From Media Matters -- December 9, 2009:
Washington Times continues its anti-gay war on Kevin Jennings, "Obama's buggery czar"
The Washington Times continued its anti-gay war on Department of Education official Kevin Jennings in a December 8 editorial entitled "Obama's buggery czar," the paper's ninth editorial smearing Jennings since late September. The Times editorial advanced several false and misleading claims in order to paint Jennings as a "moral malefactor" who supported and promoted "kids having sex with adults" as well as "homosexuality and promiscuity."
Wash. Times again falsely suggested Jennings ignored statutory rape
Wash. Times: In speech, "moral malefactor" Jennings discussed advising "a 15-year-old...who was having sex with an older man" to "use a condom." In the December 8 editorial, The Washington Times claimed: "Mr. Jennings is the moral malefactor who gave a speech about how he merely advised a 15-year-old high-school sophomore who was having sex with an older man that, 'I hope you knew to use a condom.'" The Times previously claimed in a September 28 editorial that Jennings had "encouraged" the "statutory rape" of the student.
In fact, counseled student was 16, the age of legal consent, as the Times has previously acknowledged. Despite the Times' suggestion that the student Jennings counseled regarding an encounter he had with an older man was 15-years-old, as Media Matters has previously reported, the student has confirmed that he was 16 at the time of the incident, which is and was the age of consent in Massachusetts. Indeed, the Times itself has already acknowledged the evidence that the student in question was 16 at the time.
Wash. Times baselessly attempted to link Jennings to NAMBLA
Wash. Times: Jennings "expressed admiration for Harry Hay, a notorious and extremely prominent supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association." The December 8 editorial also charged that Jennings "expressed admiration for Harry Hay, a notorious and extremely prominent supporter of the North American Man Boy Love Association." The Times previously claimed on October 4 that "the late Hay was a 'gay-rights' activist most notorious for supporting the North American Man Boy Love Association."
In fact, Jennings' praise of Hay had nothing to do with NAMBLA. Jennings mentioned Harry Hay in a 1997 speech to GLSEN and the transcript was published by anti-gay activist Peter LaBarbera. However, Jennings' praise was of Hay's work as an early gay rights activist and had nothing to do with NAMBLA, as the Times suggested. Jennings reportedly stated: "One of the people that's always inspired me is Harry Hay, who started the first ongoing gay rights groups in America. In 1948, he tried to get people to join the Mattachine Society. It took him two years to find one other person who would join. Well, [in] 1993, Harry Hay marched with a million people in Washington, who thought he had a good idea 40 years before."
Wash. Times distorted book passage to claim GLSEN reading list promoted "being exploited by homosexual pedophiles"
Wash. Times: Jennings promoted relationships between children and "homosexual pedophiles" through GLSEN reading list, which tries "to make sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable." The December 8 editorial also claimed that Jennings "not only thought there was nothing wrong with boys having sex with older men (or girls having sex with older women), but he also played a role in promoting such relationships." As evidence, the Times reported that the organization that Jennings founded, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) compiled a list of suggested readings for students, some of which are "shocking" and "clearly promote homosexuality and promiscuity." According to the Times, "the readings try to make sex between children and adults seem normal and acceptable. Being exploited by homosexual pedophiles is portrayed as something that can make children happy and fulfilled."
But Times distorted book passage to claim GLSEN reading list promoted idea that "being exploited by homosexual pedophiles... can make children happy and fulfilled." According to the Times, "eleven of the recommended books were examined by Scott Baker from Breitbart.tv and re-examined by The Washington Times." The Times claimed that according to their examination of the texts, the readings promote the idea that "being exploited by homosexual pedophiles is portrayed as something that can make children happy and fulfilled." But, as evidence, the Times distorts at least one of the readings. The Times claimed that a passage in Queer 13, one of the books on the GLSEN reading list, describes "a 13-year old boy who has sexual encounters with older men. His experience caused him to desperately want sex." The Times quotes the author as saying "that feeling of doing it to them and them doing the same for me was just too damn good." However, contrary to the suggestion that this passage depicted a child made "happy and fulfilled" by sexual encounters with older men, the author said his encounters included "brutal and painful experiences" and described this period of his life as "the beginning of my worthlessness." From Queer 13, page 45:
This was the year I realized I was helpless, different, wholly alone and defenseless. This was the beginning of my worthlessness. It was always pointed out to me that I wasn't good enough and that there was always someone somewhere doing better, and that no matter what I did, I could still have done better.
