestion is utterly baseless, and furthermore it is a blatant red herring designed to throw off the entire discussion, because you CANNOT in fact defend anything RESEMBLING that.

You wish to suggest that your opponents are placing all Obama employees on a pedestal and not allowing criticism. Nothing is further from the truth. However, criticism on the basis of experience, competence, and qualifications is relevant. Criticism on the basis of speeches and sexual orientation is just useless hot air.

The fact that the right wing cannot tell the difference between serious concerns and useless hot air is distinctly telling.

[gtc]

Have you seen the statement he signed? I mean the actual verbiage of the statement? Most of it is innocuous and is not truther in tone (and I say this as someone who has vociferously opposed truthers for many years - check out my posts on the conspiracy forum). Only one statement can be construed as "truther" directly. My point in this is because someone signs a petition does not mean they read the petition as carefully as we with hindsight do today. He very well may have missed the "truther" part of the petition.

I have read the document. It has been extensively documented.

I don't think you know what an avowed communist is. 20 years ago I espoused some communist thinking. Does that make me a communist today?

Van Jones: (http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyrobase/the_new_face_of_environmentalism/Content?oid=290098&showFullText=true)

I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist."


Dunn is an avowed communist? Let's take a step back and allow me to ask you, do you really think this is the case? She quoted Mao and said he was one of her favorite philosophers to illustrate a specific point. Does that make her an avowed communist? Do you see communists throughout the makeup of America? I've quoted Goebbels in the past and noted his knowledge of the uses of propaganda. Does that make me a Nazi?

I was talking about Jones. Dunn's statement was highly offensive given the number of people he killed. Your quoting Goebbels is a bit different to describing Mao as one of your favourite political philosophers.


Yes, I do. I do very strongly. They addressed the issues of whether or not she had enough experience to become President if it was required (as is the duty of the VP). They discussed whether she had foreign policy experience, experience in general governorship, and other qualifications necessary to be the VP and possibly the President. They questioned quantifiable things about her and her experience.

I have provided some of the links to what I was talking about. You are whitewashing history here.

The fact that you think this is exactly the same as going through every speech she ever gave and parsing it for any statement you can take for a witch hunt is telling.

No. What is telling is the fact that you are putting words in my mouth. The only person who used the word 'exactly', or words to that effect, is you. You are being dishonest.

Please defend how this appointee is unqualified for his position, under the standards that were applied to Palin (experience similar to the duties he will have, or other related experience to his position).

Why should I? You are asking me to defend a position I don't hold on the basis of some bogus standard that you have made up.

If you cannot defend it, please withdraw your suggestion that the criticism of Jennings and Palin are comperable, because I assert that your suggestion is utterly baseless, and furthermore it is a blatant red herring designed to throw off the entire discussion, because you CANNOT in fact defend anything RESEMBLING that.

I suggest you relax. You sound like you are foaming at the mouth.



You wish to suggest that your opponents are placing all Obama employees on a pedestal and not allowing criticism.

Again this is dishonest. I don't think you are applying critical thinking but criticism is obviously being allowed - otherwise my post wouldn't be appearing here.

Nothing is further from the truth. However, criticism on the basis of experience, competence, and qualifications is relevant. Criticism on the basis of speeches and sexual orientation is just useless hot air.

Criticising speeches is hot air? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? Also, I do not care what his sexual orientation is. Again you are alleging homophobia where none exists.

[Alt+F4]

However, criticism on the basis of experience, competence, and qualifications is relevant.

Unfortunately, that valid criticism doesn't always apply when it comes to education. Jennings has ZERO experience teaching or administration in a public school. Heck, the Secretary of Education never taught one single day in his entire life.

[GreyICE]

I have provided some of the links to what I was talking about. You are whitewashing history here.
No, I am not. There were some people who criticized her statements or mannerisms. Yes. But most of the criticism was directed at her inexperience, her obvious corruption and cronyism, her distinct lack of topical knowledge, and her self-serving policies. Like Meirs, she attracted criticism not for a statement made 20 years ago, but for her real actions, real demonstrated capacity, and real abilities right now.

No. What is telling is the fact that you are putting words in my mouth. The only person who used the word 'exactly', or words to that effect, is you. You are being dishonest. Ah. So how similar is criticizing someone's experience and decisions based on their record and history the same as criticizing someone for one statement made 20 years ago? Not 'exactly' obviously (though close enough for you to compare the two). Very similar? Pretty similar? Somewhat similar? Not really similar at all, but close enough that I thought it was a good way to distract everyone? What, exactly, is the degree of similarity?



