[Note: After zomblog's previous post about Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings' misguided praise of NAMBLA supporter Harry Hay, the advocacy group Media Matters has attempted to extinguish the story, issuing a series of press releases dismissing the allegations as "smears." And so my second memo is addressed directly to Media Matters themselves.]

Media Matters –

You have recently assumed the attack-dog role in the Jennings/Hay/NAMBLA scandal, releasing a nonstop barrage of announcements condemning what you characterize as “right-wing smears.” Before you continue down this road, pause to consider the consequences of this strategy.

The sign Harry Hay carried at the 1986 L.A. Gay Pride Parade (full photo below).

Don’t you understand that your efforts are counter-productive?

Why are you taking actions that will damage Kevin Jennings’ career and get the Obama administration entangled in an embarrassing scandal?

While some of the right-wing posts you cite (which you set up as strawmen to knock down) do indeed go overboard in their criticism of Jennings, that doesn’t mean that all the evidence in this case can be accurately dismissed as “smears.” Because at the core of the scandal, there are some very inconvenient facts which cannot be wished away (see below).

By advising Jennings to dig in his heels on a story that is only bound to grow in intensity, you are only exacerbating the problem. Enough evidence has already emerged (with more to surely emerge in the near future) that you should recognize the need for Jennings and the Obama administration to enter “crisis management mode”: In other words, they should get in front of the story, apologize, acknowledge mistakes, and vow to never repeat them.

Furthermore, your defense of Jennings is so weak, and so easily debunked, that you have now put your own reputation on the line, not just Kevin Jennings’.

But it’s not too late. I invite you, Media Matters, to join me in encouraging Kevin Jennings to make a public statement condemning Harry Hay in no uncertain terms, and to retract his earlier praise of him. Any action short of that — especially denying that the scandal has any substance at all — will only make the crisis grow.

Since almost all of the pro-Obama blogs which have covered this story have entirely relied on Media Matters’ supposed rebuttals as the final conclusive word on this scandal, we should look at your rebuttals more closely; and in so doing, we see that they are much, much flimsier than the accusations they claim to be debunking.

Out of all Media Matters’ bulletins on this scandal, in fact only two have any substance: they are called

Smear: Kevin Jennings Praised A Member Of NAMBLA.”
and
The smear campaign continues: Fox Nation, Washington Examiner manufacture Jennings-NAMBLA link

Stripped of their overheated language, both rebuttals can be summarized with the following four points:

Media Matters’ attempted rebuttals of the Jennings-Hay-NAMBLA scandal: A summary

1. When Kevin Jennings gave his speech praising Harry Hay, he didn’t know that Hay supported NAMBLA.

2. Kevin Jennings was praising the admirable side of Harry Hay, not the reprehensible side of Harry Hay.

3. None of the mainstream media’s obituaries of Harry Hay mentioned his NAMBLA connections, therefore he must not have been a bad guy after all.

4. Harry Hay once said he wasn’t an actual member of NAMBLA.

All of these points are rather feeble arguments and can be easily counter-rebutted. Let’s look at each in turn:


Media Matters’ Attempted Rebuttal #1:

When Kevin Jennings gave his speech praising Harry Hay, he didn’t know that Hay supported NAMBLA.

Assessment: FALSE

As also pointed out on Professor Warren Throckmorton’s blog, Jennings chose a chapter from the 1990 book The Trouble with Harry Hay, by Stuart Timmons, to include in the 1994 anthology Becoming Visible, which Jennings compiled and edited. This means that it is beyond doubt that Jennings had read The Trouble with Harry Hay, since he would have no other way of knowing which chapter to select for republication in his own book. Yet The Trouble with Harry Hay contains a section about Hay’s support of NAMBLA. So by the time Jennings gave his “I was inspired by Harry Hay” speech in 1997, he must have known full well that Hay supported NAMBLA, having learned it from reading the Timmons book (if he hadn’t already known about the connection earlier).

To make this a little clearer, let’s break it down into a timeline:

1990 – Stuart Timmons writes and publishes a biography of Hay called The Trouble with Harry Hay. The book contains a section about Hay’s connection to NAMBLA.

1993/4 – Kevin Jennings reads The Trouble with Harry Hay, in order to choose which chapter about Hay he wants to include in an anthology he’s putting together called Becoming Visible.

1994 – Jennings purposely chooses a section about Hay which doesn’t mention NAMBLA, and republishes it in Becoming Visible.

1994 – Jennings also writes an introduction to the Hay chapter in his book, as well as several study questions about Hay, in both of which he pointedly makes no mention of the NAMBLA connection he learned of from reading The Trouble with Harry Hay.

1997 – Despite his knowledge of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA support, Jennings praises him in a speech in which he said that Hay had “always inspired” him.

The only conclusion one can reach from this is that by 1997 Kevin Jennings knew of Harry Hay’s involvement with NAMBLA — yet praised him anyway.

As mentioned in an update to my earlier memo, Kevin Jennings’ book Becoming Visible — about the history of gay activism, including an entire chapter about Harry Hay — is partly searchable on Amazon: Click here for a link to the Amazon “Peek Inside” feature for the book, and scroll to its table of contents. Or click here or on the small image to the right to see a clear screenshot of the book’s Table of Contents, including the chapter on Harry Hay.

I have scanned several pages from Jennings’ Becoming Visible as proof that a. The book contains a chapter about Harry Hay; b. Kevin Jennings wrote the introduction to that chapter, as well as the study questions about the chapter; and c. The book and the questions are intended for high school students to read. Rather than clog up this essay with a lot of very large images, I will instead link to them here:

Scans from the book Becoming Visible:

Page 162: The first part of Kevin Jennings’ introduction to the Harry Hay chapter.
Page 163: The conclusion of Jennings’ introduction, and the first portion of the Hay chapter itself.
Page 16: Author’s note from Jennings saying he provided the introduction.
Page 17: Jennings saying the study questions are addressed to students for in-class assignments.
Page 178: Jennings’ study questions about Harry Hay.
Page 179: More study questions about Harry Hay.
Page 180: Conclusion of study questions about Harry Hay.

How can you compile and edit a book that includes an extensive chapter about Harry Hay — a chapter for which you wrote the introduction and study questions — and then later claim complete ignorance of Harry Hay’s past? Especially considering that you are known as a leading scholar of the history of gay activism?

And it should be noted that everything Jennings wrote about Harry Hay in this book portrays him in a positive light. In the book, he doesn’t write specifically that Hay inspired him, but it’s obvious if you read the book itself that Jennings is holding up Harry Hay as a role model.

The final link in this chain of evidence is proof that the book The Trouble with Harry Hay did in fact mention Hay’s connection to NAMBLA. Since we know that Kevin Jennings must have read this book in 1993 0r 1994, if we can show that the book discusses Hay’s support of NAMBLA, then it’s beyond any doubt that Jennings knew of it. And we can indeed provide the proof:


First of all, these two photographs were included in the book, showing Harry Hay’s front and back signs at the 1986 Los Angeles Gay Pride Parade. But the photos were not given without context: accompanying text explained in detail how Hay came to NAMBLA’s defense at the parade, something which (according to the book) became famous as “The Harry Hay Incident.” (Valerie Terrigno was a scandal-rocked politician who was also excluded from the parade, as was NAMBLA.)

Here are photos of some relevant pages from The Trouble with Harry Hay, in which the author discusses some of Hay’s connections to NAMBLA:

Photos from the book The Trouble with Harry Hay:

Page 295: Description of “The Harry Hay Incident” and his support of NAMBLA (first part)
Page 296: Description of “The Harry Hay Incident” and his support of NAMBLA (second part)
Photo insert (center of book): Picture (same as the one shown above) of Harry Hay in his “I Walk With NAMBLA” sign, including identifying caption.

Want more? OK.

There’s also strong circumstantial evidence that Jennings almost certainly learned of Hay’s involvement in NAMBLA another way, also in 1994:

According to numerous sources (including for example the Queer Resources Directory and Gay Today; any number of additional links describing the incident can be found on this search results page), Harry Hay got into a very public spat with major mainstream gay organizations over their planned decision to ban NAMBLA from marching in the “Stonewall 25″ pride march in New York on June 26, 1994. Hay, who was slated to be honored as one of the celebrities in the march, instead insisted that NAMBLA be included in the celebration. When Hay was snubbed and NAMBLA was banned despite his objections, Hay broke away from the organizers and formed his own group called Spirit of Stonewall, which then proceeded to march in the parade with NAMBLA anyway — to the great chagrin of the march’s organizers and the larger gay community. This back-and-forth fight between Hay/NAMBLA and the mainstream of gay activists lasted for months and was a major topic of discussion in the gay community, especially among gay political activists living in New York. (Hay also wrote about this incident extensively in his own autobiography, which we will look at later in this memo.)

So: What does any of this have to do with Kevin Jennings? Well, according to his own autobiography, Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son, Kevin Jennings was himself living in New York at the time, and was deeply involved in gay activism and politics. (The passage in question occurs on pages 211, 212, and 213 of the book. Click on the following links to see scans of those pages taken directly from Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son in which Jennings discusses at length his presence and activities in New York in 1994: page 211, page 212, page 213.) Considering that the Hay/NAMBLA spat was a hot topic in Jennings’ professional and personal circles, it seems extremely likely that he at least became aware of it at the time. Which means that a full three years before he gave his speech praising Harry Hay, Jennings again knew of Hay’s defense of NAMBLA.


