About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Unraveling the Right's false attacks on Kevin Jennings

December 15, 2009 10:13 am ET — 65 Comments

Media Matters for America examines and debunks the wide array of falsehoods and distortions the right-wing media have used in their attempts to smear and discredit Department of Education official Kevin Jennings and the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which Jennings founded and previously served as executive director.

1) CLAIM: MassResistance is a legitimate source for Jennings information

2) CLAIM: Right-wing attacks on Jennings are not anti-gay

3) SMEAR: Jennings failed to report "statutory rape" of student

4) SMEAR: Jennings "urged" student to "further the relationship" with "older man ... forcing his way" on him and to "keep quiet"

5) SMEAR: Jennings advocated for or supports NAMBLA

6) SMEAR: Jennings' ties to anti-AIDS group disqualify him from public service

7) SMEAR: Jennings is linked to an "Anti-Christian Art Porn Exhibit"

8) SMEAR: Jennings promoted "Child Porn in the Classroom"

9) SMEAR: Jennings is "linked to shocking teen sex talk"

10) SMEAR: Jennings knew the content of "sex talk" workshop in advance

11) SMEAR: High school students received "fisting kits" at 2001 GLSEN conference

12) SMEAR: GLSEN handed out explicit safe-sex booklet to children

13) SMEAR: GLSEN gave teens "directories to gay 'leather' bars" in Chicago

14) SMEAR: Jennings is a "pedophile"

15) SMEAR: Jennings "spoke about the promotion of homosexuality in the public school curriculum"

16) SMEAR: Jennings called for mandatory "LGBT course" for teachers

17) SMEAR: Book forward written by Jennings suggests support for NAMBLA

18) SMEAR: Jennings has "contempt for religion"

19) SMEAR: Jennings is not qualified for his post

20) SMEAR: Jennings "Personally Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex"

21) CLAIM: Jennings is the "Safe Schools Czar"

CLAIM: MassResistance is a legitimate source for Jennings information

REALITY: MassResistance is an anti-gay "hate group." Accuracy in Media pointed readers to the website of the Massachusetts-based anti-gay group MassResistance to get "the facts on Jennings," stating that the group's longtime leader Brian Camenker "has covered the scandal of Obama's appointment of Jennings in much detail." Many right-wing outlets have relied on the group's false or misleading claims about Jennings in attacking him. MassResistance has been labeled a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center; even conservative commentator Dean Barnett has stated that the organization "verges on being a hate group." Camenker himself reportedly denied that gays and lesbians were targeted during the Holocaust and has compared the gay rights movement to the Nazis.

CLAIM: Right-wing attacks on Jennings are not anti-gay

REALITY: Right-wing media unleashed anti-gay rhetoric in attacks on Jennings. In their attacks on Jennings, numerous conservative media figures have resorted to thinly veiled homophobic appeals to paint Jennings, who is gay, as a "radical" "gay activist" with an "agenda" of "promoting homosexuality in schools," and have misrepresented or distorted Jennings' previous comments about religion and tolerance. Moreover, in a blatant appeal to homophobia, the right-wing media have termed a series of allegations "Fistgate," even though several of those allegations have little or nothing to do with the sexual practice of fisting -- or, for that matter, with Jennings himself.

SMEAR: Jennings failed to report "statutory rape" of student

REALITY: Student was at least 16 -- the legal age of consent -- when he spoke to Jennings. Numerous right-wing and Fox News media figures advanced the falsehood that Jennings, in the words of Fox News host Bill Hemmer, knew of a "statutory rape" and "never reported it," based on Jennings' past statements about advice he gave to a student who told him about his relationship with an older man when Jennings was a high school teacher in the late 1980s. In fact, a 2004 letter from Jennings' attorney, as well as a statement from the former student and his Massachusetts driver's license definitively show that he was at least 16 -- the legal age of consent in Massachusetts -- when he approached Jennings.

SMEAR: Jennings "urged" student to "further the relationship" with "older man ... forcing his way" on him and to "keep quiet"

REALITY: No evidence supports these claims. WorldNetDaily, in at least four separate articles, falsely claimed that Jennings "counseled a 15-year-old student to keep quiet about being seduced by an older man." Likewise, Limbaugh accused Jennings of having "encouraged" and "facilitated the relationship," and claimed that he "urged" the "15-year-old" to "further the relationship" with "older man ... forcing his way" on him. In fact, nothing in Jennings' 2000 speech for the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network, his 1994 book, or the student's own statement in any way suggests that the student told Jennings that someone was "forcing his way on" him or that Jennings "urged" the student to "further the relationship," nor do they support the claim that Jennings told the student to "keep quiet."

SMEAR: Jennings advocated for or supports NAMBLA

REALITY: Jennings once praised Hay for his pioneering gay civil rights work. Right-wing media sources including The Washington Examiner, The Fox Nation, The Washington Times, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and Karl Rove, have linked Jennings to the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) based on a 1997 speech in which Jennings praised gay rights activist Harry Hay. But like many obituaries written about Hay upon his death in 2002, Jennings was touting Hay as a gay civil rights pioneer for his role in helping start "the first ongoing gay rights groups in America" in 1948, and Jennings' comments had nothing to do with NAMBLA.

SMEAR: Jennings' ties to anti-AIDS group disqualify him from public service

REALITY: Group credited with improving awareness, treatment of disease. Hannity and The Washington Times editorial board have insisted that Jennings' past involvement with the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) somehow disqualifies him from serving in the Obama administration. But such arguments are absurd, given that ACT UP, an anti-AIDS activist organization, has been credited with both creating awareness of the AIDS epidemic in America and facilitating more effective treatment of the disease. For example, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases reportedly stated that ACT UP played "a significant role in the whole idea of expanded access to experimental drugs."