Why should I? You are asking me to defend a position I don't hold on the basis of some bogus standard that you have made up. Okay, so you can't or won't. Followup - is Kevin Jennings unqualified or incompetent, based on his actions and record, in such a way that justifies his removal from the post? Or would it be fair to say that nothing in his record suggests that he's unqualified or incompetent for his (reasonably minor) position, and this is yet another attempt by the Republicans to witch hunt?



I suggest you relax. You sound like you are foaming at the mouth. Ah, the old 'relax' routine. I suggest you stop 'relaxing' and start critically thinking. It sounds like you're just running your mouth.




Criticising speeches is hot air? Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds? Also, I do not care what his sexual orientation is. Again you are alleging homophobia where none exists.
Yes, I do believe that criticizing a short remark in an otherwise unrelated speech made a hell of a long time ago qualifies as hot air. Do YOU realize how ridiculous it sounds to make that some monumental event worthy of dismissal?

Lacking any reason that an unbiased observer would qualify as relevant, I must assume either other motivation exists, or the opposition to Kevin Jennings is demonstrably irrational. But you're right. It's probably not homophobia (though it does play well with the homophobic aspects of the Republican base). It's just one more criticism in this endless witch hunt.

[gtc]

I have said that Jennings appears to have done nothing wrong in his handling of the issue with the student. His initial position was that he realised that he had handled it wrongly but this was based on a faulty recollection of the events. No matter which version of events was correct, he would not be disqualified on those grounds.

His speech in defense of Hay was based on wishful thinking and/or ignorance. It was silly and naive but I don't think it disqualified him from this appointment.


I have already said all of this.

[GreyICE]

But you're happy to call Obama politically naive on the basis of this witch hunt, happy to throw in with the Republicans criticizing him, happy to watch this drama unfold as yet another silly charge is blown into the stratosphere by the usual suspects and their band of deranged nitwits.

The 'voice of reason' is sounding a bit tinny.

[gtc]

Jennings actions do not, in my opinion, disqualify him from holding his postion but he was politically naive (again in my opinion). The two opinions are not incompatible. I have explained the reasons why I find the Obama administration to be politically naive and this is just one of the examples I used.

You are being dishonest again.

[Upchurch]

I have explained the reasons why I find the Obama administration to be politically naive

Out of morbid curiosity, what administration did you find to be not politically naive?

[/offTopic]

[gtc]

Out of morbid curiosity, what administration did you find to be not politically naive?

[/offTopic]

It is off topic. However, I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the Clinton administration was naive.

[GreyICE]

Jennings actions do not, in my opinion, disqualify him from holding his postion but he was politically naive (again in my opinion). The two opinions are not incompatible. I have explained the reasons why I find the Obama administration to be politically naive and this is just one of the examples I used.

You are being dishonest again.

Oh cute. You don't want to be too closely associated with the crazy witch hunting tea bagging lunatic wing of the Republican party, but really you want to maintain the close association that the Republicans have had with them for nigh on two decades now.

Has it ever occurred to you that the plausible deniability, where you let the crazies foam at the mouth and try to put them at a short but convenient distance where you can use them without being covered in spittle is wearing a bit thin? As a short term measure, it's a cute strategy, but as a long term preposition, you tend to end up with your 'non-crazies' being the sort of people who are totally happy to use the products of crazy people to advance their own position. It wears a tad morally thin.

The only people you're recruiting anymore are the crazies and the ethically challenged, plus a handful of true believers who still think you can accomplish something good with shady ends. The sad part of the doctorine 'the ends justify the means' is that the means become the ends.

I mean seriously, the only naive thing you can really point out here is Obama's assumption that his opponents were not in fact crazy. Or maybe he just assumed at this point no one but the true believers are listening. You repeat the word 'naive,' but you can't seem to identify WHAT was naive. You just seem to think that the batguano wing of the Republican party is still relevant as your useful attack dogs. They've reduced themselves to yappy Chihuahuas.

[gtc]

Nothing you have said is related to what I have posted or relevant to the thread.

[GreyICE]

Nothing you have said is related to what I have posted or relevant to the thread. It was almost convincing 15 years ago. I guess you have to hope that nothing has changed, because otherwise it's all been a bit pointless.