The (un)safe school czar’s inspiration
(Photo credit: Zombie)
Two items on the continuing (un)safe school czar scandal:
Zombie investigates Kevin Jennings’ inspiration, NAMBLA enthusiast Harry Hay and concludes:
I have been unable to find information about any NAMBLA conference which Harry Hay didn’t attend.
I don’t know what it takes to be considered “in NAMBLA” or a “NAMBLA member,” but someone who makes appearances at and gives speeches at every known NAMBLA conference, and who speaks out publicly in NAMBLA’s defense, and who writes blurbs for NAMBLA books, would seem to be a likely candidate.
Jeffrey Lord at the American Spectator widens the lens with “Pelosi to Polanski to Jennings: Why Sean Hannity Is Right:”
One of the reasons the GOP lost control of the House in the 2006 elections was the scandal surrounding then-Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley. Foley, it needs to be recalled, was revealed to be targeting young male House pages for sex — his texting messages to underage boys making him instantly infamous. In the ensuing uproar, Foley — correctly — resigned.
Leading the charge on this issue was none other than Nancy Pelosi — the Congresswoman from San Francisco. Said Pelosi on the issue which would make her Speaker of the House:
Republican leaders admitted to knowing about Mr. Foley’s abhorrent behavior for six months to a year and failed to protect the children in their trust. Republican Leaders must be investigated by the Ethics Committee and immediately questioned under oath.
Catch Speaker Pelosi’s phrase: “…protect the children in their trust.”
For failing to protect those children, Pelosi wanted a Congressional investigation, with members of Congress to be “immediately questioned under oath.”
But there was something curious going on with Pelosi, something that was revealed here in this space. To his considerable credit, Fox’s Sean Hannity picked up on the story instantly, consistent in his horror at the attitude toward sexual predators then and now.
It seems that back in 2001, Pelosi was a happy participant in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade. As noted here, with a large gay community in her hometown there was nothing unusual about this. What was unusual was that the Grand Marshal of the parade was one Harry Hay, the (now-deceased) advocate of “man-boy love”…
***
One more good read this morning from Byron York on the continuing battle over Obama’s radicals in the Examiner. Takeaway:
Does anyone believe that Jones, Sergant and Jennings are the only Obama officials about whom truly serious questions can be raised? While Obama’s other wars will someday end, this one might last the entire administration.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Cincinnati-Area School Pays Kids to… Show Up to School
February 13, 2012 09:43 PM by Doug Powers
16 CommentsColumbia University to Offer ‘Occupy 101′ Course
January 2, 2012 11:15 AM by Doug Powers
75 Comments
Document drop: What Scholastic is teaching your kids about the Occupiers
December 9, 2011 11:30 AM by Michelle Malkin
102 Comments
Moonbat of the day: Suffolk Univ. law prof condemns sending care packages to troops, flying American flag
November 14, 2011 08:36 PM by Michelle Malkin
46 CommentsWisconsin: 4th Grade Teacher Takes Class to Protest at Capitol
November 4, 2011 10:44 AM by Doug Powers
124 Comments
Colorado bellwether: Voters reject statewide tax increases
November 1, 2011 10:46 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 Comments
The EduJobs III Bailout; Update – Harry Reid: Who cares about private sector jobs?
October 19, 2011 04:38 AM by Michelle Malkin
94 Comments
PC Educator of the Week: Thanksgiving, Columbus Day are Insensitive Holidays
October 15, 2011 12:06 PM by Doug Powers
41 Comments
Categories: Education,Kevin Jennings
Redstate
» Morning Briefing for February 14, 2012Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Absolutely brilliant, SpeakEasy! Your last sentence is definitely a quotable quote! May I use it?
chapoutier said:
Christopher Columbus!!, oh he was a bad guy too by the way. All I can say to that blurb is –Okie Dokie!!
chapoutier trolled
Sorry, chappy but we’re not the ones doing the mental contortions. We’re not the ones doing the moral relativism.
Sheesh, it’s no wonder why you have no credibility here.
having sex with a little boy is still not legal, is it?