Times cropped GLSEN disclaimer on reading list to omit that GLSEN recommended that adults review content before providing to youths. The Times wrote of GLSEN's Booklink disclaimer: "The organization Web site reassures us, 'All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.'" The Times omits that the GLSEN disclaimer goes on warn that "some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes," and "recommend[s] that adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability."
Times editorial latest example of Wash. Times anti-gay war on Jennings
Wash. Times penned eight other editorials smearing Jennings. According to a search of the Nexis database, the Times' editorial board wrote at least eight editorials specifically targeting Jennings between the dates of September 28 and October 22. At least two additional editorials published during that period portrayed him in a negative light.
Editorials advanced falsehoods and distortions to discredit Jennings. As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, a number of the Times' editorials targeting Jennings advanced false claims or distortions and are riddled with anti-gay rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
There is no "anti gay rant". You are looking to find evil and predjudice where there is none. The simple fact is, with so many very qualified people that could have been chosen for this position, why go with the one that is surrounded with so much controversy? Why all of the "stuff"? Why the NAMBLA? Why the weird fisting thing in 2000?
Why are we having to "find the truth"? I personally have never known anyone---gay or straight that would EVER have any association with an advocate of NAMBLA or would EVER hire the quality of person that would give advise on fisting. (he may have claimed to have fired them after..but what damage was caused? He attended the convention!
And who CARES if the boy was 16 and technically of leagl age, the guy was 35 years old!!! I wouldn't want my straight daughter of 16 having sex with a 35 year old man, would you, CJP? It is damned Creepy. and anyone that would not counsel that kid under these circumstances is just wrong---on so many levels.
CJP, you really need to go to more than 1 website before you form your opinions. Maybe find out a bit MORE?
For anyone who spends even an hour on the internet looking into Jennings’ speeches and writings, his nonchalant attitude about an older homosexual man having sex with a boy should not be a surprise. What is surprising is that no one is mentioning reports that Jennings publicly stated that he was inspired by one of the biggest promoters of pedophilia in the country—Harry Hay. Hay actively promoted sex between men and boys and supported the North American Man Boy Love Association
Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) was a teacher, labor advocate, and early leader in the American LGBT rights movement. Drawing on his background in the Communist Party USA,
In 1986 Hay was confronted by police when he attempted to march in the Los Angeles pride parade, from which NAMBLA had been banned, with a sign reading "NAMBLA walks with me."[14][note 5]
Jennings wrote the forward to a book called Queering Elementary Education. ...
www.oilforimmigration.org/facts/?cat=1983 - 163k - Cached
One more:
Jennings wrote the forward "to a book called Queering Elementary Education. And another fellow you may have heard of wrote one of the endorsements on the book jacket—Bill Ayers." Ayers, of course, is the Weather Underground bomber from the 1960s who is just an "acquaintance" of Obama.
Is EVERY site besides Soros' site LYING? I doubt it. As I said, when dealing with our children, why appoint ANYONE that has so much "stuff" for baggage? This is just too important than to not appoint the best and most ethical.
Nice spin though.
Kevin Jennings carries no "baggage" except for these unfounded smear attacks against him by the Right-Wing.
Jennings obviously counseled the boy, "Brewster", very well. Whether "Brewster" was 15 or 16 at the time, he is now a happy and successful gay adult who gives Jennings total credit for guiding him through a very difficult period of his life, when he was indeed contemplating suicide. If Jennings had forced this boy to start a statutory rape case against the adult, as all the Right-Wingers are now urging, that could very well have destroyed the boy's life.
