Friday, December 11, 2009

More "Fistgate" Facts

Facts should never stand in the way of smears. Nevertheless ---


No, Jennings didn't know about the workshop's contents in advance

December 10, 2009 by Matt Gertz -- Media Matters for America:

The anti-gay right's newest line of attack on Department of Education staffer Kevin Jennings is that he "knew" in advance about the content of a seminar held at his organization's 2000 conference, in which two Massachusetts Department of Education employees engaged in explicit discussion of sexual practices with a teen audience. But the evidence those right-wing sources are hanging their hats on is extremely thin - even for them.

WorldNetDaily and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft are both claiming that one of those instructors is on the record stating that Jennings knew. Both are pointing to a blog post by the anti-gay hate group MassResistance which states, "Of course Jennings and the Massachusetts Department of Education knew beforehand what the 'sexuality educators' would discuss with children at the 'fisting' workshop. The instructor Margot Abels said so herself."

But the statements MassResistance cites Abels reportedly making only indicate that her immediate supervisors in the Department of Education were aware of her work - not Jennings or other GLSEN officials. MassResistance emphasizes Rod Dreher's Weekly Standard report that "Abels fumed to the press that the education department had known perfectly well what she had been doing for years and hadn't cared until the tapes had surfaced." They also point to a report in the conservative Mass News, which states that Abels told the LGBT newspaper Bay Windows that "she had the support of state officials during her seven years at the state Department of Education," and quoted her statement that "Maybe David Driscoll [Commissioner of Education] didn't always know everything that we did, but certainly our supervisors did."

So no, Abels hadn't "said so herself" that Jennings "knew beforehand" the contents of her workshop.

The other piece of "evidence" MassResistance and their allies in the right-wing blogosphere are pointing is as follows:

Jennings, after all, worked hand in hand with the Mass. Department of Education from the beginning, as co-chair of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth education committee, which set up the statewide program, "Safe Schools for Gay and Lesbian Students" in the DOE. That is the program the fisting workshop instructors worked for.
In fact, as the bio on Jennings' website indicates, he left that commission years before the 2000 conference. Unless these people are alleging some massive conspiracy in which Jennings plotted out the details of the workshop discussion years in advance (and I suppose we can't really rule out that sort of logic from them), this line of reasoning falls apart pretty quickly.

For that matter, even if Jennings had been aware of the general contents of Abels' presentation (and there's no actual evidence to that effect), that still wouldn't in any way support the argument that he was aware of the specific discussion the right-wing finds so offensive before it happens. What we're left with is still that Department of Education officials held the seminar at GLSEN's conference, Jennings criticized them, and they were fired or resigned.

In short, the right is dredging up a ten-year-old instance that was widely reported at the time, and using innuendo and faulty logic to try to smear Jennings with it. But I guess we couldn't have expected any less.

28 comments:

Casey said...

Wait---I thought you said there were never any "fisting" discussions going on! None of this makes sense CJP---either there were fisting discussions, or there weren't. Which is it?

"No, Jennings didn't know about the workshop's contents in advance"

So he is inept at best.

Although I am flattered that you have given my original comment so much attention, CJP, I am STILL waiting for an answer to my original question: how would you feel about your 16 year old child (boy or girl, gay or straight) telling you about going home with a man that he or she met on a bus to have sex? would your ONLY concern be that a condom was used?

This defense is getting very thin, CJP. It is almost as though you are DESPARATE to defend him. This is about the least convincing article that you have provided.

RayGun said...

I have seen 0 about this guy in the real news. Must be a Faux News deal again.

RayGun said...

Faux News Does it Again Sorry Case, just more of the same.

Casey said...

Sorry CJP. You did finally answer my question about your 16 year old child, but you failed to tell me what YOU would have done.

Casey said...

Faux News Does it Again Sorry Case, just more of the same.--RG

No, RG. That has been corrected on Fox. We know that he was 16, but there is alot more to this story than the 1 year difference.

RayGun said...

But Case, it appears Faux News lied and only recanted when they had no other choice.

Casey said...

My original comment is that there were too many well qualified educators out there to settle for someone so controversial. Too much baggage.
(and I am NOT a homophobe. I grew up in So. Calif. in a very liberal, gay community, (knew what gay meant at an early age) lived in San Francisco as well during my teenage years. Not a person that is at all bothered or judgemental of gay people. So the Homophobe label does not fit me AT ALL)

RayGun said...

But Case, the outrage against Dan Rather about BushGate, he resigned or was fired etc, and Faux does this on a regular basis and no one seems to care. What gives Case?

Casey said...

RG' Sweetie pie. This is not the same as BushGate. They weren't forced to make the correction. Actually, they haven't even been talking about this for a few months! Dan Rather used falsified documents, no? Not the same.

RayGun said...

"Dan Rather used falsified documents, no? Not the same.",

Yes used them but he thought them to be real.