Gag. Spit. Ptooey! That was a very disgusting statement, Chap. Advocating to make sex with little boys legal, is perfectly legal…so that makes it o.k. That just makes me sick.
happyscrapper said:
Chaps railing about what was legal in the 16, 17 and 1800′s and acting so distressed and then making a comment like that – I am actually sick to my guts at that type of thinking.
How does Chappy know that Hay never had sex with an underage male? It seems very few homosexuals are able to withstand their unnatural desires.
Does Chappy know that in 1983 the average man with HIV reported over 300 sexual contacts with different men in the previous year? The bathhouse culture, the culture of sex without limits, dominates gay sexual behavior.
Forner pseudo-right winger Andrew Sullivan was castigating his fellow gays for their promiscuity while placing bulletin board ads for men to ahem, deposit bodily fluids on his muscular buttocks and in his mouth.
You’re high if you think Hay never had sex with an underage boy.
HappyScrapper, be my guest. I was hoping to engage Chapoutier in a little civil debate on this subject. For the record, Chapoutier can be a reasonable debater, but he/she speaks in a totally objective, legalize manner that some misinterpret as trolling. (I do not)
For instance, not trying to speak for Chapoutier, but he/she was making the point that advocating for an action, without weighing the merits of the action, is not illegal. Even if the actual act is currently illegal. You have to pick your points carefully and make specific arguments.
The “safe school czar” admires a guy who advocates legalizing pedophilia. Would the MSM approve of such a man if he admired Adolf Hitler or someone who regularly spoke at Klan rallies? I think not. Jennings needs to go.
Case in point,
How do you know he did? That is an unsupportable conclusion without any proof.
Wait a minute, Granpa Walton was a queer? where are you getting that quote from. I know Pa Walton is a flaming lib and once got destroyed in a run against Mary Bono in my district, but I can’t picture kindly old grandpa getting ridden like a mule!
I still think Jennings is a scum bag for not reporting the statutory rape of a minor as self-reported and my instinct tells me he is creepy and might likely engage in that type of behavior himself given the chance. But he should definitely be fired for the known offense alone considering the job title and indicated responsibilities without regard for anyone’s opinions.
So, you don’t really believe pederasty to be immoral, Chappy? If you believe that pederasty is immoral, do you think that advocating the legalization of something immoral is somehow not immoral per se?
So slavery is immoral, but advocating the legalization of slavery would be fine by you?
So ethnic cleansing is immoral, but advocating the legalization of ethnic cleansing would be just hunky-dory in your world?
I’ve heard you’re a lawyer. I wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if you were a criminal defense lawyer.
Don’t be silly. I never said it was OK. I am simply countering the argument that Jefferson’s support of slavery was okay or not evil because it was legal at the time.
Oh please. Stop with the histrionics and feigned outrage. You know exactly what I am saying. I am neither condoning slavery nor pedophilia and everyone knows it. I am merely pointing out the incredible hypocrisy by a number of people here for condemning one man who can be inspired in a vary specific way by another man who was deeply flawed, and yet absolutely ignore the fact that many of you, in fact probably every single person in the world, engages in the same thing.
I’m not. Which makes that sentence about as accurate as the rest of your post.
Reading the article by Byron York that MM posted above, I found this article, which led to this blog posting about Jennings and his organization GLSEN.
I think that the whole “legal” angle is stupid in any case. Some poster was trying to somehow minimize the evil of being a slave owner by pointing out that it was legal at the time. My only point in bringing it up was to apply the same, silly standard to Hay’s actions.
So what happens when Jennings comes out and specifically says that he found inspiration in Hay’s gay rights activism (something that is not evil) and was unaware and/or digusted by his NAMBLA activities?
Are you guys going to say, “OK then, for that one and only thing he gets a past” or are you going to say, “Pfft. He’s a liar!”
Why does Trent Lott get the benefit of the doubt and Jennings doesn’t?
*gets a pass
*disgusted.
*sigh*
you can always be told for who and what you are by the company you keep. obama ayers jones etc. etc. etc.
chapoutier said:
And you are using Jeffersons owning Slaves as an example? Christ, If I thought like that I would boycott Mexican Food because in the past The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice.