The boy probably hadn't even told his parents about the incident. Otherwise, why would he have been discussing the matter with his teacher instead of with his parents? Many gay kids have been thrown out of their homes when their parents learn they are gay. We don't know what "Brewster's" relationship with his parents was. I think he appreciated the fact that he could discuss this matter with Jennings and that it would be kept in total confidence.
I don't see that Jennings did anything wrong here -- did anything except be totally supportive and helpful in a very difficult situation. That's what "Brewster" says today, as a mature adult, and I should think that "Brewster" would know best.
As for the "fisting" and all the other "stuff", I haven't seen anything about that. Why don't you refer me to the link so I can see what you are referring to? Since so much else in this story has been taken out of context and distorted, I can only guess that this is more of the same.
By the way, Casey, where did you come up with the fact that "the guy was 35 years old"? I never saw any age specified for the adult male with whom "Brewster" was reputedly involved. Where did that little age detail come from?
CJP, I shouldn't have to give you the links. Do what I did and simply search Henry Hays, NAMBLA, and Kevin Jenniings. There are many articles. There is also no disputing that Jennings "admires Hays" (his words, not mine)
No one says that he needed to press rape charges against the older man, but isn't it "funny" that NAMBLA advocates older men/young boy sexual relationships, and this situation just happened to fit the bill. He should have counseled the boy on this, as this was not appropriate.
Gee, my guidence counselor in high school would have, pretty sure.
This is sceezy at best. The "stuff" is, too many questionable relationships, circumstances, and "stuff".
Why not pick someone without the baggage?
Really can't believe that you find a way to defend this CJP. And you never answered me. How would you feel about your 16 yr old having a sexual relationship with a 35 yr old? And he doesn't dispute the age of the older man
Photo: This kit for fisting was distributed by Planned Parenthood at Fistgate II. (Mass News)
Just google it, CJP. READ ALL OF THE ARTICLES. THERE ARE EVEN PICTURES, such as above mentioned fisting kit.
Really. you can't get all of your information from one source.
At the very least, I think you should have done that prior to rushing to the defense. Did it ever occur to you that the other side of the coin of "smear" would be "cover up"? Why is it that all of the sources are lying except Media Matters?
But despite Media Matters’ claims, Kevin Jennings and his GLSEN organization did nothing to clean up their act. In fact in 2001 activists handed out “fisting kits” to the children and teachers who attended the GLSEN conference.
Too many questions...
(I believe that this has little to do with Jennings' sexual preference. there are PLENTY of straight pediphiles too, as well as gay men that would not DREAM of these associations or choices---why not pick one of those?)
We have debated many subjects, but nothing has shown me better how hopeless this is, than the defense of Kevin Jennings and the fisting kit controversy. This really should not be a polical matter at all. How you can turn it into one is beyond me...(whether the boy in that instance turned out okay or not CJP, is immaterial, it may just as well not have turned out well, then what?)To top it off CJP, you admitidly had no idea of the age of the boy's sexual partner--(had the partner in question been 18 or 20, I doubt that it would have been controversial at all)yet you defend it anyway? Don't you find that a bit blind on the subject? Everyone FK's up once in a while, CJP, and I believe that in this instance, Obama FK'd up, and to be honest, I doubt that you would be defending this if it had been a republican that had made the appointment. It is that kind of blind faith and following that becomes scarey.
Casey, I had no idea what you were talking about when you mentioned "fisting kits", etc. I hadn't heard a word about this latest brouhaha until you enlightened me about it.
However, I'm relieved to see that you have simply fallen for another piece of wacko Right-Wing BS.
Apparently, Planned Parenthood distributed safe sex kits at a private school conference in 2001, which were intended to teach sexually active teen-agers how to protect themselves with regard to oral sex and had no relationship whatsoever to "fisting". Predictably, the Right-Wing went insane. This project also also did not involve Kevin Jennings. It involved Planned Parenthood. But, hell, what are facts to Conservatives?