But oh the con outrage. And it's extra ironic that most people, at least privately admit, that w the slacker, once again shirked his responsibility to the National Guard (which kept Texas safe from invasion and kept w out of Vietnam) because he was tired of it. Then after all that additional proof of his slacker ways, you elect him president, where he continued this pattern with devastating results. Isn't that mind boggling sweetums?

Casey said...

Why are we going back to Bush? Sorry, RG, but I am begining to see a pattern here with you libs. Don't have an answer? Go to Bush.
Deflect the issues by pointing to Bush. Can't go wrong, we we point to Bush, right?

Casey said...

Rg-What do you think of the Roman Polanski thing? Do you think that he did it because he may have been despondent over the Manson Murders 8 years prior? Or do you think he was a horney old sicko that wanted to sodomize a 14 year old and thought that he could get away with it because of who he was?

RayGun said...

"Deflect the issues by pointing to Bush."

JC Case, just seems the Jennings deal and the w deal have a lot in common. Its a pattern with cons. Jennings deal (who cares), and w deal(everyone should of cared). You cons priorities are really out of whack. Faux distorts and lies and oh well, and ABC news does a little sloppy reporting and off with their heads.

A lot of us screamed for 8 years that w sucked. But you cons new best, until now, and now no one wants to own w, except the ultra extreme right wing whackos.

RayGun said...

"Roman Polanski thing"
--
Been paying next to 0 attention to it. So I have no clue, but if she consented, then I personally see no problem. Sorry, I am a realist and sex is a very powerful force. Many societies have no problem with sex. Our society has extreme problems with sex, mainly because of You Know Who.

Casey said...

Funny. I think that the Progressives have the lock on Smear. That is the progressives way.
5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128).
12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative (Alinsky 1972: 130).
13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (Alinsky 1972: 130).
Alinsky, Saul D. (1946) Reveille for Radicals. (1969 edn.),

Casey said...

I guess we lost HOTR. I was going to quit. Begining of the week, I had decided that I was never going to go on this site again. I have decided that I must be a masochist, because I am still here!
Maybe there is a support group for conservatives that can't help trying to debate progressives.In spite of it being a big waste of time.)Maybe I need 12 steps.

Casey said...

Been paying next to 0 attention to it. So I have no clue, but if she consented, then I personally see no problem. ---Rg

RG. He has rape charges against him. She didn't consent. He gave a 14 yr old ludes and alchohol, raped and sodomized her. He plead it down to statutory rape, but she did not consent. He was 44, and she was 14. Still think it is a sexual hang up on our society's part?

RayGun said...

"Maybe I need 12 steps."

LOL.

It's fun. And a lot of times I just argue for the sake of arguing.

And regarding public programs, I really do think we need to get the insurance companies out of the medical business. What good do they really do?

And maybe free higher education. Not all higher education needs to be free, but a public free option. Probably wouldn't be as good as private so I think it would all work out. Our manufacturing jobs are going away for good, so best get educated.

RayGun said...

"He gave a 14 yr old ludes and alchohol, raped and sodomized her."

Sounds like he will pay a price.

HOOTER went ballistic on the fact that I mentioned that in many societies sex with consenting 14 year olds is legal.

Anonymous said...

Saul Alinski. Rules for Radicals. Have the book. Interesting really. Did you know that Alinski is a big influence on lots of your progressive heros?
Obama
Hillary Clinton
Are just 2

RayGun said...

Case, do you think we should invade countries that don't agree with our squeamishness with regards to sex?

RayGun said...

"progressive heros, Obama, Hillary Clinton Are just 2"

You just listed 2 of the smartest politicians out there. Maybe they like the book because it teaches them how to deal with the wingnuts lack of contact with reality?

Casey said...

It's fun. And a lot of times I just argue for the sake of arguing.---Rg

I suspected this. However, I will hold you responsible. I will mention you at my first 12 step meeting! LOL

J Thyme...kind said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J Thyme...kind said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CJP said...

What would I have done, Casey, in the "Brewster" situation? Probably, very little.

I don't have the patience to get involved in these situations, which is one reason why I never became a teacher or a psychologist.

However, I probably would have asked "Brewster" if he had discussed this problem with his parents. Ideally, that's what he should have done.

But if "Brewster" felt he could not talk to his parents about this, then I would have directed him to a local Gay and Lesbian support group for gay teen-agers, and I would have hoped and prayed that he find an advisor as helpful, patient and supportive as Kevin Jennings was to guide his future.

RayGun said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Well, CJP. There is the problem. That was not done. We aren't even in the field, but we both have shown better judgement, or "gut instinct" than he did.

"advisor as helpful, patient and supportive as Kevin Jennings was to guide his future."

Next question: What was so helpful, & patient? What did he do to help "guide his future"? He certainly didn't "guide" him to the conclusion that going home with a complete stranger for sex might be dangerous behavior. So where was the guidence?
Oh CJP, I find it very hard to believe that you actually believe in this guy! It is more likely that you are defending this guy only because he is an Obama appointee and you want to defend Obama! But as I said before, EVERYONE screws up, and in this case this was a screw up!