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

1. #201
   On October 6th, 2009 at 7:33 pm, purealchemy said:

   On October 6th, 2009 at 6:47 pm, happy2behere said:
   Sorry, purealchemy. Emotional adrenaline clouded the memory, was it good for you too?

   Well, if it’s only implied once in a day that I’m a racist, maybe that’s not doing too badly.

2. #202
   On October 6th, 2009 at 8:10 pm, happy2behere said:

   OK now I remember, and I think see why you injected it in the thread today. I do think The Bircher Society has racist roots, but I dont know you. If I implied you are a racist and you are not, I apologize.

3. #203
   On October 6th, 2009 at 8:18 pm, happy2behere said:

   Maybe an additional apology is necessary as well. I impuned Chapoutier’s character when I wrote that he minimized Hay’s advocacy of Nambla. Mr. Chapoutier subsequently denounced such behavior and I stand corrected.

4. #204
   On October 6th, 2009 at 9:55 pm, happy2behere said:

   On a different note, the first to bring up the Jefferson analogy was chap. Some bit the bait but others recognized the posts for what they are, diversion from the issue. The important issue is Jennings’ fitness for the job. Jennings choice of Hay for “inspiration” and his mishandling of an inappropriate relationship calls his judgement into question. Surely there is someone better qualified to keep children safe in school than this.

5. #205
   On October 7th, 2009 at 9:21 am, spaceycakes said:

   At least I wasn’t denounced as ‘homophobic’ (yet)–on this thread. I was only called (obliquely) a ‘moral relativist’ that may, in the future, ‘whine’ about liberals doing the same thing…

   I’ll take it.

6. #206
   On October 7th, 2009 at 9:26 am, dan708 said:

   I’m beginning to lose track of All The President’s Scandals. Did anyone create a Wikipedia entry for this subject?
   All right, you can stop laughing, everybody!

7. #207
   On October 7th, 2009 at 10:39 am, purealchemy said:

   All The President’s Scandals.

   More like “throwing under the bus” is elevated to an Olympic event.

8. #208
   On October 7th, 2009 at 9:40 pm, tbear44 said:

   All members of NAMBLA need to be rounded up and put away. What a disgusting bunch of filth and trash these “folks” are. I would tell you how I would deal with these lowlife pieces of human filth but I don’t want to get banned just yet.
   As for Obama’s school czar, is anyone surprised?

9. #209
   On October 8th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, happy2behere said:

   Earlier, I posted an apology for impuning someone’s charcter because he admired some of Harry Hay’s activities, unrelated to those of Nambla. In my responses, I did not mean to imply the poster condoned underaged or child sex but it could be read that way, thus the apology. It was the right thing to do, and yet, I’m still uncomforatable about it.

   Maybe its the topic that’s bothering me and not the poster(s) comments. It’s very unsettling that more than one person here would publicly rationlize Hay’s comments in support of Nambla, because Hay did other good things. Especially when you look at what Hay said, “If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what 13,14,15 year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.” Look at that statement in light of Nambla’s stated goal, to eliminate age of consent laws. Then compare and contrast Jenning’s actions when a 15/16 year-old kid at the school where Jennings was an administrator confessed a sexual realtionship with a 44 year-old man that he hooked up with in a bus station restroom. What kind of educator couldn’t recognize the cry for psycological help that confession was? Only one who would condone a 15 year-old having sex with an older man. Jennings reply to wear a condom confirmed his support.

   People on this thread have tried to make the argument that it is possible Jennings did not know about Hays’ comments. Well, the comments were easy for ME to find. I can’t believe an educated man like Jennings, who has written about gays in society, endorsed books about them and worked in the field, did not know such a key piece of history about the founder of the gay rights movement.

   If Obama’s intent was to make schools safer for LGBT kids, that makes sense as those children are often picked apart by others and need protection. But Jenning is too radical and polarizing a figure to be effective. Jennings should step aside and Obama should find someone else.

10. #210
    On October 8th, 2009 at 8:11 pm, chapoutier said:

    happy2behere,

    I want to respond to your latest comment, but do not have enough time to give it the answer it deserves. If you read this, check in again tomorrow and I will have some thoughts.

11. #211
    On October 8th, 2009 at 9:05 pm, zeroangel said:

    This ought to be good. I got to remember to check tomorrow!

12. #212
    On October 9th, 2009 at 10:38 am, zeroangel said:

    …ok… so??? Let’s have it Chap.

13. #213
    On April 16th, 2010 at 4:16 pm, chapoutier said:

    Okay…so it took me a bit longer than one night…

    Maybe its the topic that’s bothering me and not the poster(s) comments. It’s very unsettling that more than one person here would publicly rationlize Hay’s comments in support of Nambla, because Hay did other good things.

    That is the problem. NO ONE is rationalizing Hays support of NAMBLA. No one. I don’t know how many more ways that can be any more clear. What we are talking about is the ability to ignore one’s evil deeds or beliefs when assessing something else he did that was admirable. People here are always criticizing the notion of moral relativism and accusing liberals of engaging in it. But unless you accept that concept, you have to admit slavery is every bit as evil in 1770 as it is today. Yet people are able to compartmentalize Jefferson’s evil because they find other aspects of his life incredibly inspiring. I do not see why Hay, who was a legitimate gay rights pioneer in the 1950s (far before NAMBLA) deserves any less or more. It is nothing but hypocrisy.

    Then compare and contrast Jenning’s actions when a 15/16 year-old kid at the school where Jennings was an administrator confessed a sexual relationship with a 44 year-old man that he hooked up with in a bus station restroom.

    The kid was 16, which was age of consent. Admittedly, Jennings apparently thought at the time that it was illegal and did not report it. But do you really not see a reason why a gay adult would be reluctant to publicly out a closeted gay teen? Do you not think Jennings probably had some idea of all the confusion and fear that boy felt? Maybe went through it himself? Did Jennings make the wrong decision in not reporting? Probably. But to equate a very difficult decision with very real and potentially catastrophic consequences to the affected youth with active support of pederasty or pedophilia is wrong.

    People on this thread have tried to make the argument that it is possible Jennings did not know about Hays’ comments. Well, the comments were easy for ME to find.

    As I said, you have the benefit of this amazing tool called the internet. In 1997, when Jennings made those comments, did google exist? But either way, even if he did know about them, he commented about Hay specifically in the sense that he was a gay rights pioneer, not that he was a NAMBLA supporter. Again, I don’t know why he is not given the same benefit of the doubt that leads me to not believe you support slavery just because you dig Jefferson.