Here is a very good post on the matter by someone called "Musterindr" which sheds a lot of light on this latest Right-Wing Con Job:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr :
Despite your repeated attempts, you have yet to show any substantive link between the activities described in the articles you keep posting and the Obama Administration. I also do not see any evidence where Kevin Jennings was teaching kids in a public school setting anything about what is contained in the article. This was a private conference at a private university.
The "kits" in question were distributed by Planned Parenthood and their primary purpose was to help prevent the transmission of STD's, an epidemic that is rampant among teens.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/ma...iclekey=107896
While I'll bow to your superior knowledge of somewhat arcane sexual techniques, the kits involved did not contain some "giant rubber fist" . They contained a latex surgical glove with instructions about how to cut it up to make a dental dam, a device designed to prevent the spread of disease when oral sex is performed on a female.
Whether you like it, agree with it or condemn it, the fact of the matter is that high school kids are going to experiment and have sex. This is true for both gay and straight kids. You can ignore it and hope that it does not happen (see how well that worked for Sarah Palin). You can condemn it and tell them that they are going to burn in hell. Or you can take a realistic approach and try and educate them in terms of increasing the level of safety and try and prevent both the transmission of potentially life threatening diseases or unplanned pregnancies.
What the right course of action is comes down to a personal opinion. My personal opinion is that teaching kids about safe sex and handing out rubber gloves or for that matter condoms to a bunch of sexually active high school students is pretty mild stuff but your opinion may vary.
You still need to read it ALL. And you need to address the main point in my comment, that is what would you do if your 16 year old was having sex with a 35 year old. (inappropriate--the boy met this guy on a bus and went home with him, not even an ongoing relationship) As usual, you never face the issues brought up. You find something that agrees with you, and then go with that.
Usless.
IF you had read everything CJP, you would have seen the video clip with audio that discussed fisting. Yes, audio, (not to mention that Jennings himself has acknoweldged the fisting discussions at that conference, and agreed that it was inappropriate and claimed to have "fired" the people responsible) I think that you are correct, these were not fisting kits, they were dental dam making kits, however fisting was discussed and instructions were given---heard it...
CJP. My original post comment was this: why would Obama appoint someone with so much baggage and controversy when there are so many qualified, and experienced candidates, gay or straight out there for this position? This is really a rediculous arguement! And don't even TRY to make ME out to be anti-gay---or a prude! I am far from either one!
Typical progressive tactic. Just call the person a racist, homophobe, religious nut, or whatever, without actually facing the issue. Call it a smear campaigne, but don't ask yourself WHY someone would make this shit up? There shouldn't be anything in this person's background that would give so much ammunition for a sucessful "smear" should there be?
Once again, go to ALL sites CJP--ones that you agree with as well as ones that you don't and see what is there. Watch the video clips, and see what conclusions you draw. (although your posting a supportive opinion from "Munsterlnd" was well written, it was far from fact, as I don't believe it was more than his/her opinion)Again, you have failed to do your homework on this subject, and you have failed to face the issue.
"(not to mention that Jennings himself has acknoweldged the fisting discussions at that conference, and agreed that it was inappropriate and claimed to have "fired" the people responsible)".
Casey, I think you have just answered your own question, in the portion I have quoted from you above.
The point is that all this "baggage" is being turned into smear attacks against Kevin Jennings, when there is no basis for these attacks on him. There is a lot more to be said on behalf of Jennings, and against these attacks, which I plan to do as soon as I have more time. However, the part I quoted from you above is a pretty good opener.
No, no, no, CJP. There is no excuse for that to have gone on at all in the first place and if Jennings had been doing a good job, these things would not have gone on.
When we have bad employees, or employees that are liable to F-up this badly, it is a reflection on the management. I have been in management for a very long time, and you can be damned sure that the integrity of every one of my employees has been above reproach.