Frankly, pointing out our forefathers behavior as an example of making excuses for an individuals inspiration from a fruitcake is completely lost on me.
Also, this business of blaming everything done by this country as an excuse for behavior today is tiresome. Enough already, move on.
Until someone gives me an explanation that does not involve moral relativism, yes. The only thing anyone has come up with about why one can be inspired by Jefferson’s political and philosophical writings, despite the evil of his ownership of slaves, but one cannot be inspired by a founder of the gay rights movement, despite the evil of his beliefs on child sexuality, is that slavery was legal at the time. As if that has anything to do with the inherent immorality of the action.
It wouldn’t be if you weren’t being either obtuse or disingenuous.
Everyone makes their own judgements based upon their own inner moral compass. If one does not have that compass then there is no argument.
That which is lawful is not always expedient, said Paul.
Out of curiosity, since we are talking about moral compasses, what is the age of consent in the Bible?
Yay! the Bible!
Incidently, some of you might get a kick out of this, ITooktheRedPill just moderated (deleted) one of my comments at his blog.
What was my comment? I quoted the Bible directly. LOL!
Thomas jefferson was the third President of the United States: Yeah but he owned Slaves.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the principle authors of the Declaration of Independence: Yeah but he owned Slaves.
I believe Jefferson is ranked as one of the greatest Presidents of all time:
Yeah but he owned Slaves.
I believe he was an abolitionist but had slaves – due to debt? But:
Yeah but he owned Slaves.
Now what this has to do with an individual thats takes inspiration from a fruitcake, second time – I fail to understand.
And I still say, said actions in the past to justify and make excusess for actions today is just that, pointing fingers and making excuses rather than pulling up your drawers and going ahead with life.
Why not research this yourself and get back to us? This thread should be about man-boy love and such.
Oh. This one is extra special awesome moral relativism. It’s okay to oppress and enslave if you’re broke. Gotcha.
Because, you dolt, Hay was one of the pioneers of the gay rights movement in America at a time when America was incredibly hostile to homosexuality. You don’t think someone could be inspired by that fact?
Don’t be so insipidly hypocritical.
I already know the answer. I’ll bet most of you do too. Pretty freaking young, wasn’t it? Maybe NAMBLA is just using the Bible as its moral compass when it comes to age of consent laws.
Anyone see the announcement that a Mr. R. Polansky will be the new czar for Film Studies in Elementary Schools?
If not, just wait a few days …
Ha-ha.
Chap:
That’s just silly. Besides, everyone knows that gays burn in hell. Only heterosexual pedophiles are OK by Biblical standards. Jeeez…
chapoutier said:
So speaking at NAMBLA is oh so inspiring and oh so ground breaking and oh so brave. Got Cha.
That’s it, you have convinced me, I am giving up Chilies Rellenos because of those Aztec hooligans and their human sacrifice shenanigans.
Not what Chap said.
So being inspired by a fruitcake that speaks at Nambla — does that clarify?
Inspired by his gay rights activism (nothing wrong with that).
Can’t you concede (however likely or unlikely) it’s possible that Jennings was unaware of Hay’s NAMBLA dealing at the time of the offending speach?
Also, isn’t it possible to be inspired by a person’s actions in one area and not another?
Psssft on the silly Jefferson and knitting comparisions and the creepy compartmentalizations.
TODAY the relevent issue is whether or not Jennings has the good judgement to be safe schools czar. As the parent of a school aged child, I would question the judgement of anyone who said Hay was their inspiration. I also question Jennings judgement in the case of the teen and the older man, regardless of whther or not the teen was of age.
Jennings judgement fails the test. There must be other qualified individuals available with a record.
Yes, Jefferson owned slaves, as did Washington (who actually inherited all of his). Even U.S. Grant owned slaves. In fact, R.E. Lee manumitted all his slaves before U.S. Grant did.
Jefferson and the other founding fathers surely did punt on the issue of slavery. It was their greatest and ultimately most costly failure and resulted in more than 600,000 deaths during the Civil War and countless deaths due to the slave trade and the practice of slavery in America.