SMEAR: Jennings is linked to an "Anti-Christian Art Porn Exhibit"

REALITY: Exhibit actually features "posters, stickers, and other visual media" used by ACT UP's AIDS activists. Right-wing web sites attempted to smear Jennings by claiming that he, in the words of Gateway Pundit, "funded a pornographic anti-Christian art show." In fact, Jennings is listed on a Harvard Art Museum press release as providing a gift to the museum's exhibit ACT UP New York: Activism, Art, and the AIDS Crisis, 1987-1993. According to the release, the exhibit includes "over 70 politically-charged posters, stickers, and other visual media that emerged during a pivotal moment of AIDS activism in New York City" and "chronicles New York's AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) through an examination of compelling graphics created by various artist collectives that populated the group."

SMEAR: Jennings promoted "Child Porn in the Classroom"

REALITY: Jennings' group recommended adults review books for suitability. Conservative blogs and The Washington Times editorial board have claimed that Jennings is unfit as "Safe Schools Czar" because he supposedly promoted "child porn" by allowing GLSEN to recommend for students in grades 7-12 books that included sexually explicit content. The organization, however, specifically stated on its book list website that "some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes" and recommended that "adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability"; further, schools regularly teach books that contain sexually explicit material. In a December 11 statement, Martin Garnar, chair of the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, said: "Though Jennings' and GLSEN's critics claim to be upholding American morals and values by condemning the GLSEN book list, they are actually undermining the values of tolerance, free inquiry, and self-determination that inform and sustain our democratic way of life in the United States."

SMEAR: Jennings is "linked to shocking teen sex talk"

REALITY: Jennings criticized content of state employees' workshop at GLSEN/Boston conference. Several right-wing media outlets have claimed that Jennings is, in the words of Fox Nation, "linked to shocking teen sex talk," referring to a recorded exchange that occurred during a "Queer Sex and Sexuality" workshop during a 2000 conference sponsored by the Boston branch of GLSEN. In fact, Jennings reportedly criticized some of the workshop's content when the recordings were first released in 2000, and the people involved in conducting the controversial discussion were state employees and contractors, not GLSEN employees.

SMEAR: Jennings knew the content of "sex talk" workshop in advance

REALITY: Critics have presented no credible evidence that Jennings knew the specific contents of the workshop in advance. WorldNetDaily and Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft have both claimed that Jennings knew about the controversial workshop's contents ahead of time, citing a MassResistance blog post which claims, "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" [emphasis in original]. But the statements MassResistance cites Abels reportedly making indicate only that her immediate supervisors in the Department of Education were aware of her work -- not Jennings or other GLSEN officials. Moreover, while MassResistance claims that Jennings "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," Jennings left that commission years before the 2000 workshop took place.

SMEAR: High school students received "fisting kits" at 2001 GLSEN conference

REALITY: Planned Parenthood distributed safe sex kits including "instructions for how to make a 'dental dam.' " Conservative bloggers have followed Hoft's lead in claiming that "fisting kits" -- often placed in quotes -- were distributed at the 2001 GLSEN/Boston conference. But those bloggers have presented no evidence that the kits distributed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts were actually intended for fisting. Indeed, while the conservative newspaper Massachusetts News - cited by Hoft -- reported in 2001 that the kits were "intended for 'fisting' or oral sex," the paper described the kit's contents as "a single plastic glove, a package of K-Y lubricant and instructions on how to make a 'dental dam' out of the material," and offered no support for their claim that the kits were "intended for 'fisting.'" FoxNews.com has reported that Hoft "alleged that Jennings and GLSEN were involved in Planned Parenthood's purported distribution of 'fisting kits,'" but that the kit "was actually for making a 'dental dam' -- designed to prevent STD transmission during oral sex."

SMEAR: GLSEN handed out explicit safe-sex booklet to children

REALITY: Community health group -- not GLSEN -- says it mistakenly brought "about 10 copies" of booklet banned under GLSEN policy to conference. Conservative bloggers and the Washington Times editorial board have falsely stated or suggested that GLSEN had distributed to children an explicit safe-sex booklet which included "the addresses and phone numbers of Boston-area gay bars" and "Pushed Anal S*x in Parks With Strangers." In fact, a community health group -- not GLSEN itself -- reportedly said that it had mistakenly "left about 10 copies" of the booklet on an informational table it rented at a 2005 GLSEN conference at Brookline High School in Massachusetts; the group reportedly apologized for doing so; GLSEN stated that if it had known the booklets had been at the conference, it would have demanded they be removed; and the Brookline school superintendent reportedly said he believed no students had actually taken the book.

SMEAR: GLSEN gave teens "directories to gay 'leather' bars" in Chicago

REALITY: Chicago Area Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce -- not Jennings or GLSEN -- produced guide for GLSEN national conference. Hoft has claimed that GLSEN "passed out guides to gay leather bars in Chicago to students in 2000." But according to an October 7, 2000, press release from the anti-gay groups Americans for Truth, the Chicago Area Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce -- not Jennings or GLSEN -- produced a visitor's guide that was distributed at GLSEN's annual conference in Chicago. That guide reportedly, according to the press release, "contain[ed] a full-page ad for Steamworks, a homosexual bathhouse in Chicago" [Americans for Truth press release, 10/7/00 (from the Nexis database)]. According to right-wing WorldNetDaily, "Organizers said around 800 people, including teenage students, some of whom received financial scholarships, attended the event."