Media Matters’ Attempted Rebuttal #2:

Kevin Jennings was praising the admirable side of Harry Hay, not the reprehensible side of Harry Hay.

Assessment: ILL-ADVISED BLUNDER

If someone told you they really admired Adolf Hitler, you would naturally assume that they had Nazi sympathies. But if that same person later told you, “No, you misunderstand, I don’t admire Hitler because he was a Nazi: I admire him because of his love for dogs! Boy, that guy sure did love his dogs,” you probably would still harbor suspicions that something was amiss.

I use this rather hackneyed comparison not because I think Harry Hay was like Hitler, but rather because because in our modern hierarchy of moral turpitude the only thing that equals supporting the Nazi Party is promoting pedophilia. And even if you truly did admire Hitler solely for his love of dogs, and not for his other actions, you’d be an absolute fool to walk around praising him to strangers. Because they’d inevitably assume the worst. In a similar vein, if you publicly announce your admiration for someone known to vigorously promote pedophilia — well, what do you expect the public to think? You can’t separate the two halves of Harry Hay and say you were inspired by his good side and make no mention of his bad side. Some beliefs and actions are so beyond the pale that they overwhelm and contaminate anything else the person might have done, and make him off-limits to declarations of admiration.

And this goes straight to the heart of the matter. Even if Kevin Jennings only praised Harry Hay for his earlier activism, it’s still a major public relations blunder. The American public no more wants their Safe Schools Czar to praise a known pedophilia supporter than they want their military commanders to express admiration for Osama bin Laden (“No, really, I meant I was just inspired by the stylish way he trims his beard!”).

And if you think that this is all just a misunderstanding, then why don’t you join me in calling for Kevin Jennings to clarify matters by denouncing Harry Hay and disassociating himself from Harry Hay’s beliefs? Jennings could put a stop to the Hay scandal in a flash if he just took this simple step — which is exactly what I advised in my first memo. Instead, you, Media Matters, have now become part of the problem, because by defending Jennings in his silence, you are only serving to prolong the scandal. Ignoring it won’t make it go away. Criticizing and maligning anyone who points out easily verifiable facts only makes it look like Jennings has something to hide.

This whole affair is nothing but a misundertanding? Then let Jennings come out and say so. Don’t encourage him in his career-threatening silence. The longer he remains mute on this issue, the more the public’s uneasiness will grow.

Hay’s support of NAMBLA was only one of many potentially embarrassing aspects to his life and career which led many mainstream gay advocacy groups to distance themselves from him. Among them were the revelation that Hay’s Mattachine Society was based on Stalinist principles and was consciously organized like a communist “cell”; that his later “Radical Faerie” movement — which promoted Native American spirituality as the “correct” religion for all gays — was in fact based on faulty and flawed scholarship; and Hay’s relentless insistence that gay culture was not just equal to “straight” culture but was actually superior.

But above all, Harry Hay famously clashed with mainstream gay groups over his support of NAMBLA. Hay wanted NAMBLA to be included in the “big tent” of gay umbrella organizations; he wanted NAMBLA to be encouraged to march publicly at gay pride events; and he lashed out at gay groups which shunned pedophiles, which Hay saw as surrendering to oppressive mainstream social expectations.

In this battle against Hay were arrayed any number of leading gay rights groups, including ILGA (the International Lesbian/Gay Association, the largest gay rights organization in the world). And yet, just a short time after a major public spat between ILGA and Harry Hay (at the 1994 Stonewall 25 march), Keving Jennings announced in a speech that he was especially inspired by Harry Hay — thereby choosing sides in the conflict and rejecting ILGA’s position (of ostracizing Hay and NAMBLA) and instead embracing Hay and what he stood for.

This was a risky and ill-advised proclamation to make in 1997, and it remains even moreso today. If Kevin Jennings wants to maintain his political viability, he needs to retract his earlier words, and “throw Harry Hay under the bus,” metaphorically speaking. And every ounce of effort that you, Media Matters, spend on trying to defend Jennings’ position only makes the situation worse, day by day.


Media Matters’ Attempted Rebuttal #3:

None of the mainstream media’s obituaries of Harry Hay mentioned his NAMBLA connections, therefore he must not have been a bad guy after all.

Assessment: SPURIOUS ARGUMENT

This is perhaps the most ludicrous of your excuses. Just because mainstream media outlets chose to conveniently ignore a fact and sweep it under the rug doesn’t mean the fact disappears. As I conclusively demonstrated in my previous memo, there’s absolutely no question that Hay was not just a NAMBLA supporter, but that his support of NAMBLA was well-known in New York, so that the omniscient New York Times certainly knew of his affiliation — yet chose to bury the info. They were too busy joining the push to canonize Harry Hay, as were Kevin Jennings and many other activists seeking to construct a new political hero.

But even though the New York Times and other major papers to their eternal shame chose to glorify a NAMBLA supporter, that doesn’t mean all papers joined the conspiracy of silence. For example, an excellent 2002 obituary of Hay in the Boston Phoenix headlined “The Real Harry Hay” chastised mainstream media outlets and gay rights groups for glossing over Hay’s well-known NAMBLA connections. After describing some of Hay’s seriously problematic ideas and actions, including his “notorious promiscuity” and “rabid communism,” the author writes,

“In death, though, Harry Hay’s critics have finally been able to do what they couldn’t do when he was alive: make him presentable. … Neither of the long and laudatory obits in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times mentioned his unyielding support for NAMBLA.”

The author then notes his own observation of Hay once at a party, saying that instead of a legendary champion of civil rights as he had been expecting, Hay

“came across as nothing but a cantankerous old queen who was more interested in speculating about what some of the younger party guests would be like in bed than discussing the connections between 1950s communism and gay-community organizing.”

The mainstream media no longer has a stranglehold on the national dialogue nor on the spigot of truth, and citing their conformity to a particular deception in no way legitimizes that deception.


Media Matters’ Attempted Rebuttal #4:

Harry Hay once said he wasn’t an actual member of NAMBLA.

Assessment: IRRELEVANT

Media Matters, you cite in both of your press releases a statement by Harry Hay printed in the Fall 1994 issue of the Gay Community News in which he says, “I am not a member of NAMBLA.” But whether or not Hay was an official “member” of NAMBLA is completely beside the point, because it’s beyond any doubt that Hay was NAMBLA’s #1 public supporter and advocate, who himself called for the normalization of “man/boy love.” (In fact, it’s not clear that NAMBLA even maintains an official membership list; and if they did, they certainly wouldn’t make it public — so there’s no way to verify Hay’s claim.) With the advent of sophisticated search tools on the Internet, it takes less than a minute for anyone to uncover the extensive connections between NAMBLA and Harry Hay — official member or no official member. The links to NAMBLA pages mentioning Harry Hay which I provided in my earlier report were just the tip of the iceberg. A simple search for Harry Hay’s name on the NAMBLA domain reveals many more examples of articles by or about Hay on the NAMBLA site, in all of which he expresses his approval of intergenerational sex between pubescent boys and older men. So it becomes a futile exercise for you to try to discount or downplay Hay’s defense of pedophilia (or pederasty, to use the precise word), since it can be easily documented.

Above in this memo I linked to a press release written by Harry Hay in 1994 and still preserved at the Queer Resources Directory. It might be a good idea for you to read what Harry Hay actually had to say about NAMBLA before you rush to his defense with a technicality about whether of not he was a dues-paying member. These are Harry Hay’s own words — decide for yourself if Harry Hay was a NAMBLA supporter:

Spirit of Stonewall (SOS) calls on Stonewall 25 and the gay and lesbian movement to return to its roots. The Christopher Street uprising was an outcry by those at the bottom and on the margins of society against puritanical self-righteousness and bigotry. It was a cry for full sexual liberation as part of the struggle for social justice. Stonewall was the spontaneous action of marginal people oppressed by the mainstream — of teenaged drag queens, pederasts, transsexuals, hustlers, and others despised by respectable straights and “discreet” homosexuals. They did not call for their rights, they seized their own freedom. They did not ask for integration into middle-class America, they screamed against its pretensions of propriety.

SOS is an ad hoc committee of lesbian, gay and other individuals and groups formed to bring Stonewall 25 back to the principles of gay liberation. We focus on one of the most glaring departures from those principles: the attempt to exclude the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), and possibly other groups, from the Stonewall 25 March and from their place within gay/lesbian space and discourse.

Red-baiting, scapegoating, censorship and exclusion have been hallmarks of American society. Just as unions, the civil rights and peace movements were pressured to cleanse themselves of suspected “communists,” the lesbian/gay movement is now expected to rid itself of social misfits, the vulnerable pederasts first of all. Never before has such an ostensibly progressive movement jumped so quickly through the hoops of its enemies. …

We find this the height of hypocrisy – to invoke the name of Stonewall to cast out the alleged molesters among us. The issue is not, first of all, intergenerational sex – although that is one the movement needs to confront honestly rather than avoid. SOS takes no stand specifically on age of consent laws or sex between adults and those deemed legally “children.”