Jefferson, et al., dared to dream a great dream and failed personally in living up to the standards they set forth in that dream. And they should be assigned a great responsibility for that failure. Yet they inspired future generations to continue to establish that more perfect union over time.
Hay, and whom Jennings admittedly admired and said so publicly, dreamed a perverted dream where men and women might systematically and shamelessly exploit children in an often violent and unhealthy way to fulfill their perverted lusts. Such is the inspiration Hay left for disciples like Jennings.
Yeah, right. The two situations are clearly identical. Go ask any lawyer…
The last line should have read “…with a more circumspect record.” I must have hit some wrong button.
Hay also dreamed a dream where two consenting adults would not be arrested and have the crap kicked out of them for doing what they wanted to do in the privacy of their own homes. And that is what Jennings was clearly referring to. All the obfuscation and misdirection in the world from you is not going to change that fact.
Is Zero Angel Chap’s sock puppet?
Not that there is anything wrong with that…
Umm…no. It was not just a “personal” failure. It’s not like the guy who votes to make adultery illegal and then dallies about himself. The founding fathers made the evil of slavery systemic. Slavery WAS the standard they set.
Ed:
Don’t be an a$$. Chap and I will break ranks on the war and probably several other things.
Ed / et al.:
Are any of you here seriously going to try and say that Hay’s gay rights activism is NOT to be admired?
Take a second and seperate that from his NAMBLA dealings. We got it, he is a nasty, disgusting, pedo POS. Regardless, he still did good things for adult gays that wanted to have sex with other adult gays. What is wrong with that?
There is nothing in Jennings’s comments about Hay that explicitly limit his admiration of Hay to sex between two consenting adults.
The obfuscation and misdirection here is clearly coming from someone who cannot bring it upon himself to repudiate a leftist for monstrous behavior when he would repudiate someone else for far less vile acts.
God made the world in 6 days and rested. Man made lawyers and now cannot rest…
Eschew obfuscation!
…oh right, God hates fags. I forgot.
WE82:
The last time you praised Jefferson did you explicitly limit your praise to his accomplishments that didn’t involve slavery?
Except for the fact he didn’t mention a single thing about NAMBLA or pedophilia and instead focused on what Hay did in 1948, which was 29 years before NAMBLA was even founded.
I noticed there was nothing explicit in your last post that said you didn’t like little boys as well. I take it from your standard, then, that you do.
Oh nice.
So, logically this can be broken down to this:
Taking inspiration from an individual that owned slaves legally in the 1700’s is equal to taking inspiration from an individual that gives presentations to a group that advocates sex with under age boys.
Got it, I have been enlightened, not.
Why do simple historical facts confound leftists from Obama down. Not understanding simple historical facts is inexcusable.
Slavery was “systemic” in North America long before the founding fathers established any system.
The founding fathers failed to resolve the terrible evil of slavery and perpetuated the status quo that preceded them. However, it is clear that the abolition of slavery throughout the entire thirteen states in 1787 was simply not remotely possible. They accepted a far less than perfect compromise.
And for this flawed compromise the founding fathers must bear collective responsibility for the imperfect system it established recognizing the status quo and perpetuating the existence of slavery in the new nation.
While their experiment clearly failed to immediately implement all of their ideals of personal freedom and liberty they did not establish slavery or a system that mandated slavery. In fact, they established a system that ultimately brought an end to the inherent evil of the “peculiar institution.” Keep in mind that this understanding was not, and is still not, universally accepted even today.
Individually, many of the founding fathers personally owned slaves and this is a personal moral failure where they personally failed to live up the the ideals they espoused.
The founding fathers failed to bring freedom and liberty to everyone in America in 1787. They accepted a compromise that involved great suffering over scores of years.
Hay dreamed of bringing endless exploitation and harm to countless children for perverted personal pleasure.
Again, it is difficult to assert the two situations are similar.
I do not understand in the least why you think the fact that slavery was legal makes it any more or less immoral.
And at least we actually know Jefferson owned slaves. So far as we know, the worst Hay did was talk about wanting the right to have sex with underage boys.