SMEAR: Jennings is a "pedophile"

REALITY: Even right-wing Accuracy in Media acknowledged there is "no evidence to support" that smear. On December 10, a blogger for Accuracy in Media, which purports to "set the record straight on important issues that have received slanted coverage" falsely claimed Jennings is a "pedophile." Shortly after Media Matters brought attention to the blog post and noted that no allegations of pedophilia have been made against Jennings and that the only evidence the blogger appeared to cite to support her allegation was a false claim, the post was removed without comment. The following day, Accuracy in Media stated that it "regret[s] the publication" of the blog post and that it has "no evidence to support" that allegation that Jennings is a "pedophile."

SMEAR: Jennings "spoke about the promotion of homosexuality in the public school curriculum"

REALITY: Jennings said promoting sexual orientation in schools was "ineffective." Andrew Breitbart and The Washington Times grossly distorted comments Jennings made to a GLSEN audience in 2000 to claim he "spoke about the promotion of homosexuality in the public school curriculum" and "criticize[d] schools for promoting heterosexuality." In fact, in the audio files posted by the Times and Breitbart, Jennings promoted a curriculum that demands "respect [for] every human being regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of gender identity, regardless of race or religion or any of the arbitrary distinctions we make among people," and said that efforts to promote a specific sexual orientation through schools were ineffective.

SMEAR: Jennings called for mandatory "LGBT course" for teachers

REALITY: Jennings called for course on "issues of bias in the classroom." The Washington Times' Kerry Picket reprinted a doctored transcript -- originally posted by a conservative blog -- of 2008 comments by Jennings to falsely claim Jennings had said he wanted teachers to be required to "take an LGBT course" -- a claim also echoed by The Fox Nation. In fact, responding to an audience member who asked about how to combat stereotypes held by teachers based on race, gender, and ethnicity as well as sexual orientation, Jennings did not call for a mandatory "LGBT course," but rather called for a mandatory course on "issues of bias in the classroom" for aspiring teachers in order for them to be aware of "how biases can influence how you interact with your students."

SMEAR: Book foreword written by Jennings suggests support for NAMBLA

REALITY: Jennings called for valuing "every human being as a precious gift." Hannity and Karl Rove attempted to link the foreword Jennings wrote for the 1999 book Queering Elementary Education: Advancing the Dialogue about Sexualities and Schooling to his purported support for NAMBLA and statutory rape. In fact, in the foreword -- which, contrary to Rove's and Hannity's suggestions, had nothing to do with statutory rape -- Jennings called for valuing "every human being as a precious gift" and looked forward to the day when people could "walk down our streets without fear."

SMEAR: Jennings has "contempt for religion"

REALITY: Jennings indicated that "he later returned to religion," he went on to join board of a Protestant seminary. Conservative media figures Brian Kilmeade and David Limbaugh have highlighted what they termed Jennings' teenage "hatred for God" or "contempt for religion," based on a statement Jennings made in his memoir describing his mindset more than 30 years ago. But later in his memoir, Jennings writes that he since found from the Bible "the inspiration I need to continue my work," and he went on to serve on the board of the Union Theological Seminary.

SMEAR: Jennings is not qualified for his post

REALITY: Jennings has received broad support from education and other officials. Several right-wing media figures have called for Jennings' firing or resignation, based on smears detailed elsewhere in this document. But their caricatures of Jennings are undercut by the fact that education and other officials have spoken highly of Jennings, who has received numerous awards and was a one-time appointee of Republican Massachusetts Gov. William Weld.

SMEAR: Jennings "Personally Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex"

REALITY: Book in no way supports this claim. Hoft falsely claimed that Jennings "Personally Pushed Books That Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars For Sex," citing MassResistance's falsehood that a book Jennings recommended to high school and college students, One Teenager in 10, "encourage[s] teens to, among other things, go to gay bars and have sex with adults to see if they like it." Media Matters for America has reviewed the book, compiled all references to gay bars, and determined that the book at no point encourages teens to "go to gay bars and have sex with adults"; in fact, a majority of the youth testimonials included in the book that mention gay bars refer to them negatively.

CLAIM: Jennings is the "Safe Schools Czar"

REALITY: Jennings is head of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, created by the Bush administration. Numerous right-wing media have referred to Jennings as the "White House Safe Schools Czar." In fact, Jennings' actual title is "Assistant Deputy Secretary for Safe and Drug-Free Schools, US Department of Education," and he is a member of the senior staff of Education Secretary Arne Duncan, not part of the White House staff. He directs The Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, which was established under the Bush administration and previously headed by Bush administration appointees Eric G. Andell and Deborah A. Price. A search of the Nexis database finds no indication that either Andell or Price were ever referred to as a "czar." Media Matters has noted that in attacking so-called Obama administration "czars" as unaccountable, Fox News frequently targeted officials who have been confirmed by the Senate, were appointed to positions created through legislation passed by Congress, or had counterparts in the Bush administration.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by DellDolly (December 15, 2009 10:57 am ET)
      6 2
      What seems clear and undeniable is the anti-gay bigotry of these people.

      It makes me sick that they are supposedly Christian, yet behave in such an unChristian manner. They pretend they're out to help children, but they don't even know what a pedophile is. They act like there's no reason to give sexual activity advice to teenagers.

      They're so clueless - I have to wonder if it's painful to be that clueless!
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jlkeen (December 15, 2009 10:59 am ET)
      3 1
      I'm amazed that the brutally ignorant and dishonest Gateway Pundit (Jim Hoft) is published by First Things Magazine (or is it Fist Things?). First Things masthead states:

      First Things is published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society.

      Editor: Joseph Bottum

      Managing Editor: Mary Rose Rybak

      Senior Editor: David P. Goldman

      Why would First Things associate themselves with such a smear merchant as the Gateway Pundit?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 11:17 am ET)
      7 1
      I think the stupidest one of all might be the "child porn" nonsense. Putting aside that it's all b*llsh!t... Even if the worst of it was true, and more... How does showing pornorgraphy to children constitute CHILD PORN?