NAMBLA’s record as a responsible gay organization is well known…. NAMBLA believes the interests of young people demand not paternalistic protection, but empowerment to make real choices. Every organization within Stonewall 25 need not endorse every one of the other organization’s positions. NAMBLA’s call for the abolition of the age of consent is not the issue. NAMBLA is a bona fide participant in the gay and lesbian movement. NAMBLA deserves strong support in its rights of free speech and association and its members’ protection from discrimination and bashing.

SIGNED: Harry Hay, Pat Califia, Gayle Rubin, Chris Bearchelli, Scott O’Hara, Charley Shively, David Thorstad, Tom Reeves, Jim Becker

By all accounts, Hay was the primary author of this document, which is why his name is listed first. (Click the link above to read the full press release.)

Remember that in my earlier Memo to Kevin Jennings, I ascertained that:

• Harry Hay gave speeches and presentations at several NAMBLA conventions
• Harry Hay hosted panel discussions at NAMBLA meetings
• Harry Hay wrote a blurb for a book published by NAMBLA
• Harry Hay marched either with or in support of NAMBLA in gay pride parades
• Harry Hay wrote long impassioned and eloquent essays in defense of man/boy love
• NAMBLA considers Harry Hay one of their leading champions
• Harry Hay once wrote these words: “The relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world.”

Isn’t that enough for you? Or do you require more…and more and more and more evidence of Hay’s connection to NAMBLA until the pile is so high it can be seen from coast to coast? But why do you want an endless stream of additional evidence to be dug up on this story? I can’t even grasp your motivation. It seems like you’re trying to turn this into a bigger scandal than it already is. Wouldn’t it be infinitely wiser — and healthier for Kevin Jennings’ political position — for Media Matters to just admit the self-evident truth that Harry Hay was a long-standing fierce public advocate for NAMBLA and everything it stood for, rather than stir the pot of controversy by flatly denying the obvious? I get the feeling that Media Matters just has knee-jerk reactions to anything you perceive as an attack on the Obama administration, and you respond with vitriol and deception — without putting much thought into the ruinous consequences of your actions.

An article in the American Spectator called “When Nancy Met Harry” said that Harry Hay’s predilection for pedophilia “was common knowledge,” at least in San Francisco (and by extension other gay communities) — despite the trend by those who praised him to “blithely give a wink-and-a-nod to ole Harry and his interest in little boys.” This is exactly what Kevin Jennings seems to have done.

The autobiographical book Radically Gay: Gay Liberation in the Words of Its Founder By Harry Hay contains several references to Hay’s support of NAMBLA as well — eliminating any doubt as to Hay’s position on this topic. The book reprints a long essay written by Hay in defense of NAMBLA called “Our Beloved Gay/Lesbian Movement at a Crossroads.” It is far too long to reprint here in full, so I will only present two short excerpts from the book to give the flavor of it. And accompanying them are scans of the relevant pages in the book to prove the text really did appear as transcribed here.

The first passage was written by Hay’s co-author and editor Will Roscoe in his introduction to Hay’s essay, in which he summarizes Hay’s main intellectual argument in favor of pederasty:

Radically Gay: Page 302

“…[Harry Hay] was once a young Gay man, well under the age of consent, who sought out sexual contact with an adult man and found it. To call this “child molestation” only stigmatizes homosexuality further and makes it more difficult for young Gay people to make contact with others like them.”

The second passage comes from Hay’s essay itself, featuring his typically counter-intuitive definition of “child molestation”:

Radically Gay: Page 309

“Insofar as child molestation is concerned, the most common, yet unrecognized, form is the sexual coercion of Gay and Lesbian youth into heterosexual identities and behaviors. This is practiced daily by the whole national and international Hetero community–parents, families, teachers, preachers, doctors, lawyers, and Indian Chiefs, not to overlook U.S. Senators and the pooh-bah news media. This outrageous coercion of Gay kids into heterosexual identities and behaviors is not only sexually abusive, it is a spiritually devastating rape because the child, unknowingly, is led into self-loathing at the same time!

For this gigantic criminal trespass–against not only today’s youth, but all of us since childhood, from the Queers my age, 82, down through all the generations of Queers now reading this page, to the Gay kids still being bedeviled by heterosexual coercion–we, the international Gay and Lesbian People, should unite to sue the whole guilty hetero community for compensation!

You can see from this essay that Hay was not some doddering old man unaware of what he was saying: He fully grasped the significance of his arguments. And what’s particularly interesting about this passage is that the arguments it presents are not wildly different from the arguments presented today by many mainstream advocacy groups — minus, of course, any mention or support of NAMBLA. Harry Hay’s manner of thinking has indeed been influential, even if his promotion of pederasty has at the same time been conveniently ignored.


Having read all this, Media Matters, do you still think it wise to flatly deny that Harry Hay was a NAMBLA supporter, and even if he was, to deny that Kevin Jennings knew anything about it?

Don’t you think it would be a better course of action for you to join me in my call for Kevin Jennings to disassociate himself from Harry Hay and Hay’s philosophy as quickly and unambiguously as possible?

213 Responses to “Memo to Media Matters: Kevin Jennings knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA connections”

  1. 1Anonymous on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:16 pm:

    I enjoy reading your proofs. Always worth the wait. While I know it’s necessary, arguing with Media Matters will be a lost cause. They don’t believe what they say, but say what they need to say for political reasons, soldiers in service of left spin.

    Good work, as usual.

  2. 2Bolero on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:18 pm:

    Bravo Zombie for a comprehensive and rational and exhaustive journalistic research !!

  3. 3Rose on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:33 pm:

    Linking

  4. 4pat on Oct 14, 2009 at 11:44 pm:

    Hmmmm. Another myth bites the dust. Of course we all knew this. It just needed more than the exposure the usual bath house activity receives. I stand by my analysis that this guy is a gay recruiter. He wishes to make more gays. it is a very strong philosophy in the gay community.

  5. 5CattusMagnus on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:15 am:

    Great rebuttal.

    I agree with #1 Anonymous about arguing with Media Matters: you’re having a battle of wits with the unarmed.

    When somebody really inspires me, I can’t get enough of them. I read their books/plays or biographies. I Google them and search for videos of them on YouTube. I read their Wikipedia page and I talk about them with other people. I try to dissect their philosophies and beliefs. I even like to read why some other person hates who I find inspiring. I assume that this is what most people do when they find a figure that is an inspiration. And I think that this is a fair assumption. Why would Kevin Jennings be any different? And I know that YouTube and Wikipedia and Google were not around when Kevin Jennings would have been researching his inspiration but you show that Jennings has read Hays’ books so he must know Hay’s feelings on man/boy love, unless Jennings has abysmally bad reading comprehension. In which case, he’s probably not fit to hold public office. It seems to me that this guy is either an idiot or a scumbag. Jennings is an idiot if he read Hays’ books etc. and didn’t find the NAMBLA connection and then praised him publicly, or he’s a scumbag because he knew about the connection and ignored it/rationalized it/condoned it and still is inspired by this man. So which is it? Idiot? Or scumbag? Being an idiot is forgivable. Scumbag, eh, not so much. And now I’ve rambled long enough.

  6. 6Rose on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:17 am:

    Obama just wants to continue with the only experience he really had – radicalizing schools ala The Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Spend other people’s money, promote radical agendas at the expense of other people’s kids. You can see how well it has worked out for Chicago.

    Obama’s record was crystal clear, what little there was of it – and the media kept it well hidden.

    Funny thing is, teachers, who were among his most ardent supporters, are taking a second look, and not liking what they see. Even funnier? It’s not about this “Safe Schools CZAR” – it should be, but it’s not – it’s because Obama announced they should have year-round school.

  7. 7Randle on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:18 am:

    Wow. Just wow.

    Media Matters has a budget of millions of dollars, and a staff of hundreds of employees and volunteers, a fancy office building in the heart of D.C, plus the backing of the current Executive Branch of government…….

    and they are taken to the woodshed by a lone blogger.

    Humiliated. Schooled. Owned.

    Zombie: Army of One.

  8. 8HelenaMT on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:23 am:

    All I can say is, Damn, I’m glad you’re on our side.

    I’d hate to be on the receiving end of a zomblast. That’s gotta sting. And bad.

  9. 9Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:17 am:

    In one of the more honest Hay obits that Zombie quotes, writer Michael Bronski says:

    “[Hay] came across as nothing but a cantankerous old queen who was more interested in speculating about what some of the younger party guests would be like in bed than discussing the connections between 1950s communism and gay-community organizing.”

    I got a chuckle out of the highlighted part, because in the reading I’ve done about Hay in the last week, one of the man’s own biographers specifically mentions that the most frustrating chapter to write had been about exactly this topic: the intersection of Hay’s Communist Party involvement with his Mattachine Society gay-lib work in the 1950s. And it was frustrating (for the biographer) because Hay’s fanatical loyalty to Communism even decades later made him totally incapable of speaking with any candor about homophobia among American Reds.

