Obama Education Czar: failed to report homosexual statutory rape

epic basso fail once again

nice post bnb

 

So what. That doesn't change the fact that it is an EDITORIAL that is about expressing an opinion rather than an exposition of facts.

Do you understand the difference?

 

It has everything to do with it since it is an Editorial.

The facts as they are are presented in a biased manner that should lead to taking them at minimum with a grain of salt.

 

As long as you recognize there is a bias that calls in question the presentation of those facts.

 

And what do you think the issue at hand is, basso?

Was it:
a)the well-being of the kid
b)technical compliance with a reporting rule, which, oddly is never quoted
c)adults having sex with kids
or
d) There's a gay guy who promotes and encourages gay sex in highschools and the President has put him in charge of school safety

I'll give you a hint.

If it was a, b or c, there might have been some mention of when the incident took place, the age of consent, the attitudes at the time, how the kid would have been helped, who he would have been protected from, and, maybe, why this rule that supposedly requires full reporting of any mention by a kid under 16 of sex with someone older (regardless of circumstance) was in place and what the implications of reporting it would have been. How would the kid have been helped (cured?) had Jennings reported that the kid had confided he'd had sex, one time, without mentioning who he'd had sex with or how old that person was. How was he harmed by not reporting the incident?

But no. None of that. We do learn that Jennings has contempt for religion though. Not sure how that's relevant. There are a few alter boys who have contempt for Catholic priests, but I guess I'm missing the connection to Jennings suitability for this post. We also read that the kid appeared happy. Gay and happy. Crazy. That's bad, obviously.

Were you around in 1989? Were you as obtuse then as you appear today? Because I was around back then. And we weren't too accommodating of the gay lifestyle. Thanks to facebook I'm learning now that a few of my classmates are gay. They never would have admitted it publicly back then. Possibly not even to themselves. They surely would have had the crap beat out them -- or at least lived in fear of that happening. But, somehow, the 'powers that be' -- to whom Jennings should have reported the vague story would have helped this kid. I don't buy it. Do you? Would you have finked? Would you have been proud of yourself had you done so?

Is this fun? Are you drunk? Cool if you are. It just helps me understand if I know. Once in a while I think people are posting seriously -- and it messes me up. And I have to back away.

 

so you're backing off from, and I quote, "you can't make this **** up"

 

In what ways did the signifcant facts as relayed by the story-teller (Jennings) get misrepresented in the editorial?

Isn't an editorial just commentary about facts (sometimes perceived, sometimes actual)? In this case most of the facts seem to be backed-up by the audio of Jennings.

 

Basso -- you cannot embrace a gay bashing editorial such as this, and then pretend its stench does not engulf you.

You don't just stand by this **** --- you're knee deep in it! (or possibly just full of it ).

Unless you can state that his judgment was clearly wrong, maybe you can expand on why making the correct judgment call in one incident twenty years ago would make him an inappropriate choice?

 

sure.

The bar has certainly been raised since the last administration. I'm thinking even the last chief wouldn't meet this standard. Oh why do I think there's so much more (less) to it then that???

But you should lay off posting the anti-gay editorials. Some might doubt your sincerity here.

Cheers.

 

Please cite the relevant law or policy that should have been applied to Jennings.

You're right. He did not subject a 15 year old kid to an interrogation as to the particulars of a sexual tryst that may or may not have even happened. He did not betray the trust of a kid who needed someone to listen and give sound advice, as happened regarding safe sex. The kid sought out and found someone in his exact situation, a closeted gay man, who counseled him and had an obviously positive impact, based on the only evidence we have of this event.

No, that should have been the end of the story, but some people have nothing better to do these days than pick apart everything someone says in order to find some kind of moral wedge issue to complain about.

Base your opinion on something more compelling than a bigot's editorial about an action that may or may not even have happened two decades ago and I will be happy to discuss this again. Until then, you will remain lost in the wilderness, lacking even the comfort of your bukkit.

 

The NYT homepage? So you're saying everything is an editorial? No wonder you are so bitter.

 

First off an editorial is an opinion piece meant to foster a certain opinion. You are thinking about an analysis piece which often does take on editorializing but this piece isn't even presented as an editorial piece and clearly states its bias.

As stated already there are several unknowns in the story. If you note I am willing to say that Jennings showed poor judgement but at the same time we don't know enough about the story to judge exactly what happened here and the writer is certainly putting the worst possible slant on the story.

 

The title: EDITORIAL: At the president's pleasure

I'm not sure how you see it stating it's bias. It clearly has a bias but doesn't every editorial... much less most reporting period?

Do we know enough from Jenning's own recount (which he alone is responsible for) to come to some kind of conclusion? Probably not but it is food for thought.

As I said earlier, I think he made a serious mis-judgement as a 24YO about letting this boy's choices go un-reported. I'm more concerned that he is later (2000) willing to openly recount the dangerous events to some empathetic audiences and refuse to comment about it to other audiences. There is no objectivity there about what could have been a very dangerous situation for the young boy. As of 2000, he would seem to have an agenda that is a bit reckless.

This gives me pause to be concerned about his fitness for the job. Hopefully other things would mitigate that would raise his fitness.

 

I've posted this a few times already.
[rquoter]Mr. Jennings has made extremely radical statements promoting homosexuality in schools and about his utter contempt for religion that render him unsuitable for a prestigious White House appointment. [/rquoter]

The writer very clearly states his bias right here.

To a certain point there it is impossible to stay objective in reporting but even you must see that there is no pretense in this piece to stay objective. This is meant to be a hatchet job from someone who already has a negative view of Jennings.

This isn't comparing a slant on a news story from say Fox News versus CNN but its a straight out opinion piece meant to push that opinion.

Exactly. We don't know enough so just accepting a hatchet job on him isn't warranted.

Taking the facts as they are I agree it was poor judgement on his part but there are many things that I don't know about the situation that might indicate that Jennings decision was warranted.

I know ver little about Jennings but I have a hard time using an opinion piece from someone who made his mind up long ago to say that this makes him unfit for the job.

 

One last thing on the Basso starting this thread. This is the same guy who tries to claim Obama pays lip service to gays, yet this is Obama's appointment so Basso uses a gay hate article to criticize the appointment. Unbelievable