      -----------------------------------------------------------
      The Right is stripping our words of all their meanings. Their abuse of our English language is 10x worse than their abuse of our American values. Orwell's inner demons would be proud.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 11:31 am ET)
          11
        "How does showing pornorgraphy to children constitute CHILD PORN?"

        I have no idea what your obsession is with type of thing, but I cannot be the only one here who notices it. Or why you insist on slicing up these meanings of child porn or any of it. Get help.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by DellDolly (December 15, 2009 11:41 am ET)
          7 1
          What his obsession with the truth is?

          And he needs to get help to 'recover' from that obsession? Why?

          "Slicing up these meanings of child porn?"

          Showing pornography to children is not one of the meanings of "child porn", so how is he slicing up a meaning?

          Please don't feed the troll any more - I believe all he's trying to do is derail the thread away from the point of this article - that the right's baseless attack on Jennings continues unabated. It's not about his off-base attack on Eddie.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 11:47 am ET)
            1 9
            Oh Sue, your hall monitoring of every thread is as impotent as your posts. If you condone showing pornography to children or think it's no big deal, fine. You are entitled to your opinion as long as you don't act on it.

            Otherwise you will end up in jail.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 11:57 am ET)
              10 1
              You're an idiot. You know that, right?

              It's not a question of anyone condoning it.

              1) It DIDN'T HAPPEN.

              2) It it DID, it wouldn't be "CHILD PORN" it would be "INNAPROPRITE," "ILLEGAL," or some other term that has a meaning that actually describes what's going on.

              You can't just slap an inflamatory label on something just becuase you disapprove of it. Wow.

              And somehow pointout that it's not "Child Porn" somehow now means "We condone it?"

              ---------------------------------------------------------
              Do they have HDTV in you black and white world?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 12:01 pm ET)
                1 11
                I never said it happened, but you keep bringing it up and become so defensive and sensitive about it - one wonders. I know you think showing explicit sexual material to underage minors is no big thing, that is what you said previously, and you seem so invested in clearing up definitions - well, whatever.
                Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 11:53 am ET)
          9 1
          What the hell are you talking about? You cannot just stick an icky-sounding label on something, just because you don't like it. Words have pre-established meanings. 'Child Pornography' is pornographic material that incudes/features images of children IN it, depictied in explicit sexual situations. Showing porn to kids (which didn't even HAPPEN, but IF IT DID) would be... innapropriate? Without a doubt. Illegal? Probably, in most places. But CHILD PORNOGRAPHY? Not unless the images themselves were OF CHILDREN. Who SEES them is immaterial.

          I "insist on slicing up these meanings" because you lot insist on intentionally using misleading, inaccurate language and your "base" is made of people too ignorant to know the difference or ever call you on it. What you're basically saying is "Why do I insist on calling out your b*llsh!t?" Well... I'm a liberal, for a start.

          Words have meanings. That what make so much of what y'all say, LIES. If you used words accurately, chosing them for their meaning as opposed to for their political impact without regard to the veracity of the resulting statement, soemone who actually SPEAKS ENGLISH wouldn't have to come along and school you.

          ----------------------------------------------------------
          Why don't you at least TRY and show me why I'm was wrong there?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 11:55 am ET)
            2 9
            Sorry, showing pornography to a child is kind of icky sounding to me.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
              9 1
              Me too. Who here ever said otherwise?

              But unlike you RW'ers, I'll just CALL it "icky," "disgusting," "innapropriate," "vile," or anyone of 100 other words in my mental thesaurus that would be ACCURATE.

              "Child Porn" is simply false. Demonstrably false. And I won't let you rape my language, just to score political points...

              -------------------------------------------------------------
              ...Especially as often as you lot complain about having to "press 1 for english." You'd think one of you would actually SPEAK the damn language.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by foghornleghorn (December 15, 2009 12:21 pm ET)
                8  
                rightON has proven to be a serial language rapist.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
                  5 1
                  Eh... he's just an enabler. LOL. The Right has been hijacking the language for decades.

                  I did a write-up on the word "conservtaive" last night. (Did you know that my position on abortion could be decribed as "pro-life conservative," form a philosophical POV? Who'd a thunk it?) I'm doing "freedom" tonight, and "moral relativism" tomorrow night.

                  -------------------------------------------------------
                  George Carlin is rolling in his grave.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 12:53 pm ET)
                      7
                    I'll give you a quick take on how the two ideologies generally differ with respect to words, meanings and language.

                    Liberals slice and dice up words and parse meanings to avoid getting pinned down or being accused of being politically incorrect - look at old Bill Clinton for the is, is parse. The most historic one and the best ever done.

                    Conservatives are usually spinning their wheels chasing after liberals trying to get simple explanations of those chopped up words, but normally just end up with more finely pureed meanings.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 1:08 pm ET)
                      8 1
                      Sorry, I'm not buying it. (The Clinton "is" example not withstanding, but that's what you get with lawyers.)

                      But what you call "slic[ing] and dic[ing] up words and pars[ing] meanings" only descirbes what ALL politicians of every stripe do, just to survive in their jobs. It's why NO ONE really likes politicians, even if they like politics.

                      But I've heard too many words (like "Child Porn" in this example) used balantly, ridiculously innapropriately, to just let it stand.

                      I guess to put it the way you did, I'd say...

                      CONSERVATIVES take a really ugly, icky sounding word or idea (like "Socialist" or "Facsists" or "Redistribution of Wealth" or "Racism") and slap it on ANYTHING they don't like, anythign that doesn't fir their agenda, just so a lot of other people will get a negative connotation. (And often times to hide the fact that many of their own initiatices will DO EXACTLY what their accusing the opposition of doing!) It matters very little if the term is being used accurately or not. (It's accually even better if the opposite is closer to the truth!)