    On the contrary, Hay had a carefully maintained “personal narrative” about his own expulsion from the CPUSA — in Hay’s version of things, the expulsion had actually been a voluntary resignation, and in fact his own idea, because he was concerned that his Mattachine work might be misrepresented by “enemies of the Party. And furthermore, he’d even had to insist on resigning, over the strenuous objections of the CPUSA leadership — there was of course no anti-homosexual hostility in the Party, as homophobia was simply an unscientific prejudice of the bourgeoisie.

    And, naturally, the easiest way for a biographer to send Hay into a rage was to suggest that things may have been slightly otherwise, or to make the obvious point that doctrinaire Communists tended to be anti-homosexual because of Communist ideology, and not despite it.

  10. 10Pullus Iulius on Oct 15, 2009 at 4:35 am:

    Responsible investigative journalism isn’t gone – you just have to go all the way to the letter Z to find it. Excellent reporting, Zombie!

  11. 11Starless on Oct 15, 2009 at 5:47 am:

    A very long time ago, when I became aware of art as a complex experience, I tended to gravitate toward what would now be called “fringe” art — art that’s challenging and unconventional. Nowadays, when I see art described as “challenging” or “breaking boundaries”, I avoid it like the plague because inevitably it ends up being art which only challenges the so-called mainstream and reinforces the perfect goodness which is identity politicking. The hard questions, the challenging questions which make us uncomfortable, can only be asked of those people living in the mainstream. They are lame and narrow-minded and need to subject themselves to the harshest of self-examinations. Those who have identified themselves as members of oppressed or minority groups, OTOH, are exempt from such self-examination. In fact, to even suggest that they should ask themselves hard questions about things which could expose any sort of ugliness in their identity group is a form of oppression.

    BTW, I like the Hitler analogy. I’ve been thinking along the lines of this defense from Hay supporters: The only reason I didn’t condemn Hitler more loudly was that I couldn’t come up with a good enough argument for why it was bad to target Jews. So for Hay it would read something like: The only reason I didn’t condemn Hay’s connection to NAMBLA more loudly is that I couldn’t come up with a good enough reason for why it’s bad to prey on children.

    Throbert McGee:
    And furthermore, he’d even had to insist on resigning, over the strenuous objections of the CPUSA leadership — there was of course no anti-homosexual hostility in the Party, as homophobia was simply an unscientific prejudice of the bourgeoisie.

    So not only was he a cantankerous old queen, but also a histrionic old martyr.

  12. 12Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:46 am:

    By the way, one suggestion I already made to Zombie (via email) is that the following sentence written by Hay and signed by a half-dozen gay activists ought to be quoted in an extra-large font at the very top of this report, with the word “empowerment” emphasized:

    “NAMBLA believes the interests of young people demand not paternalistic protection, but empowerment to make real choices.” — Harry Hay, “Spirit of Stonewall” Press Release, June 1994

    *Barf*

  13. 13Shug on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:54 am:

    damn Zombie.
    nice job.

    of course, media matters is probably full of NAMBLA supporters, so they’re not going to do anything about the whole harry Hay affair.

  14. 14John on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:59 am:

    Thank you for posting this, Zombie. You make a very convincing case that goes beyond the partisanship I’ve seen online about this up till now. Jennings owes us an explanation, barring that or even depending upon what that explanation is, he should definitely lose his job.

  15. 15Starless on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:03 am:

    Here’s a logic experiment:

    “Empowerment” (More specifically “self-empowerment”)

    If you need to be “empowered” you are, by definition, powerless to begin with. There are two ways to gain power: either someone else gives you power or you have power to begin with and use it to gain more power. “Self-empowerment” therefore is fallacious.

    So who’s supposed to be doing the empowering in Hay’s world? The children, who have no power to being with, or the predators who have no interest in giving up any of their power? And I think we get to the core of the screwed up logic of this whole business: the predators have convinced themselves that their victims are willing participants at any level.

  16. 16dfbaskwill on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:33 am:

    Succinct and appreciated. Keep up the good work. The world should be rid of such evil people. Instead, our current administration is promoting them! ( At least until they tangled with a Zombie!)

  17. 17Anonymous on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:56 am:

    That was a well-thought out article. You are amazing zombie and thanks for all the good work you do!

  18. 18buzzsawmonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:03 am:

    Hay, Hay! Ho ho!
    Age of consent got to go!”

  19. 19Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:03 am:

    I think that “empowerment” isn’t a simple binary thing when you’re talking about adolescents, starless. Just as an example, a hypothetical 16-year-old who can write well enough to produce an essay that influences the opinions of adult readers may feel “intellectually self-empowered” despite not yet having the political power that comes with formal voting rights.

    In the specific case of gay teenagers, I think it’s particularly important that they feel “empowered” to identify as homosexual virgins — that is, that adults should be provisionally willing to accept a teen’s self-identity as a “homosexual” despite the fact that the teenager has not yet had any kind of “partnered” sexual activity. And the reason this is important is that until very recently, a lot of straight people had trouble wrapping their brains around the very concept of “homosexual virgins.” So a 15-year-old boy whose only sexual partner was his right hand, but who fantasized constantly about girls, was a “heterosexual virgin,” yet a 15-year-old boy whose only sexual partner was likewise his right hand, but who fantasized 24/7 about guys, was a “deeply confused heterosexual virgin.” The effect of this attitude was to make homosexual teens feel marginalized and “invisible,” and at the same time, made them easy marks for NAMBLA predators who were happy to give the kids physical validation of their homosexual feelings.

  20. 20buzzsawmonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:06 am:

    #19 Throbert: Very interesting analysis.

    Of course, the concept of the validity/desirability of virginity has been taking a major beating on the heterosexual side lo these many years.

  21. 21I blame ... the sea on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:15 am:

    I agree with comment #7. Watching zombie dribble Media Matters up and down the court is fantastic. The pwnage you hand out is rich, creamy, and deeply satisfying. Here’s a newsflash for the hopeless shills at Media Matters: if your rhetorical strains lead nowhere but towards a full attempted “defense” of a pederasty advocacy group, it is time to go home and rethink your life.

  22. 22Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:16 am:

    By the way, here’s a juicy quote from that “Spirit of Stonewall” press release that Zombie didn’t include because it was a bit off-topic — but note the left-wing cliches:

    [NAMBLA] has demonstrated in solidarity with people with AIDS, and for lesbians in custody cases. NAMBLA takes progressive positions on U.S. intervention in Central America, the military draft, reproductive rights, the death penalty, corporal punishment and racism.

    And in the paragraph that follows:

    Unless we return to the principles of Stonewall, the fate of NAMBLA today may be the fate of other “different” and “controversial” causes tomorrow.

    Got that? NAMBLA isn’t truly different and controversial; it’s just scare-quote “different” and “controversial.”

  23. 23zombie on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:19 am:

    Anybody have the nerve to send this directly to Media Matters themselves? I certainly don’t. (Because I don’t want them to glean my IP address from the email. Yes, I’m that fearful in real life.)

    If you want to take the plunge, send the link here:

    mmtips@mediamattersaction.org

    And be polite!

  24. 24zombie on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:21 am:

    buzzsawmonkey: “Hay, Hay! Ho ho!
    Age of consent got to go!”

    Ah, the old buzzsawmonkey is back! All is right with the world.

  25. 25Shug on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:24 am:

    Zombie,
    I remember you had a friend over at the Michael Savage show. Have they run with this yet?
    I haven’t tuned into his show in a few weeks so I don’t know.
    This seems right up his alley.

    after all, he was pretty tickled when Bernie Ward went down

  26. 26Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:30 am:

    buzzsawmonkey: #19 Throbert:Very interesting analysis.
    Of course, the concept of the validity/desirability of virginity has been taking a major beating on the heterosexual side lo these many years.

    No argument with that! But as one of the comments over on gaypatriot.net said in reaction to the Jennings/Hay story — “Religious conservatives pushing the True Love Waits™ message ought to push it for gay teens, too.”

  27. 27zombie on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:36 am:

    Throbert McGee:…
    Got that? NAMBLA isn’t truly different and controversial; it’s just scare-quote “different” and “controversial.”

    Yes, that 1994 press release by Hay and the Spirit of Stonewall crew is so amazing that I came this close to writing a separate post about nothing but it all by itself. Every sentence, as you point out, is worthy of analysis and deconstruction.

    Hay actually lays out a very cogent defense of “identity politics” overall, and in so doing accurately (but unintentionally) points out how identity politics inevitably and inescapably leads to intellectual justification for any and every evil just so long as it is practiced by an oppressed “minority group,” whether they be pedophiles who use postmodern buzzwords to justify their perversion, terrorists who use an ancient religion to sanctify mass murder, tribal primitives who mutilate, degrade or devalue their women,and so on. If you fully embrace the leftist identity politics grievance theater worldview, you eventually must embrace the philosophy of any and every self-defined minority group, no matter how noxious or (in the case of NAMBLA) artificially constructed.

  28. 28anti_left on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:36 am:

    Kudos !

    all the pins, nicely laid down – in perfect order

  29. 29zombie on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:41 am:

    Shug: Zombie,
    I remember you had a friend over at the Michael Savage show. Have they run with this yet?
    I haven’t tuned into his show in a few weeks so I don’t know.

