Obama Education Czar: failed to report homosexual statutory rape

No, he didn't. Telling someone that they need to use condoms does not equal telling them that reckless behavior is hunky dory. I can disapprove of my son riding a motorcycle and can even stop it until he becomes old enough to get a license and buy one without my consent. I can express my disapproval of this behavior while still telling him that if he is going to ride, he needs to wear a helmet.

Since you were not a party to the conversation between Brewster and Jennings, you have no way to know that this was not the tone unless you are simply biased against Jennings for some reason. This is the biggest issue that I have with the OP (and Faux "News" for that matter), the bigoted author put forth outrageous claims that could create a bias in anyone who isn't interested in looking at the facts. He put out these claims in an attempt to smear someone with whose politics he disagrees and having seen that, I hold more against the author than Jennings.

 

giddyup, do you think the student is lying?

 

Probably going to have to link it.

 

from the same CNN article that giddyup posted a couple of pages earlier
http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=4785966&postcount=112

 

please provide a link about what you claim the law was at the time.

 

is this something you just made up or read somewhere in the internet?

 

Jennings completely forsook the opportunity to tell Brewster anything of significance about the events of that night. He said nothing about those choices being reckless. By only urging the use of a condom, he has offered tacit approval of those choices.

Brewster confided in Jennings, no doubt expecting some kind of response or feedback. All he got was "use condoms kid." It really has nothing to do with the tone as with what was said and, importantly, what was NOT said.

Apparently Jennings was not a party to the conversation with Brewster either since he is recalling things that apparently were not said by Brewster, i.e. no sexual activity... which would seem to be a pre-requisite for recommending condoms.

Regarding your illustration of your son and the motorcycle: why didn't Jennings treat this situation that way? Brewster is not his son, but he is to some degree under his "care" at a boarding school. Jennings can't really stop Brewster (just as you can't your of-age son) but he could make an effort to counsel him in the direction of safer behavior (like you did in your illustration)... which is supposed to be his passion and specialty, no?

There is a gulf there. I have not de-commissioned Jennings. All I've done is ask for some explanation and accountability for what he did and did not do.

 

Okay, so the writer of the editorial claims it was with an older man.

However, where does Brewster mention above that the person was older?

Where is what Jennings said does he mention that the person was older?

You continue to harp on what an editorial writer says it true and accept it as truth because that's what you want to believe.

 

P.S. - I can't believe we're even still debating this. It happened 21 years ago, it completely speculative, and has no bearing on Jennings' ability to do his current job as advisor to Obama. This thread is a complete waste of time.

 

basso trusts editorials from people who hate gay people even though he's a champion for gay rights. LOL

 

No way of knowing. He could be lying. Jennings could be lying or they both could just have a faulty memory about something that happened long ago. As I said, I think Jennings greater mistake is trying to capitalize on the story (especially if he's aggrandized it) in front of certain audiences. That is likely to catch up with him.

 

the truth is out there giddy

 

capitalize? what's his agenda?

 

Don't know why basso ang giddy just can't stop meddling into the 16 year olds' at legal age of consent personla life. Maybe they think the government should regulate this kind of stuff.

 

To promote the organization he founded. Did he add a wrinkle (confessed sexual activity) to the Brewster story to give it more zing in addressing his audiences? Fact or fiction, was that the responsible thing to do in that era of AIDS hysteria? Was it a legitimate thing to do?

I seem to recall that in 1984 no one was really confident about the protection that condoms offered but that it was something at least... the virus was smaller than the pores in the condom... all that stuff.

 

Nice try but I thought we were talking about Jennings. What is that legal term: en loco parentis....

 

did Jennings do anything illegal?

 

He might have but until we know what actually happened and what the law was at the time, it is hard to say.

En loco parentis is just a concept that applies. It roughly translates to "in the place of parents" which would be applicable to a boarding school situation. I think that without doubt there is a responsibility that Jennings had "en loco parentis."

If "use a condom" is as far he sees his responsibility going with Brewster then I might object to his being in charge of making schools safe.

 

Because the reaction was so terrible. Crap, a gay kid is now comfortable with his sexuality?! WHAT A TERRIBLE ADULT TO INFLICT THIS MALADY UPON HIM!