                      LIBERALS end up "spinning their wheels" trying to get Conservative to use words ACURATELY, to clarify the MEANINGS that words ACTUALLY HAVE so that the ideas can then be debated on their MERIT rather than on who does the better job of getting them associated with "scary words" in the minds of the public.

                      But then... Why would the Right debate what they can taint?

                      ---------------------------------------------------
                      Obviously, because they'll lose the majority of the objective debates!
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by srichardson (December 15, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
                        7  
                        Good job Eddie! All one has to do to prove your point is look at the articles on this blog. There are plenty of examples of the right wing distorting our language and trying to scare their base in to believing that all democrats and liberals are scary socialists (or communist, facist, ect).
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by jlkeen (December 15, 2009 6:00 pm ET)
                          1  
                          wyorich, wyorich, wyorich,

                          If you were genuinely interested in debating ideas you would have done so rather than hiding behind a schoolmarm persona.
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 6:06 pm ET)
                              3
                            jlkeen,

                            So when conservatives poke fun at someone's writing style or punctuation miscues, then they get scolded for not being interested in debating ideas; yet when liberals poke fun at conservatives for whatever feels good at the moment, that is given a thumbs up and a gold star.

                            Just sayin' :)
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by rumpleteasermom (December 15, 2009 7:21 pm ET)
                              3  
                              There is a huge difference between picking on someone's typos and telling someone they are using words incorrectly. If I misspell 'acurate' you still understand that I mean "In exact or careful conformity to truth."

                              But if I were to say, "Van Gogh painted an accurate picture of a night sky" I would expect to be called out on my misuse of the word accurate. Van Gogh's Starry Night is 'beautiful,' 'artistic,' 'colorful' but it is NOT 'accurate' and using the word inappropriately is just ridiculous. Kind of like calling it 'child porn' when what you really mean is 'corrupting a minor.' Both are, by the way, crimes, but if you want to call them interchangeable, I kind of have to hope that the next time you get pulled over for a broken taillight, the cop writes you up for running a stop sign because obviously one infraction is as good as another in your book.
                              Report Abuse
                            • Author by jlkeen (December 15, 2009 7:45 pm ET)
                              3  
                              right ON

                              just sayin' it would be better all around if we stuck to issues... we all understand the rough and tumble rapid-fire nature of comments, and it seems a waste to spend time correcting grammar and punctuation

                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by SmashManiac (December 16, 2009 11:58 am ET)
                                   
                                Come on, seriously? You're actually going to play both sides of the field like that? I'm a moderately conservative Republican, and it shames me the way FOX and their ilk are making us all look like idiots. And you are NOT helping by misusing words. Spelling errors constitute haste or ignorance on the part of the speller. Inappropriate word use, especially as it pertains to politics, the political scene, smears, and propaganda, generally constitute malicious intent. So yeah, please try and use the correct words - everyone benefits. And for the record, child pornography (by definition, and I just read the ENTIRE federal law) must include inappropriate depictions of children. You know, minors. Not showing adult porn to children, which is ALSO illegal. And morally wrong, but not at all the same thing. And yes, it makes a monumental difference in prison sentences.
                                Report Abuse
            • Author by Major Tom (December 15, 2009 4:16 pm ET)
              5  
              There is a rape scene in "I know why the cage bird sings." Are you calling Maya Angelo a pornographer?
              Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (December 15, 2009 2:35 pm ET)
          6  
          right ON -

          I usually prefer to stay out of your endless loop exchanges, but you're so far off base on this that I have to jump in.

          NiceguyEddie isn't playing with words or slicing and dicing language. He pointed out the clear and obvious FACT that showing pornography to children DOES NOT fit the definition of child porn. He is 100% correct.

          NiceguyEddie didn't say anything that even hinted that he condoned it. He didn't say anything to minimize its significance, to say "it's no big thing." Not one word.

          He pointed out that even if Jennings had supported showing pornography in the classroom (which is false) it wouldn't be child pornography. That term has a completely different meaning and the term should be reserved for those situations to which it really applies.

          You're being either disingenuous or ignorant. It's hard to tell which.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 2:40 pm ET)
              8
            All I know is what Eddie said many times on this thread last week. You decide. Gateway Pundit...
            Report Abuse
            • Author by ScienceBuff (December 15, 2009 3:02 pm ET)
              6  
              Ok, I reviewed the discussions on that thread and I didn't find a single statement from NiceguyEddie that justifies what you said about him in this thread.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:05 pm ET)
                  8
                What did I say? I said he doesn't believe showing explicit sexual material to children is any big thing, and that is pretty much exactly what he said on that thread. Sorry if you missed it.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by ScienceBuff (December 15, 2009 3:17 pm ET)
                  7  
                  You said he was "slicing up these meanings of child porn." He didn't in either thread. He simply insisted that what the being called "child porn" didn't meet the definition. He was right.

                  You suggested he "condone(d) showing pornography to children." He didn't in either thread.

                  You suggested he said showing pornography to children was no big deal. He didn't in either thread.

                  You can't pull up a quote from him on either thread in which he did any of those things. I didn't miss it.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
                      8
                    Explicit sexual material would be pornography to children, explicit being the operative word.

                    I don't see the difference unless one is invested in slicing up word meanings.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by ScienceBuff (December 15, 2009 3:32 pm ET)
                      7  
                      You're wrong. The two are not the same. It's like saying fruits would all be apples to kids.

                      Pornography is generally sexually explicit, but much sexually explicit material is definitely NOT pornography. No rational person sees this as slicing up word meanings. What it is is being specific about word meanings. It's respecting the language.