    The Savage Show was kicked off the air in San Francisco and I haven’t even tried to find it since then (several months now). Even before that, his show had become boring as he descended into repetitive egotism, so I barely even noticed or cared when his home station gave him the axe. But as a result of that, I think that the person I “knew” (in an email sense) working there probably lost his job when the SF affiliate de-affiliated itself from Savage.

  30. 30Ringo the Gringo on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:47 am:

    Unfortunately, zombie, I suspect that Media Matters will thoroughly ignore your inconvenient memo.

    One of the great achievements of the Left has been their ability to render contrary arguments irrelevant by simply ignoring them.

  31. 31Lincolntf on Oct 15, 2009 at 8:59 am:

    Perfect as ever, Zombie. Not gonna find many mainstream journos doing this kind of work, that’s for sure.
    As to why Jennings and the media are pretending the story doesn’t exist, I have a guess or two. The factors I’m considering are that Obama cannot afford another failure among appointees. From tax-cheats to Truthers to just plain idiots, he’s looked really bad in that department so far. Also, I think Jennings realizes that he can’t survive any in-depth scrutiny of his career, regardless of the Hay/NAMBLA connection. Not that I think there’s anything particularly criminal/immoral in his past, just the fact that he seems so ill-equipped for the job. How will Obama justify picking “the NAMBLA guy” to be “Safe Schools Czar”? It’s rapidly becomoing clear that these “czars” are exactly what critics feared, powerful bureacrats with no guidelines beyond their own agendas.

  32. 32Starless on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:00 am:

    Throbert McGee: I think that “empowerment” isn’t a simple binary thing when you’re talking about adolescents, starless. Just as an example, a hypothetical 16-year-old who can write well enough to produce an essay that influences the opinions of adult readers may feel “intellectually self-empowered” despite not yet having the political power that comes with formal voting rights.

    But your hypothetical 16-year-old doesn’t gain this power from thin air. He or she may feel self-empowered, but that’s an illusion. I liken it to the capitalist ideal of the “self-made man”. No one is self-made.

    And the reason this is important is that until very recently, a lot of straight people had trouble wrapping their brains around the very concept of “homosexual virgins.”

    I think that reflects the evolution of ideas about the origins of homosexuality and I wonder if the gay movement did it any favors. I recall the transition from the idea of a “lifestyle choice” — something whose unintentional consequence was to spur on the pray-the-gay-away religious movement — to gayness being something you’re just born with. But, hang on, if it’s something you’re just born with, that points a big neon arrow at genetics and genetic science will eventually allow people to manipulate babies in uteru and likely change a person’s gender preference.

    The effect of this attitude was to make homosexual teens feel marginalized and “invisible,” and at the same time, made them easy marks for NAMBLA predators who were happy to give the kids physical validation of their homosexual feelings.

    This is why I think Hay’s statement is so insidious. Because the idea of empowerment is an illusion, the power involved would have to come from the adults in the relationship and that’s the last thing they’re going to allow.

  33. 33gus on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:12 am:

    You have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that Media Matters is wrong.

    THEY DON’T CARE.

    To LIBTARDS, there is no RIGHT or WRONG. They are right, you are wrong. A normal person or organization that was honest and had people of character and principle would acknowledge EXACTLY how right you are. LIBTARDS do not have character nor princple. If they did, they wouldn’t be LIBTARDS.
    Your deconstruction of MEDIA MATTERS nonsense will not change their minds. They loved TED KENNEDY too.

  34. 34buzzsawmonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:19 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    No argument with that! But as one of the comments over on gaypatriot.net said in reaction to the Jennings/Hay story — “Religious conservatives pushing the True Love Waits™ message ought to push it for gay teens, too.”

    There’s probably a joke in there somewhere about “True Love Weights™! Just hang them on and lengthen while you’re waiting!” But it might possibly be considered in poor taste.

    Returning to your actual observation, I think it’s a good one.

  35. 35Dianna on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:39 am:

    Well done, zombie.

    One thing you might want to do is move Hay’s position to the top.

  36. 36Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:49 am:

    zombie:
    Yes, that 1994 press release by Hay and the Spirit of Stonewall crew is so amazing that I came this close to writing a separate post about nothing but it all by itself.

    If you ever decide to write a post about it, you might want to check out the wiki bios for two of the other signatories besides Hay — namely Pat Califia and Scott O’Hara. Califia, who’s probably the best-known after Hay, is of interest mainly for her/his apparent determination to live as every single letter in the GBLTQ alphabet soup.

    O’Hara was a pr0n star who wrote well enough to attain a degree of gay-respectability as an editor/publisher of erotica, and had this to say about NAMBLA: “When I was 12 and 13 years old I would have joined NAMBLA in a minute, because I knew I was gay and I wanted to go out and get laid.”

    Maybe I wasn’t quite as precocious as O’Hara, but by the time I was 14, at the latest, the notion of having sex with a good-looking man 15 or 20 or even 25 years older than me was a very exciting idea, and something I very much wished for. Unlike O’Hara, I’m wise enough to understand that maybe I was much better off for not having gotten this wish at 14 — instead, I endured five agonizing years of “celibacy” (assuming that non-stop masturbation counts as celibacy) before finally wading into the waters of Sex shortly after my 19th birthday.

  37. 37VioletTiger on Oct 15, 2009 at 9:55 am:

    Great job Zombie. Thorough, as usual.

  38. 38doppelganglander on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:00 am:

    As always, an impeccably documented takedown of leftist liars. Thank you, zombie, for going straight to the source and exposing the truth.

  39. 39Dianna on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:09 am:

    #36 Throbert McGee –

    As always, your ability to illuminate this issue with personal perspective is great. Thanks for speaking up.

  40. 40Russkilitlover on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:10 am:

    Excellent work, zombie! The rebuttals are so thoroughly presented it’s like you did, like, research, and stuff.

    Maybe Hannity will steal…er…mention… your piece on his show. The fact that this guy is still in the czar position and keeping a low profile is disgusting.

  41. 41RoboMonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:24 am:

    The fact that this guy is still in the czar position and keeping a low profile is disgusting.

    It’s called “on the down-low”…

  42. 42Anonymous on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:28 am:

    [...] you have now put your own reputation on the line [...]

    LOL!

    Zombie, you are too funny. Anyway, keep up the good work!

    Forget the lizard with the little worm in his ear (that’s gross anyway). Anonymity is your right, and as others have pointed out, it is also a condition with which the legacy media has no qualms about citing. Also, you do not come across as megalomaniacal as has been suggested, at least not to me.

    Cheers

  43. 43RoboMonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:31 am:

    If Kevin Jennings wants to maintain his political viability, he needs to retract his earlier words, and “throw Harry Hay under the bus,”

    If/when Kevin Jennings himself ends up “under the bus”, then maybe we also need to throw under whoever is selecting and not inspecting these czar choices. Either that or, y’know, drop the whole czar BS in the first place and return to Congressionally-approved Cabinet positions that actually have legal and Constitutional authority.

  44. 44Incognito on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:33 am:

    buzzsawmonkey: “Hay, Hay! Ho ho!Age of consent got to go!”

    LOL

  45. 45Incognito on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:36 am:

    Dianna: #36 Throbert McGee – As always, your ability to illuminate this issue with personal perspective is great. Thanks for speaking up.

    I agree! It is good to have a feedback from someone of similar persuasion to make sure that this is not a case of homophobia. It is a case of pedophilia and support for pedophilia. And that is for a Safe School Czar position!

  46. 46stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:41 am:

    zombie: The Savage Show was kicked off the air in San Francisco and I haven’t even tried to find it since then (several months now). Even before that, his show had become boring as he descended into repetitive egotism, so I barely even noticed or cared when his home station gave him the axe. But as a result of that, I think that the person I “knew” (in an email sense) working there probably lost his job when the SF affiliate de-affiliated itself from Savage.

    KNEW 910 became the new home of Savage’s show. I really can’t stand to listen to it for very long, because his schtick grates on my nerves, so I listen to Mark Levin (if I am in the car between 3 and 6 PM Pacific time). Levin has an annoying radio persona too, but he’s got the intellectual chops to back it up.

  47. 47stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:42 am:

    RoboMonkey: If/when Kevin Jennings himself ends up “under the bus”, then maybe we also need to throw under whoever is selecting and not inspecting these czar choices. Either that or, y’know, drop the whole czar BS in the first place and return to Congressionally-approved Cabinet positions that actually have legal and Constitutional authority.

    Wouldn’t that “whoever” be the President himself?

  48. 48stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:43 am:

    Throbert McGee: If you ever decide to write a post about it, you might want to check out the wiki bios for two of the other signatories besides Hay — namely Pat Califia and Scott O’Hara. Califia, who’s probably the best-known after Hay, is of interest mainly for her/his apparent determination to live as every single letter in the GBLTQ alphabet soup.

    LBGTQQi, if you please.

  49. 49stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:44 am:

    stuiec: LBGTQQi, if you please.

    Sorry: LGBTQQi. Transposition error.