He knew…He didn’t know…
I don’t care, and I don’t care who he loves. However, when I choose an “inspiration,” I do some due dilligence. Jennings possibly DID NOT, so either way, I question his judgement. Jennings himself admits poor judgement in the case of the teen and the older man. As a parent, I want a “safe” schools czar who parents can trust to keep their kids safe using good judgement. And I wonder about the judgement of the person who vetted and/or appointed him.
No kidding. And they had the absolute opportunity to renounce it when they established their entirely new political entity. And they did not. And they did it because a good number of them believed slavery was perfectly fine, despite your revisionist notion that they were all sitting in there wringing their hands because they just knew slavery was bad, but gosh darn it just couldn’t bring themselves to rid themselves of it. Including Jefferson. In fact one could say:
Wait…explain to me this compromise. Were slaves half free? Is that like being half pregnant?
Oh, please chap! I can’t believe you wrote such a thing. Not You. I thought you were a decent guy.
Hay advocated for the ability for adults to “do” children! Children do not have the mental or emotional capcity to give informed consent to such acts. That’s a crime against humanity and evil at its core.
I am so dissappointed.
It is astounding what radical leftists can rationalize. It is even more astounding to watch them twist reason into insanity to do so.
I have heard people say that you have to turn your brain off to be a Christian. No Christian doctrine I believe involves such convoluted “logic” as do the statements and “arguments” made here in support of Jennings and the refusal to condemn the systematic exploitation and rape of boys that Hays dedicated his life to.
Astounding…
I think my last point is now been fully demonstrated.
Don’t give me that crap. Stop with the silly indignation and just try to see the point I am actually making.
Advocating to have sex with children is evil. Advocating and engaging in slavery is evil. Neither should prevent one from drawing inspiration from the other areas in which these very flawed men were singular.
Or, if it should at least be consistent and denounce the slave owning founding fathers as well, along with every person who has ever claimed to be inspired by them.
I have to go now and pick up my child from school.
ARRGGGGG!!! It’s not silly indignation. You minimized Hays behavior by saying you thought maybe the worst he has done is “talked” about the “right” to have sex with children. I wanted to cry when I read that. And btw, I NEVER SAID I found inspiration in Jefferson. Your camparison is lame because both slavery and f–ing children are evil crimes against humanity and I take no inspiration from anyone who advocates either.
We are talking about today, not 200+ years ago. We are talking about a guy who has bad judgement. Thats not a qualification for the important job of keeping school children safe.
Sorry about the good-guy part, you are obviously not.
It IS worse to actually ENGAGE in an evil act than to merely TALK about it. Have I entered Bizzaro World where something as basic as that has to be spelled out more than once? Both are evil. One is more so.
Uhhh…that is exactly what I am saying one of the two reasonable, or at least consistent, positions would be:
How could you have possibly missed me saying that? I have no problem with someone who thinks that both Hays and Jefferson should be thrown to the inspiration trash bin. But don’t pretend that there are not a ton of people here who do not admire and approvingly quote Jefferson. And then have to scramble to find justification to do so when their hypocrisy is thrown in their face.
I smell flames.
Who’s winning?
It appears the topic of conversation here has degraded into a throwing the baby out with the bathwater arguement.
If we judge by this standard, not much is left of the modern age simply by applying norms and mores of the past with our current ones. Yesterday we discussed the influences of Christianity and the Greco-Roman thought process on Western Civilization specifically the Founding Documents.
What say you concerning the buggery and pedarastery exhibited by theses two cultures with the benifits gleaned from them today?
Sadly, most of the insults are remaining within the realm of on topic posts. So no actual flame war.
I say there is no problem extolling the good that came from those while simultaneously recognizing the absolute flaws of those cultures. Just as I would have zero problem with someone gaining great insight from the wisdom and eloquence of Jefferson, despite the fact that he engaged in evil behavior. Just as I don’t have an issue with a person being inspired by someone who started a civil rights movement at a time when society was incredibly hostile toward gays, despite the fact that this person advocated for evil causes in other aspects and at other times in his life.
Chaps: Are you still here? and zero?
If I rephrase that comparison of the last two millenia and contain it in the past 60 years we can compare the National Socialists of Germany to modern times. That should make it clearer due to the divisive issues at stake.