                      All of your claims about NiceguEeddie that I addressed pertained to pornography. You have completely failed at supporting your statements.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
                          8
                        "but much sexually explicit material is definitely NOT pornography"

                        I would agree, of course. But when handed out to children it becomes vastly different. Look at the context of what sexually explicit material was being discussed in the previous thread I linked to and tell me that is not pornography to children.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by foghornleghorn (December 15, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
                          6  
                          Pornography featuring minors is child pornography. Showing pornography to children is child abuse but NOT child pornography.

                          It's really quite simple, except to a parser/thread derailer.
                          Report Abuse
                      • Author by NiceguyEddie (December 15, 2009 9:31 pm ET)
                        3  
                        Thanks for the assist, Sci-Guy. Appreciate it.

                        And, as you've mentioned, these thing with RightOn just keep going round-and-round, don't they? He keeps it up, but he just keeps proving our point, no?

                        He must think he has me in a Jeff Christie / Male Porstitute position, but it's really barely even a "definition of 'is'" situation!

                        I mean...

                        1) The Right overacts to ANYTHING sexual. (first thread)
                        2) Child Porn has to have childeren IN IT to warrent the inflamatory label. (this one)

                        WOW! I hope that limb can hold me, because I am WAAAY out there on it, huh?

                        -----------------------------------------------
                        Anyway, I appreciate you putting youself in $#!t's way like that. LOL. Thanks!
                        Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:23 pm ET)
                      8
                    Look, if you want to play exact words, no he didn't use the word "big deal", but the impression he left and his position is more than clear. You can parse all day long, liberals do that for a living, but it changes nothing.
                    Report Abuse
                  • Author by aBeck in 10-O-C (December 15, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                    4  
                    ScienceBuff, I like you guy, but why is everybody playing "Who's on First" with RightOn? Chucklehead RO is playing a game and is very good at it.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:46 pm ET)
                        7
                      Welcome to the game. Take your seat and we will let you know when it's your turn to bat. Feel better?
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by rumpleteasermom (December 15, 2009 7:24 pm ET)
                      2 1
                      Because it's entertaining to run verbal circles around a moron like that?

                      Report Abuse
                • Author by DellDolly (December 15, 2009 3:31 pm ET)
                  4  
                  What did you say? He objected to the false and misleading statement that showing pornography to children was equivalent to child pornography - it's not, of course, equivalent. You copied that single comment of his from today's thread, and then went off on him, saying "I have no idea what your obsession is with type of thing, but I cannot be the only one here who notices it. Or why you insist on slicing up these meanings of child porn or any of it. Get help."

                  That's what you said. Not what you 'claim' you said above.

                  Context is everything. Eddie didn't slice up any meaning.

                  But what we all are really seeing is that you really, really, really wanted to derail this thread - amazingly enough, that's what I said above, and I asked people to NOT help you do it. They didn't listen to me - too bad.

                  But it's clear all the same, more and more clear with every post you make. 95% of the posts on this thread are about your off-base accusations against Eddie. Eddie's post was simply a convenient springboard for you to use. You append a post up at the top of the thread, and then go off to derail the thread.
                  Report Abuse
                  • Author by ScienceBuff (December 15, 2009 3:40 pm ET)
                    7 2
                    DellDolly -
                    If anyone were actually discussing the topic most of us would be happy to go in that direction. That's not happening. There have been a couple of comments on the dishonesty of the crusade against Jennings that no one has challenged or expanded on. There're only so many "Yeah, you're right" type posts that any of us are going to submit. There's no discussion to derail.

                    OTOH, there were demonstrably false statements from tommy/right ON about NiceguyEddie that should not go unchallenged.

                    Your personal disapproval doesn't mean a lot.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:44 pm ET)
                        5
                      "Your personal disapproval doesn't mean a lot"

                      Whatever our disagreements are, you get a thumbs up for me on that one. DollySue thinks she runs the place. lol
                      Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (December 16, 2009 1:22 am ET)
                      3  
                      If people didn't allow him to control the thread, then the off topic posts wouldn't go on and on!

                      And if the topic isn't being discussed, then just go to another thread where the topic of that thread IS being discussed.

                      And how do you know that the topic WOULDN'T be discussed if the off topic derailment wasn't happening?

                      And don't you understand that the very thing that MMFA is HERE FOR, and the very thing that Obama complained about WRT FoxNews is EXACTLY what RightON does here?

                      Wasting time debunking his nonsense poisons our national debate, and detracts from the conversations we should be having about our nation's problems and challenges!

                      His goal is to derail threads, to get attention drawn to him so that the attention isn't actually on the topic we should be talking about. And you think it doesn't matter that you guys follow him down that path?

                      What kind of a fool thinks that his actions aren't aimed to get the attention he gets and that it's okay to feed the troll? How can you possibly think that it's okay to go on and on?

                      And yeah, if you go back to the top of this thread, I DID, in fact, address his false statements, so you don't need to tell me that his false statements needed to be addressed. I'm at a loss as to why you thought you needed to explain that to me - maybe you better rethink that line of attack.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by ScienceBuff (December 16, 2009 8:27 am ET)
                           
                        As I stated, I usually disregard his endless loop threads. When I see a long discussion with right ON prominently featured I'll skim it briefly and bypass it. That said, I see nothing wrong with pointing out falsehoods when they occur.

                        Fine, so you addressed his falsehoods. Does that mean that no one else need bother?

                        And no, I don't believe the tommy-loop prevents the actual topic from being discussed. The topic was four hours old when I put in my comments. It wasn't going anywhere and there had been nothing to keep it from doing so. That's not uncommon. When no one is challenging the basis of the article and all of the people on one side don't really have differing ideas to discuss, I see no harm in drifting off-topic, whether it's to correct falsehoods as took place here or go into a personal discussion or into a humorous pun-exchange.