  50. 50stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:49 am:

    By the way, at what point does Media Matters’ defense cross over from defending Jennings to defending NAMBLA? That is, at what point must we construe their defense of Jennings as a defense of NAMBLA?

  51. 51RoboMonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:49 am:

    stuiec:
    Wouldn’t that “whoever” be the President himself?

    Given how long it took Obama to select a DOG, I’m assuming he has some assistance here. Someone’s compiled a list and/or is whispering names in his ear.

  52. 52Lincolntf on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:54 am:

    Looks like 53 Republicans are trying to force the issue. No mention of Hay/NAMBLA in their letter, but they do mention my main objection to the guy, specifically his lifelong focus on sexual politics in elementary and secondary schools (to the seeming exclusion of everything else).

    Here’s the link from Drudge, probably already been posted.

  53. 53stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:55 am:

    I forwarded a link to this post over to James Taranto at WSJ’s Best of the Web blog. Given that he routinely ridicules Media Matters as “MediaMutters,” I think he may be interested.

  54. 54Lincolntf on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:56 am:

  55. 55stuiec on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:00 am:

    Lincolntf: Looks like 53 Republicans are trying to force the issue. No mention of Hay/NAMBLA in their letter, but they do mention my main objection to the guy, specifically his lifelong focus on sexual politics in elementary and secondary schools (to the seeming exclusion of everything else). Here’s the link from Drudge, probably already been posted.

    Maybe it’s a rope-a-dope. Maybe they want the reaction, “Oh, you’re just a bunch of homophobes — Jennings is our guy all the way,” to which they can then responde with the Hay/NAMBLA connection.

  56. 56Starless on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:01 am:

    Throbert McGee The effect of this attitude was to make homosexual teens feel marginalized and “invisible,”

    One more thing on this: all adolescents feel marginalized and invisible, and I wonder what it is that makes a gay teen’s feelings of invisibility any more painful than, for example, the straight kid who is socially awkward. I knew people in high school who have subsequently attached themselves to identity politics in one way or another. I’ve seen them make statements about how personally oppressive the culture treated them as adolescents. As far as I could tell, they weren’t treated any worse than anyone else in their peer groups, in fact, some of them were quite popular and considered special for their unique attributes. I also knew people who had every reason in the world, including actual discrimination, who have emphatically not latched onto identity politics.

    The difference is that the former group believed/were talked into believing that the most important thing in the world was their feelings. That what they experienced as adolescents was victimization — that a verbal slight was the same as a punch in the face and that they could place the responsibility for their internal life onto other people. This is fundamental to what people like Hay advocate.

  57. 57Iceweasel's Toilet Plunger on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:08 am:

    stuiec: By the way, at what point does Media Matters’ defense cross over from defending Jennings to defending NAMBLA? That is, at what point must we construe their defense of Jennings as a defense of NAMBLA?

    whenever we wish. Hell, look at “disputed, but it has not been proven false” as the new guidleine.

  58. 58RoboMonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:09 am:

    Starless: One more thing on this: all adolescents feel marginalized and invisible…

    Yeah! Where you I get my “Victimhood Get Out Of Jail Free” card?

  59. 59RoboMonkey on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:10 am:

    Yeah! Where do I get my “Victimhood Get Out Of Jail Free” card?

  60. 60Lincolntf on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:10 am:

    stuiec:
    Maybe it’s a rope-a-dope.Maybe they want the reaction, “Oh, you’re just a bunch of homophobes — Jennings is our guy all the way,” to which they can then responde with the Hay/NAMBLA connection.

    I assume this letter will be widely ignored. But if someone on the Left is stupid enough to respond, I hope like heck the Repubs react exactly like you say.
    Maybe even get Zombie’s name read into the Congressional Record…

  61. 61Starless on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:13 am:

    stuiec:
    Maybe it’s a rope-a-dope.Maybe they want the reaction, “Oh, you’re just a bunch of homophobes — Jennings is our guy all the way,” to which they can then responde with the Hay/NAMBLA connection.

    I wouldn’t count on them being that smart.

    RoboMonkey: Yeah! Where do I get my “Victimhood Get Out Of Jail Free” card?

    Sorry, you don’t have the right attitude, so you don’t get one.

  62. 62Lincolntf on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:32 am:

    As of right now, FoxNews.com is the only media outlet with the “Jennings letter” story running (that I can find). Not surprising, maybe, but I’m dying to see who will be the first Lib media outlet/member to bring it up. I really don’t see any way out for Jennings if this story breaks open. All the minimizations/justifications/softball questions in the world won’t be able to mask the nature of the man’s career.

  63. 63Emmie on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:34 am:

    A psychologically healthy adult could give you a long list of things teenagers would like to do, and could even argue for the right to do, which they really shouldn’t be doing at that age. Sex is on the list, along with driving right now, voting, alcohol, getting a tattoo, opening their own credit cards, getting their own apartments, and so on and so on until you just send them to their room to get some peace and quiet.

    To make correct decisions, we need life experiences (this used to be called wisdom), and that needs time. Youth are vulnerable to making really stupid mistakes that they will deeply regret later.

    There’s just something wrong about having to explain why adults and youth/children should not be having sex. Something seriously messed up that it even needs to be debated.

  64. 64Dane on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:49 am:

    Great stuff Zombie.

    Very much enjoying your posts also, Throbert. You have put a lot of thought into these matters and are bringing a perspective that (unfortunately) is not terribly common in these circles.

  65. 65Formercorpsman on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:32 pm:

    That is quite a bit to absorb. I always find reading these topics 2 or 3 times really puts into perspective, the root problem.

    The one aspect in all of this, which really does not fly with me, is how can so many people within these circles claim not have some inclination as to the machinations of people like Hay. It seems nearly impossible, especially given the facts presented in this work by Zombie.

    Honestly, how many times can someone claim the usavory words or actions of those close to them were not the person they knew?

    From the jump, it is a house of cards. It would be impossible to not know, and if they are truly unaware, do we want them in positions of power to begin with?

    Very deep stuff Zombie.

  66. 66Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:53 pm:

    Starless:
    One more thing on this: all adolescents feel marginalized and invisible, and I wonder what it is that makes a gay teen’s feelings of invisibility any more painful than, for example, the straight kid who is socially awkward.

    Nowadays, there’s much less justification for a gay teen to feel more invisible than any other adolescent does– but that’s because the phenomenon of kids “coming out” in 9th grade or younger has gone from being a vanishing rarity to a “yeah, we get it already” talk-show cliche in the space of just a couple decades.

    But Kevin Jennings was born in 1963, meaning he was a high schooler in the 1970s. If adolescent homosexuality was discussed at all when Jennings was a teenager squirming through a Sex Ed unit in Health class circa 1978, what he might have heard was that it was “perfectly normal” to have same-sex crushes during adolescence, but that such phases were nothing at all to be concerned about, because people outgrow them and grow up to be happily married heterosexuals — even Ann Landers says so! Which is fantastic advice if you’re a hetero-leaning bi who’s struggling with needless guilt over occasional homo urges. But not so fantastic if you have very strong homo attractions and you’re sitting around wondering when they’re gonna go away and be replaced by normal hetero desires, like Ann Landers promised. At that point, you start to feel really, painfully, uniquely “invisible,” because you can’t find anything at the library that describes your situation, nor do you see anyone remotely like you on ABC, CBS, NBC, or even PBS!

    Needless to say, things have changed radically and mostly for the better, so that today there’s very little reason that a gay teen would be feeling that sense of isolation — instead, gay teens can go online and find warped, exploitative, pr0nographic presentations of homosexuality just as quickly and easily as straight teens can find gross heterosexual imagery! ;-) More seriously, the vast majority of educated heterosexual adults (and even less-educated ones) now take for granted that a small percentage of people figure out their homosexuality as early as puberty, without having been “turned gay” by a molester or whatever. In short, American society today generally understands that gay teens are sometimes going to pop up spontaneously like dandelions regardless of race or religion or class background, and there’s not a damned thing anyone can do about it, so you might as well learn to love the dandelions as long as they don’t turn out to be far more noxious weeds with no redeeming qualities.

    However, a lot of gay activists like Kevin Jennings are still thinking in terms of their own adolescent years, and thinking, “I don’t want today’s gay teens to go through the hell of loneliness and rejection that I went through — good thing that Obama made me the Safe School Czar, so that I can rescue gay teens from all that.”

    Trouble is, teenage homos aren’t nearly in need of “rescue” as they used to be — or at least, whatever teenage problems they might have, homosexuality has ceased to be a Deep Dark Shameful Secret that no one must ever, ever know. So at that point, the programs that Kevin Jennings champions start to become less about making it safe to be a homosexual teen, and more about turning garden-variety homosexuals into members of the LGBTQ Political Tribe.

  67. 67Dianna on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:01 pm:

    #66 Throbert –

    Kevin Jennings is my age, almost exactly. I grew up in a small town, and there were (trust me) openly gay kids in high school. No one beat them up – I suffered more bullying than they.

    By 1975, sex ed shrugged over homosexuality.

  68. 68Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:12 pm:

    Dianna: I grew up in a small town, and there were (trust me) openly gay kids in high school.

    Hmmm. Would you characterize these kids, overall, as “gender-conforming”?