Now, when are you going to get to my initial question, CJP? Are you avoiding it? How about your 16 yr old? (if you had one---boy or girl, gay or straight?) Would your only concern be that a condom was used, or would you be concerned that she went home with a 35 yr old that she met on a bus, for sex?
Did you listen to the video?
I still say that when it comes to our kids, we can't afford to have anyone that can't hold up.
Casey, to answer your question, I wouldn't want my 16 year old child -- or your 16 year old child, either -- to have sex with a 35 year old man.
In fact, I have nephews and nieces who now range in age from 18 to 21, and I wouldn't want them to have sex with anyone until after they are married. I'm old-fashioned, I guess.
However, we are not dealing with that situation. We are talking about young gay males who are in fact out having sex at ages 15 or 16, and are actively seeking sex with older men.
When such a child confides in one of his teachers, the question is, what is that teacher supposed to do, especially when the child says that he has such deep feelings of worthlessness that he is contemplating suicide. Kevin Jennings' main concern was for the child's health, both mental and physical. He became the boy's confidante and advisor, raised the child's self-esteem, and got him past this difficult period in his life.
Brewster fully agrees that Jennings did all the right things to assure his future safety and welfare.
All the other advice I've heard from Kevin Jennings' second-guessers would probably have been very destructive to the boy. Some people are saying that Jennings should have pressed the boy to start a statutory rape case against the older man.
Well, in Roman Polanski's case, we have a real case of statutory rape, involving a 13-year old girl, where Polanski was clearly the aggressor. Yet, the girl -- who is now a 45-year old woman -- now says that she has long ago forgiven Polanski (who was probably despondent at that time over the recent murder of his wife, Sharon Tate), and that her continuing involvement in this statutory rape case is wrecking her own married life.
Is that what Kevin Jennings should have pushed the boy into doing -- start a statutory rape case, when Brewster himself had no thought or desire of doing any such thing?
I can't see that Jennings did anything wrong here. But the advice being offered by some of Jennings' second-guessers could likely have been pretty devastating to the young man.
CJP
Margot Abels, who conducted the "fisting" seminar, was an employee of the Massachusetts Department of Education. She was not an employee of GLSEN -- Kevin Jennings' organization --and Jennings was neither her employer nor her supervisor - as you can see from my latest post, Casey.
We are talking about young gay males who are in fact out having sex at ages 15 or 16, and are actively seeking sex with older men.---CJP
Where do you get the idea CJP that young gay boys are actively seeking sex with older men? (and I don't care 16 is very young, still a boy) But where does this idea come from? That is the story that every pediophile uses, "he wanted it" or "she seduced me". Don't fall for it. It is a known fact,
CJP that pediophelia is a learned behavior. Most pediophiles were molested themselves.
Would I have tried to get him to press charges? Maybe not. But the least that I would have done would have been to counsel him on this being a very bad idea. Not safe. Not appropriate. He met this guy on a bus? PLEEESE. This would be dangerous for anyone, of any age---let alone a child! 'The way that I see it, is that you are putting a gay child into a different catagory. You are placing a double standard on a gay child as opposed to a straight child. You are saying that dangerous behavior is okay for a gay child. Why is that?
My second problem with this post:
Polanski (who was probably despondent at that time over the recent murder of his wife, Sharon Tate), --CJP
The Tate murder was in 1969, the rape incident with Polanski was in 1977. 8 years later? I don't think so, CJP. And even so, this is NOT a behavior that you can possibly excuse. Or can you? I really don't know anymore. Maybe she was "asking for it" Didn't Polanski say that she "wanted it"?
Maybe we should have just made sure that we told her about condoms!
Still confused, CJP. I thought that there were no fisting discussions? Now there WERE? Which is it?
We are talking about young gay males who are in fact out having sex at ages 15 or 16, and are actively seeking sex with older men.---CJP
OMG! That comes straight from NAMBLA! That is one of their arguements. You didn't know that CJP, I am sure, right?
Thank you :-) look at this emo boy style at this blog:
http://www.emo--boys.info
Post a Comment