As evil as the Nazis were, as frightful and demonic as the progroms an concentration camps; Is there not one single benificiary technology or breakthrough not used today soley because it came from human experimentation?
Granted a lot of garbage is out there especially the evil Dr. Josef Mengele (nothing scientific as an outcome), but what of the hypothermia tables, the oxygen deprivation studies, the Pap Smear?
Nothing in here but sawdust & coat hangers.
Hi spacey!
I am just expecting more from the (entire) group here than the throw the baby out with the bathwater arguement.
It appears chaps agrees with the assessment that one can glean an issue or stance and separate it from the person in toto. Jefferson and his politics separated from Jefferson and his lifestyle.
Overall, seems like a lot of random hacking with dull machetes.
Hey there sailor
*bats eyelashes*
You come here often?
Most are not in that group. They are just being mighty inconsistent about when the baby gets chucked and when it doesn’t.
I didnt miss it, I purosely ignored it because it is not relevant to the issue. Denoucing all the slave-owning founding fathers, or not, has nothing to do with the topic of Jennings’ qualifications for the job.
I just picked my daughter up from her private school. I took her out of public school three years ago after my son’s high school basketball coach was arrested at the same school for sexual battery. My son was not harmed, but others he knew were. (If you must know, see the Colorado Springs Gazette, re: Monument Academy/Coach Burris).
You can make all the strange hypothetical academic arguments about people 200+ years ago that you want, but these are real, innocent children in the 21st century that we are talking about. Again, I do not feel that Jennings’ judgement is of the caliber necessary to make schools safer.
chapoutier said:
We are not talking about slavery being immoral or moral – that is not the argument. That has no bearing what so ever. We are talking about 300 odd years ago and their thought process versus today. The watch word here is today.
Been to any Birch Society meetings lately?
Jennings knew that an adult was having illegal sex with a minor. And Jennings did nothing to end the exploitation, thus aiding in the continuing sexual exploitation of a minor by another adult.
NAMBLA exists to aid and abet adult males to have sex with minor male children.
Jennings saw the primary goal of NAMBLA in action and did nothing.
Hay actively assisted NAMBLA in furthering their goals. He lent material aid to and aplogized for an organization that actively seeks to illegally exploit children.
Jennings, a man already ignoring the rape of a child, was inspired by a man who wanted to systematically rape many children.
If Jennings had to pass a criminal background check I suspect he could not. This person has no business being anywhere near children or schools.
Sorry, accidently hit the delete button at the wrong time again.
The reason I included the info about the coach, is to point out one can’t be too careful. A track record of good judgement, especially in sexual matters regarding children, is essential for any job where children are involved.
Happy2behere and stillontheroad:
In scanning (yes, I admit to not reading all comments) the major thrust appeared to be comparisons of ones total identity and one’s thoughts. That is what I meant be the baby/bathwater comments.
As a father myself (several times over that I am aware of) protection of my children is my responsibility. Any untowards conduct/contact (putting it very nicely) between any adult and child is deplorable when viewed at today’s norms and mores in effect.
Jennings by the situation of an underage boy and an adult of not following the law in proper notification of authorities is wrong. His judgement and qualifications are now suspect. Period. End of Story.
For those who would now state or decry be as homophobic: I am strong on my principles in that I would say the same if it was a teacher/student relationship be it homosexula or heretosexual. Mary K. Latourno (sp), the women teachers and male students, or the NAMBLA.
You are right. But it does has everything to do with the way in which Jennings is being criticized in this post, doesn’t it?
Someone else linked to a group Jennings ACTUALLY belonged to. I am sure there is plenty of juicy stuff there. Why some here feel the need to play the “degrees of separation” game and have totally inconsistent standards for when it is okay to compartmentalize one’s praise of a person is beyond me, and frankly unnecessary.
Funny, I denounced the Birchers several times on this site a few months ago.
Get your facts right at least. The boy was 16, which as distasteful as it is, was the legal age of consent.
I know. I was there.