  69. 69Mats on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm:

    Argh! Those pesky facts again!

  70. 70Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:44 pm:

    My hunch is that the openly gay kids Dianna remembers were gender non-conformists in a SUPER-DUPER way — if boys, they were fffuh-LAME-ing, squealing, limp-wristed faggity fags, or if girls, they were diesel-powered bull-dagger dykes.

    I know for sure that any openly gay boys at Dianna’s school weren’t on the football team, because otherwise Corey Johnson wouldn’t have made the newspapers in 2000.

  71. 71zombie on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:51 pm:

    #66 Throbert McGee

    Extremely important comment! Everybody, if you scrolled past #66 because it looked too long, go back and read it again, because Throbert makes some crucial points.

    I’ve now read Jenning’s autobiography as well as several anthologies he’s put together consisting of tales of woe from gay adults recalling how they were traumatized by sadistic teachers and fellow students back in the Bad Old Days of the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. And it became quite apparent that, yes, exactly as you posit, this whole “stop kids from bullying gay kids” drive which Jennings spearheads is nothing more than him reliving the trauma over and over again of being called “sissy” in 8th grade, and vowing to get revenge on those bullies, even if it take decades — his whole life, if necessary. But as you also point out, the era of institutionalized prejudice against gay teens is school is long long gone, so far it can’t even really be seen in the rear-view mirror any more. But Jennings refuses to admit that, and goes on a crusade battling against demons that are now mostly just dusty old museum exhibits in the History of Meanies gallery.

    Which is why, as I’ve noticed, all the up-and-coming gay teen activists whose vapid “stories” are recounted in many of these anthologies always seem to concoct completely phony-sounding tales of abuse from Redneck America, as if they were repeating a script. Mysteriously, even teens that attend all-gay high-schools in Manhattan inevitably get called “Fag” by abusive teachers with crewcuts and then get beaten up and raped in the bathroom by self-denying closeted gang-members. Because WE’RE ALL SO OPPRESSED!

    As for my sex-education classes in school — well, I’m loathe to reveal anything about my age, location or gender, but I will say without getting too specific that even in the quite “progressive” and sex-positive school district where I attended school there was no mention of “orientation” at all, neither positive or negative. No one presumed that kids needed to get some sort of permission slip or validation from the grownups to exhibit whatever identity they wanted. The classes were like, here’s the biology, here’s how the various parts work, here’s how to use a condom, don’t use drugs. Done. There was also an unspoken but very strongly felt assumption on everyone’s part that the kids were vastly more knowledgable about sex and experimentation than the fuddy-duddy old teachers, and that we were all going through the motions of sex education only because we were required to by law; but everyone knew that all the kids in the class were having sex and/or masturbating like crazy and knew everything there was to know already, while the dried up old prune of a teacher not only hadn’t had sex in decades but even when she did it ws so long ago that orgasms hadn’t even been invented yet. So she had nothing to impart. This absurd modern notion that kids can only acquire knowledge of their sex parts from a septuagenarian in a classroom is completely ridiculous. And as you point out, the existence of Internet now makes that presumption infinitely more absurd, since kids can not only look at porn, they can look at innumerable more “educational” sites that explain anything they’d want to know in explicit detail.

    I object to the very notion of schools existing to prop up the self-esteem of students in the first place. Just teach ‘em facts, and let them learn about harsh realities of life the old-fashioned way — through personal experience.

  72. 72Zimriel on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:51 pm:

    26 Throbert, yeah, that was me who cited “true love waits” in gaypatriot. I’m that bad of a troll.

    I meant it though…

  73. 73Dianna on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:02 pm:

    Throbert McGee:
    Hmmm. Would you characterize these kids, overall, as “gender-conforming”?

    I’m not sure how to answer that. One boy just didn’t seem to care; too good a musician to pay much attention to how he was “supposed” to behave. One boy was very “swishy” ; another was so sharp-witted that he was very popular. One girl was very punk, another very withdrawn.

    I wasn’t exactly “gender conforming” myself, however straight I am, so I don’t think I’m a good choice to answer that.

  74. 74Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:04 pm:

    But Jennings refuses to admit that, and goes on a crusade battling against demons that are now mostly just dusty old museum exhibits in the History of Meanies gallery.

    Generally I don’t believe in quoting someone’s post just to add nothing more than “LOL,” but:

    LOL, ROFLMAO!

  75. 75Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:22 pm:

    Zimriel: 26 Throbert, yeah, that was me who cited “true love waits” in gaypatriot. I’m that bad of a troll.I meant it though…

    Zimriel: Bless you for saying it, because it’s an incredibly important message.

  76. 76Dane on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:24 pm:

    I can’t help but laugh at the variety in the trackback article headlines.

  77. 77Incognito on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:33 pm:

    zombie: Extremely important comment! Everybody, if you scrolled past #66 because it looked too long, go back and read it again, because Throbert makes some crucial points.Just teach ‘em facts, and let them learn about harsh realities of life the old-fashioned way — through personal experience.

    Well said Zombie!

  78. 78Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:48 pm:

    zombie:
    Extremely important comment! Everybody, if you scrolled past #66 because it looked too long, go back and read it again, because Throbert makes some crucial points.

    Hmmm. You know, I’m “between opportunities” right now, and it occurs to me that in addition to registering with temp agencies, I ought to be sending a résumé to Kevin Jennings — because darn it, as long as he remains the “Safe School Czar,” he would really benefit from having a sharp-eyed Administrative Assistant who could save him from the embarrassment of appearing to be either an incompetent researcher or a secret pedophile.

  79. 79Syrah on Oct 15, 2009 at 2:50 pm:

    Throbert McGee:
    Hmmm. You know, I’m “between opportunities” right now, and it occurs to me that in addition to registering with temp agencies, I ought to be sending a résumé to Kevin Jennings — because darn it, as long as he remains the “Safe School Czar,” he would really benefit from having a sharp-eyed Administrative Assistant who could save him from the embarrassment of appearing to be either an incompetent researcher or a secret pedophile.

    You might have a better chance at replacing him.

    Better you in that spot then Jennings.

  80. 80Throbert McGee on Oct 15, 2009 at 3:00 pm:

    Syrah:
    You might have a better chance at replacing him.Better you in that spot then Jennings.

    Well, I’m younger and cuter, at least.

  81. 81Starless on Oct 15, 2009 at 4:27 pm:

    Throbert McGee:
    Nowadays, there’s much less justification for a gay teen to feel more invisible than any other adolescent does– but that’s because the phenomenon of kids “coming out” in 9th grade or younger has gone from being a vanishing rarity to a “yeah, we get it already” talk-show cliche in the space of just a couple decades.

    I think of it in terms of the transition from “tolerance” to “celebration”. I lived through the mid-80s Midwest in high school and it certainly wasn’t okay to be “out”. If you were a boy and weren’t an athlete you could be certain you would be called a “faggot” more than once. It may have been a little easier for girls, but you daren’t go too far looking too butch or androgynous lest people start speculating. The real gay culture was underground and quite active–the gay kids know who they were and dated each other but it was all fairly secretive. That being said, no one ever got beat up or, as was more often the case, duct taped to a tree for being gay (except one guy, but he was duct taped to a tree for being a dick and very few people knew he was gay until he became a murderer after high school).

    The bullies picked on people for being different and this is where the business of “tolerance” v. “celebration” comes in. Was it worse to be called a “faggot” if you were gay or if you were straight? If tolerance is what we’re looking for, then both are equally bad and equally hurtful, but if celebrating difference is what’s important, then it’s the former.

    My conclusion is admittedly biased by experience in a particular time and place, but it seems to me that things were pretty much equally shitty for everyone. Gay, straight, black, white, Oriental, burn-out, nerd, brainiac, misfit–it didn’t matter because you could be equally certain that someone was going to try to screw with you based on some aspect of your person over which you had no control. So when I hear tales of woe which don’t involve actual physical harm or exploitation, I think, “That’s too bad that that happened to you, but welcome to humanity.”

    zombie:
    There was also an unspoken but very strongly felt assumption on everyone’s part that the kids were vastly more knowledgable about sex and experimentation than the fuddy-duddy old teachers, and that we were all going through the motions of sex education only because we were required to by law; but everyone knew that all the kids in the class were having sex and/or masturbating like crazy and knew everything there was to know already, while the dried up old prune of a teacher not only hadn’t had sex in decades but even when she did it ws so long ago that orgasms hadn’t even been invented yet.

    Well, yeah. It’s common knowledge that each new generation invents sex in a way which is far more interesting and exciting than any previous generation ever could have imagined. We’re not even sure how they managed to make babies in the first place.

  82. 82tower on Oct 15, 2009 at 5:11 pm:

    I went thru high school and college in the 70′s and early 80′s in small town areas. If there was a gay culture, and there were probably was, it simply wasn’t talked about, other than a quiet acknowledgement that it existed. My best man at my wedding was gay. It was obvious–he never dated girls. None of us thought it necessary to bring it up, and he never really officially came out. He simply was who he was.

  83. 83Beckaholic on Oct 15, 2009 at 5:21 pm:

    I was so naive in high school in the late 70′s, I had some friends who were in the theater dept (how cliche’) that were gay but I didn’t realize it for probably close to 10 years after that. It just wasn’t something anybody talked about where I lived, either.