                        Carry on about enabling him if you wish. It just makes you a minor irritant while he's a medium irritant. You mainly seem to be winding yourself up. In fact, I don't expect to bother having this conversation with you again. Scold away.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (December 16, 2009 12:31 pm ET)
                             
                          His off topic derailment started 14 minutes after NGE's post.

                          So how do you know that the topic WOULDN'T have been discussed had it not been for the derailing posts he was making????? Your assertion that his derailing post 14 minutes after NGE's post had no possible effect on the discussion is ridiculous.

                          I mean, usually you are pretty sharp - I'm baffled as to why you don't understand the purpose and the effect of troll posts.

                          And your comment about me addressing his falsehoods? It wasn't that others "shouldn't bother." It's that YOU said that he made falsehoods that needed to be addressed, when they WERE addressed by me already, and further addressing by other posters simply furthered his plot to derail the thread - how did you MISS that connection?
                          Report Abuse
                          • Author by southerngal (December 16, 2009 12:34 pm ET)
                            1 2
                            Talk about derailing a thread. You are such a joke, going on about slapping wrists of someone who dares confront your schoolmarm antics. Sue, you will be banned someday again, and I don't want to see that - I enjoy your silliness, so behave yourself.
                            Report Abuse
                            • Author by DellDolly (December 16, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
                                 
                              Yeah, what a troll you are.

                              Derailing a thread has intent behind it. That'd be your schtick, not mine.

                              Who went off on my post, the post that WAS on topic?

                              That would be the person who replied to my post and made it personal. Not me.

                              And no, you don't 'enjoy' my posts in the least. You're lying again. What a tool.
                              Report Abuse
                              • Author by southerngal (December 16, 2009 5:46 pm ET)
                                   
                                Your claws always come out when you're exposed SuzyLu. Always have, always will until you're banned again. Please, I beg you, take my advice and retract those nasty scratchers a little, you will be sorely missed if I get in a mood to play with your nonsense, and shoot it down.

                                Now you be good.
                                Report Abuse
                  • Author by southerngal (December 15, 2009 3:49 pm ET)
                      8
                    Sorry DollySue, Even liberals are your over your stupid admonitions on when they should or shouldn't post. Tip - go to your local grade school and beg them to let you monitor their milk handouts every day. If one of the little tikes gets an extra pint, you can slap his wrist with a ruler. Vent your frustration that way.
                    Report Abuse
                    • Author by DellDolly (December 16, 2009 1:32 am ET)
                      3  
                      Yeah, sure. I see all the liberals at this site you gave your comments thumbs up, and all the liberals at this site who gave you thumbs down. You might want to rethink your assertion that people are against me and for you on this topic.

                      They know you derail threads. They're on to you.

                      They're adults, and most adults don't like being told that they're messing up even when it's undeniable that they're messing up - that doesn't mean that they don't learn from my scoldings, because they do. But I don't care if they like me or not - I'm not here to win any popularity contests. When I judge myself by the opinions that anonymous posters on the internet rather than by using realistic opinions from my friends and family, I'll be sure to let you know. Until that time, though, your condemnation makes me thrilled. I know that my calling out of your troll posts not only tees you off, but it disrupts your efforts on many threads, and that helps the debate we should be having on this site and throughout our nation! I wear your anger and displeasure as a badge of honor.
                      Report Abuse
                      • Author by southerngal (December 16, 2009 11:43 am ET)
                          2
                        You're such a simple soul Sue. I am glad you feel vindicated the more thumbs up you get, I feel just the opposite - in fact, I sometimes give myself the first thumbs down just to get the ball rolling. And I know I can count on one from you, so then I know I am definitely on the right track.

                        You can keep scolding everyone for responding to me if you find my posts so threatening to you, I get that. Otherwise you wouldn't care and be filled with indifference, but you aren't, so I get that. But I will keep posting for as long as I feel like it, and you will just get irritated time after time. Sorry I have that effect on you. Oh well.
                        Report Abuse
                        • Author by DellDolly (December 16, 2009 12:39 pm ET)
                          2  
                          As always, when we see that you can no longer debate the topic, out come the personal attacks.

                          In fact, I already explained that I don't care a whit about thumbs up or down, so your allegation that I feel vindicated makes no sense, and is simply an attempt to smear me. But, when we look at this, you're the one who stated that "liberals are over my admonitions", when the thumbs up and down clearly show your assertion to be 100% baseless! You're the one who pretended that your position was supported by others, not me. I simply disproved your assertion - I didn't say I cared about those ratings. I don't. This isn't rocket science.

                          And I don't care what you do with your ability to rate your own posts and other posts - that's totally irrelevant to this discussion. But remember, you are the one who brought up the approval or disapproval of others - not me. So your assertion that you don't care, and that you actually downrate yourself sometimes, rings hollow since you seem to think that approval by others IS important!

                          But I will continue with or without the approval of you or anyone else! And you're the one who's clearly irritated with me, not vice versa!

                          ANd yeah, I will continue to scold Rush Limbaugh, FoxNews, and you and others like you. When you poison the debate, when you mislead our citizens, when you prevent a fair debate from happening, I will object. Did you read about Senator Franken's speech on the Senate floor the other day, telling off Senator Thune for lying about the healthcare bills benefits that start immediately? When Thune lied about the benefits, it hurts our national debate. That's wrong. That's what you do on this site on a regular basis. It's wrong when you do it too. I don't find anything that's on the internet personally threatening. I am well aware of how behavior like this is threatening to our nation. I try to educate others to that fact. I will continue to do that.
                          Report Abuse
    • Author by captfoster2 (December 15, 2009 11:19 am ET)
      5 2
      With all these right-wing lies and smears aimed at one man... it almost comes across as a cry for help by these same right-wingers who only wish they could go public with their closeted lifestyle?

