@bluebears: Do you know, that's exactly the story I heard, too? He was working on his weather machine and when he came downstairs to look for his How to Cause Global Warming manual, there she was, examining his horrible, incriminating photographs.
This whole statutory rape without actual statutory rape thing reminds me of the Washington state coffeehouse prostitution sting without actual prostitution and celebrity sex tapes sans sex.
The worst thing about this jack-ass of a host is he pretense at the end of every clip of actually giving a shit. Dobbs will patiently sit in silence for a moment--as though deeply ruminating the implications of a breaking story and then pretend to be dumbfounded by the blather which his correspondent has just dumped on him, as though it is the first time he has heard it. The man needs to swallow and choke on his dentures, and take his phony populist outrage to the grave with him.
Remember when Sean Hannity was defending Mark Foley because the incriminating emails were "suspicious" in their origin.
And hey, now Mark "I want to fuck underage pages" Foley is getting his own conservative radio talk show! [www.politicsdaily.com]
So, just to be clear. Republicans get very upset if you tell a conflicted kid to wear a condom , but actually trying to fuck underage kids makes you a conservative media personality. Not to mention a respected member of Congress.
@braak: Absolutely. These wingnuts are the same people that get up-in-arms if a hot female teacher is arrested for having sex with one of her 15 or 16 year-old students. In those situations, they just think its "boys being boys," with the strength of their outrage directly correlating to how good-looking the teacher is. It's only when its boys-being-boys with other boys or men that the wingnuts get their hackles up.
@braak: When are conservatives ever genuinely concerned about the welfare of the human beings they claim to be defending? Look at their efforts to outlaw abortion. They fight to ensure the woman has to have the child, but cut funds to medical programs for unwed and underprivileged mothers. They also gut programs designed to provide health care and education for the children that they INSISTED be born. So what's new? They just want to get their cheap political points.
Let's leave "gay" & "truck stop" out of this equation for a moment and use 16-yr-old girl and public restroom instead. Sounds like a daily occurrence in the NYC public school system. Maybe telling the person to use a condom isn't ideal advice but wanting to save someone's life first before judging them isn't the worst place to be coming from either.
@once: agreed. I knew Jennings not long after this incident occurred, when I was a gay kid who benefited from his openness as a teacher. He's an absolutely decent guy who deserves his position. The Obama team simply needs better, more vigilant PR to combat media idiocy.
The Dems have GOT to stop giving into these whining, closet cases and date rapists. It's not like they'll ever be satisfied, and scattering drops of blood on the water only makes them hungrier.
Soft target. If the kid was a footballer screwing older women in the bathrooms this wouldn't have even come up. We all know it's because he's gay and Jennings is gay and so it's the easiest thing in the world to incite fear about.
Legally as long as the kid was above the age of consent Jennings is fine. Morally, a teacher giving any kind of encouragement to a student to have sex (even safe sex) outside marriage is going to stir some people; gay sex moreso, gay sex with older men in bathrooms especially so.
He did have a legal obligation to report it, because the age of consent was 16 and the boy was 15.
Do I understand why he didn't? Of course! It would have outed the boy and outed Jennings (why else would Jennings have been the confidant?). You think things are bad now for the GLBT community, well, then you'd be shocked at 1988. Reporting it may or may not have been the best thing he could have done for this child, and I understand that.
But he had a legal duty, unfortunately, so the right wing radicals may win this battle. Yes, I know that Beck and Hannity and freerepublic and the rest are really only going after Jennings because he is gay. That is PAINFULLY obvious. But they may be able to make it stick because Jennings didn't meet his legal obligation(which may have differed from his moral one in this case).
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
I have proof!
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
He once said something good about someone who didn't say something bad about NAMBLA.
[mediamatters.org]
You get that? Guilt by association, by association! Just to get "Jennings" and "NAMBLA" in the same sentence, I assume.
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/01/09
And hey, now Mark "I want to fuck underage pages" Foley is getting his own conservative radio talk show! [www.politicsdaily.com]
So, just to be clear. Republicans get very upset if you tell a conflicted kid to wear a condom , but actually trying to fuck underage kids makes you a conservative media personality. Not to mention a respected member of Congress.
Nope, nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all.
10/01/09
This has absolutely nothing to do with the relative danger or lack thereof that that student was placed in.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Legally as long as the kid was above the age of consent Jennings is fine. Morally, a teacher giving any kind of encouragement to a student to have sex (even safe sex) outside marriage is going to stir some people; gay sex moreso, gay sex with older men in bathrooms especially so.
I think Obama needs to hire some new vetters.
10/01/09
Do I understand why he didn't? Of course! It would have outed the boy and outed Jennings (why else would Jennings have been the confidant?). You think things are bad now for the GLBT community, well, then you'd be shocked at 1988. Reporting it may or may not have been the best thing he could have done for this child, and I understand that.
But he had a legal duty, unfortunately, so the right wing radicals may win this battle. Yes, I know that Beck and Hannity and freerepublic and the rest are really only going after Jennings because he is gay. That is PAINFULLY obvious. But they may be able to make it stick because Jennings didn't meet his legal obligation(which may have differed from his moral one in this case).