He was not a minor, he 16 and thus of consenting age at the time of the incident. Not that I expect the facts to change your opinion. Just throwin’ it out there.
So how many years do we have to wait before it is okay to also, carefully, mind you…praise Hay, despite his advocacy of evil? I mean after all, the argument you are setting forth is that the only real difference between Jefferson and Hay is temporal. Hay died in 2002. Is 7 years not enough? How about 15? 25? 100?
I know that Chap can be reasonable and very witty. And I appreciate that. He comes across as mostly wanting to chat with us, not to goad or get us riled up. That particular statement, however, got me riled up big time! I like Chappy. I just don’t agree with some of the things he says. We’re still “friends”, I think.
We have had to leave a church where it was disclosed that the youth pastor was engaged in improper relationships with children in his care.
I had to revoke the visa of a person when I discovered he was systematically exploiting children. I later on found out that this was not the first time he had done this.
Wrong is wrong. And that the person might not have been equally evil in every aspect of his life is irrelevant when he is so unequivocally evil in so many ways!
Would any rational person argue that Hitler was an inspiration because put a lot of Germans back to work before he systematically destroyed the entire European economy? Would someone argue that Mengele was an inspiration because he successfully treated an SS Soldier for an STD gotten while raping Concentration Camp inmates? After this discussion I wonder?
Sorry I am off-line most of today. My husband is upgrading his computer, and mine is dead in the water! Oh, isn’t science wonderful? Curse you, Al Gore!
You apparently know a lot more about Hay’s personal life than you are letting on.
Or is supporting NAMBLA, as opposed to advocating slavery, so bad that it automatically dumps you in with Hitler and Mengle? I am not saying it shouldn’t. Just wondering why being a slave owner doesn’t quite meet that same threshold.
OK, maybe now I see that small point about Jefferson. Someone here called me a Bircher, I think because I am not impressed much by people like Jefferson with great accomplishments and poor moral behavior. And some behavior is worse than others, like owning slaves and doing children. However, I specifically and empathically took issue with the seeming minimalization of Hay’s advocacy with Nambla. (I still want to cry). That Jennings called Hay his inspiration is, at best, woefully ill-informed and that combined with the teen/older man error makes his judgement questionable enough to say he should not have the position. We are talking about children here, Jefferson is just a side dish.
I wonder if lawyers are trained to obtuse or if it comes naturally to so many of those who are attracted to the legal profession…
I am just afraid I am going to be tagged by some anti fiddie porn FBI unit for all my searches and posts containing…well…let’s not make it any worse.
Hi to the other happy! You missed a good dust up, its over now. Glad you are back!
Oh both, definitely. Unfortunately, that still doesn’t explain why you support slavery.
Chap:
Hope they take it all in context when you are being led off in silver bracelets.
Sorry, purealchemy. Emotional adrenaline clouded the memory, was it good for you too?
Hopefully my hundreds of dollars in donations to Obama ’08 were not in vain.
On October 6th, 2009 at 6:42 pm, WarEagle82 said:
And I though Legally Blonde was just a movie. Aw Shucks.
Chap:
Was that donation purely altruistic or did you have a feeling that one of those obama jobs saved or created would be yours?
It was explained to me that you have to give at least $5,000 to have your job saved and at least $10,000 to have it created.
LOL
Both “facts” need further details. The teen referenced in Jennings’ speech says he was 16 at the time of his conversation with Jennings and of legal age in that state. Jennings identified the teen as 15 in his 1997 speech. So Jennings remembered the kid as underage when he related the story about the advice given. Jennings now admits he would do things differently. Even if we give Jennings the benefit of the doubt, his judgement is still in question.
I heard the audio clip today of Jennings talking about this. He said the boy was 15. It doesn’t matter if the boy was actually 16 because Jennings believed he was 15 and yet did not report the incident. If he did the right thing and reported it then he would’ve found out the boy was 16 and the report would’ve been thrown out. As it was, he allowed, in the *best* light, a *possible* rape of an underage child by an adult go by with his only comment being, “I hope you used a condom.”
Let’s not go all the way back to Jefferson. Jump back to Foley a few years back, what did Pelosi say should be done about him and those who knew about him?