      Think about it... David Brock... the man who helped found this site was closeted while he was a shill for the right-wing junkyard of thought... when he finally came out of the closet... his mind expanded and he became a thinking person again...

      Maybe this is the same situation for all these right-wing people?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dave (December 15, 2009 4:49 pm ET)
        2 6
        So your analysis is that anyone who does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle is a closeted homosexual? Have you talked to all of the states where gay marriage came up for a vote and lost? Are all of those folks closeted homos?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Rob Serrano (December 15, 2009 6:55 pm ET)
          5 1
          Basic rule from experience dealing with the actively phobic (read: spend large amounts of time obsessing on us gays and the gay sex) is that, yes, there are HUGE numbers of them who are closeted and are desperately fronting in the hopes that no one will discover their little secret.

          As to people who "disapprove of the homosexual lifestyle" please define what you believe constitutes the "homosexual lifestyle." I probably no more gay people than you know people and I have yet to find anything that even remotely resemble a single "lifestyle" that we live. So tell me, what makes up this "lifestyle" besides the whole dating people of the same sex?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by rumpleteasermom (December 15, 2009 7:27 pm ET)
            3  
            I know lots of gay people too. I can't agree more with you Rob. There is no ONE all encompassing gay lifestyle.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by jkptak (December 15, 2009 12:35 pm ET)
      2 8
      What is clear and undeniable is how this GAY Website would rather defend pedophiles and child molesters, instead of pursuing them and getting them out of our goverment. Gays can fist each other all they want...just keep away from our kids and schools...spread your filth in UGANDA.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by eweston8542983 (December 16, 2009 1:26 am ET)
        2  
        Ah another one who equates gay with pedophile. The former is legal in many ways cept for such issues as marrage. The latter illegal.
        Why Uganda?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by charlekenghis1502 (December 15, 2009 5:42 pm ET)
        4  
        And your comments are the reason why these smears against Jennings are unsuccessful.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ForTheLoveOfEllipsis... (December 15, 2009 6:57 pm ET)
        4 1
        Well, I see it's "Preach to the Gawdless Libruls Day" at the First Bahble-Beatin' Baptist Church, considering the number of holy-rollin' frauds who have just shown up, including the one above (wyorich, who is in the clubhouse with the most despicable post in the history of this site) who apparently grooves to the idea of attacking Obama's children. I for one will remember this the next time we hear a RepugnantCon saying that the children of the next RepugnantCon President are off-limits to attack...because in this, as in other things, apparently IOKIYAR...
        Report Abuse
        • Author by jlkeen (December 16, 2009 9:45 am ET)
          1  
          FIRST THINGS MAGAZINE, for whom Jim Hoft (Gateway Pundit) writes, is leading the charge against Mr. Jennings with their "Fistgate" series of smears which are percolating throughout the right-wing blogosphere.

          Curiously, FIRST THINGS MAGAZINE and their Editor JOSEPH BOTTUM describe themselves as part of "The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society."
          Report Abuse
    • Author by dr. engine (December 16, 2009 10:18 am ET)
        4
      "over 70 politically-charged posters, stickers, and other visual media that emerged during a pivotal moment of AIDS activism in New York City" and "chronicles New York's AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP) through an examination of compelling graphics created by various artist collectives that populated the group."

      In other words, a pornographic, Anti-Christian art show.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by drknowit_all (December 16, 2009 12:14 pm ET)
        1
      Nothing in this artical or the previous posts have made Kevin Jennings any less creepy. This guys a freakshow in a suit. Im not sure why Obama chooses theese contraversial people to be "czars". I think he does it on purpose for the WTF aspect he creates in the media.It makes good entertainment.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by markbfoot199 (December 16, 2009 3:00 pm ET)
        4
      The organization, however, specifically stated on its book list website that "some titles for adolescent readers contain mature themes" and recommended that "adults selecting books for youth review content for suitability"; further, schools regularly teach books that contain sexually explicit material. In a December 11 statement, Martin Garnar, chair of the American Library Association's Intellectual Freedom Committee, said: "Though Jennings' and GLSEN's critics claim to be upholding American morals and values by condemning the GLSEN book list, they are actually undermining the values of tolerance, free inquiry, and self-determination that inform and sustain our democratic way of life in the United States."

      The above statement says it all, MMFA is ok with this subject and thinks that showing adolescent nudity and gay sex if moral.

      See, Jennings thinks the above is showing tolerance. He must go
      Report Abuse
      • Author by charlekenghis1502 (December 16, 2009 3:19 pm ET)
        1  
        I see why Big Goverment, Gateway Pundit and the rest have switched from attacking Kevin Jennings to attacking Media Matters.

        Talk about letting the trolls out of the cages.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DellDolly (December 16, 2009 4:13 pm ET)
        1  
        Of course it's morally acceptable and in fact is recommended that you educate children and teenagers in age-appopriate ways about topics they need to learn about, including sex.

        That you think that it's wrong shows all of us how warped YOU are. I'm sorry that's the environment you grew up in - one where shielding kids from info they need to know about was the desired result!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Doughlas (December 16, 2009 10:27 pm ET)
         
      Gil Bailie, Catholic author and president of the Cornerstone Forum, has recently been channeling false claims and smears directed against Kevin Jennings on his blogsite, Reflections on Faith and Culture. One of the recent posts, called "The Unreported Scandal...," is followed by an animated discussion, which I would encourage others to join.
      I published an extended piece about Bailie's channeling of these slanders. You will find it at my blogsite, here.
      Report Abuse