  84. 84Scott on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:21 pm:

    Yea Zombie! Once again, destroying the lies that are rampant with organizations like Media Matters. They aren’t afraid of you…yet.

    I find it ironic (and somewhat irrelevant) that Charles Johnson was responsible for my awaremess of zombietime. Now I find his hatred of anything right wing (as he once did with Daily Cos crazies) distasteful. I’m not much for the radical right, either, but the truth is refreshing when you can find it.

    Thanks for being an oasis in the desert of disinformation.

  85. 85Beckaholic on Oct 15, 2009 at 7:44 pm:

    Hannity just said that 53 House Republicans have written a letter asking for Jennings to be fired.

  86. 86pat on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:11 pm:

    Z. He likely was a sissy. I remember being called something like that once. War Broke Out.

  87. 87That Guy on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:21 pm:

    +1 for Godwin’s Law.

  88. 88Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 5:16 am:

    tower: I went thru high school and college in the 70’s and early 80’s in small town areas.If there was a gay culture, and there were probably was, it simply wasn’t talked about, other than a quiet acknowledgement that it existed.My best man at my wedding was gay.It was obvious–he never dated girls.None of us thought it necessary to bring it up, and he never really officially came out.He simply was who he was.

    In the ’80s there was still some hang-over from the Summer of Love but the Moral Majority was on the rise so it was a weird kind of Twilight Zone era. It was a big deal to be openly gay, yet tolerance was a by-word at the time. I think that time really started to expose the lie of Big Media–that somehow they were at the bleeding edge of culture and The People had to be led to the path of liberal, multicultural righteousness. Like making a big deal out of women having to make the achingly painful choice between having a career and having babies (having a career was always the right choice). From where I was observing, in the world of non-fiction characters, there wasn’t much of a choice. If you needed the money, you worked regardless of whether you had kids or not.

    If anything, Big Media and even niche-y hip culture was behind the curve.

  89. 89Finally Free on Oct 16, 2009 at 8:11 am:

    OT: The search for the Wikipedia libelist is delivering some results.

    “The quotes were added by a user with the IP address of 69.64.213.146. This address has been used mostly to make changes to the article about Rush, but also Karl Rove, Sean Hannity,.. James Dobson and Sara Palin from 2005 until earlier this year.

    “While others have noted this in various forums, no one seems to have made the connection that this IP address is used as a gateway by the law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP (see here, for example) that all users from that IP address come from the pbwt.com domain.)”

  90. 90zmdavid on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:04 am:

    Zombie, it looks like someone else is infringing on your turf! (I’m sure you don’t mind)
    I saw this at Gateway pundit – Obama Holds Fundraiser in San Francisco– Massive Tea Party Breaks Out
    The guts of the report are a link to The City Square blog.

  91. 91Ringo the Gringo on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:38 am:

    67Dianna,

    I’m the same age as Jennings too.

    I went to High School from 79-83 and there were at least five openly gay students at my school. Three of them are still friends of mine more than 25 years later. I do remember them getting harassed a bit by a few students, but for the most part they were popular students with many friends.

    Of course I went to school in an upper-middle-class suburb of Los Angeles, which probably made a difference.

  92. 92Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 am:

    Ringo the Gringo: Of course I went to school in an upper-middle-class suburb of Los Angeles, which probably made a difference.

    A difference how?

  93. 93Incognito on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:58 am:

    I just love the discussions here! Much better than “there”!!

  94. 94Throbert McGee on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:20 am:

    Starless:
    Gay, straight, black, white, Oriental, burn-out, nerd, brainiac, misfit–it didn’t matter because you could be equally certain that someone was going to try to screw with you based on some aspect of your person over which you had no control.

    One thing to keep in mind, though, is that straight kids have never had Ann Landers telling them that their opposite-sex attractions are “just a phase”; fat kids have never had the experience of looking around the crowd in the school hallway and thinking I wonder who else is fat besides me — what if I’m the only one in the whole school?; black kids have never had their problems compounded by the ever-present nagging fear of What’ll happen if Mom and Dad find out that I’m black?!; and nerds have never had to endure preachers on TV suggesting that nerdiness is an affliction that can suddenly strike normal kids when they go away to college and fall under the sway of secular humanist professors.

    I’m not saying that the experiences of gay teens are totally unique, mind you — obviously, straight kids who happen to be adherents of an unpopular minority religion have to deal with the angst of whether to be “closeted” or not, and straight kids who find themselves preggers have to go through “what’ll Mom and Dad say?!”, and so forth.

    Starless:
    So when I hear tales of woe which don’t involve actual physical harm or exploitation, I think, “That’s too bad that that happened to you, but welcome to humanity.”

    I prefer: “Suck it up and deal.”

  95. 95Ringo the Gringo on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:24 am:

    92Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 9:54 am:

    A difference how?
    —————————-

    Judging from some of the comments here, as well as the stories of others that I know; small towns and rural areas can be pretty rough for gay kids, as well as other misfits. Living near – or in a major city – where teenagers are exposed to many different kinds of people tends to breed a more tolerant attitude, don’t you think?

    At the high school I attended in the very early 80′s, punk and “new wave” music were quite popular. Many of us drove into Hollywood on the weekends and went to parties or clubs at a time when bands like Culture Club and Soft Cell where at their peak. The punk scene at the time also had a strong “gay” element and was very trendy at my school. I don’t think this was the case in small town Nebraska. I could be wrong.

  96. 96Gyvon on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:53 am:

    drop the whole czar BS in the first place and return to Congressionally-approved Cabinet positions that actually have legal and Constitutional authority.

    We need to hang on to at least one of them if we go that route (National Security Advisor). The National Security Adviser needs to stay for obvious reasons, but the job requirement should be changed so that the advisor must be a career intelligence officer (at least 10 years in CIA, NSA, or DIA).

  97. 97Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:55 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    I’m not saying that the experiences of gay teens are totally unique, mind you — obviously, straight kids who happen to be adherents of an unpopular minority religion have to deal with the angst of whether to be “closeted” or not, and straight kids who find themselves preggers have to go through “what’ll Mom and Dad say?!”, and so forth.

    Point taken. The trouble I have is with the idea that there’s necessarily a qualitative difference between types of internal pain. That to me is central to identity politicking–who can claim to have been hurt more and who gets first and highest bid on being aggrieved?

    I prefer: “Suck it up and deal.”

    Heh.

    Ringo the Gringo:Judging from some of the comments here, as well as the stories of others that I know; small towns and rural areas can be pretty rough for gay kids, as well as other misfits. Living near – or in a major city – where teenagers are exposed to many different kinds of people tends to breed a more tolerant attitude, don’t you think?

    I think it’s really, really situational. There was a real economic and social (though not so much racial) cross-section in my high school and I found that the most judgemental bastards were the upper middle class kids. If you have more money, you have more time on your hands to worry about who’s doing what to whom and what they were wearing at the time. I’ve lived in the ‘burbs, the city, and the country and I’ve found in all places that acceptance really depends on upbringing. If you’re a jerk, you’re going to be a jerk to pretty much everyone regardless of what they are. In the country, it may not be as socially acceptable to be an “out” gay person as it is in the city, then again, it’s not acceptable for a straight couple to sit in the town park and engage in blatant acts of PDA. It all depends on whether you’re willing to fit into the community or not and generally what you do in the privacy of your own home is your business.

    and Soft Cell where at their peak. The punk scene at the time also had a strong “gay” element and was very trendy at my school. I don’t think this was the case in small town Nebraska. I could be wrong.

    In the early ’80s? Probably not. I lived in the ‘burbs around that time and when I came home with a “spiked” hair-do my mom shrieked. She was half-joking, but half-not-joking, too.

  98. 98Throbert McGee on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:30 am:

    Starless:
    Point taken. The trouble I have is with the idea that there’s necessarily a qualitative difference between types of internal pain. That to me is central to identity politicking–who can claim to have been hurt more and who gets first and highest bid on being aggrieved?

    On this, I’m in total agreement — the “I’m more victimized than thou” shit is just stupid. And of course, even if gay teens have (or used to have) certain “external sources of angst” that were peculiar to being a gay teen, it doesn’t necessarily mean that their “internal pain” was more severe than what straight teens had to deal with.

  99. 99Throbert McGee on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:34 am:

    As an alternative to “Suck it up and deal” — or the military version, “Embrace the suck!” — there’s always “Mary, please attempt to butch the fuck up.”

  100. 100Throbert McGee on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:44 am:

    Meanwhile, over on gaypatriot.net, some yo-yo’s confusion of “pederasty” and “buggery” led me to respond:

    Erm, who said anything about “buggery”? The question has been whether Jennings supports (or condones or excuses or rationalizes) sex between adult men and young teenage boys.

    But now that you’ve mentioned buggery — I find myself wondering what would happen if Jennings were to publicly express admiration for Bill Weintraub?

    Weintraub being the granddaddy of the “Frot Movement,” and also a cantankerous, personally disagreeable, and sometimes foul-mouthed disparager of anal sex, referring to its practitioners as “buttboys” and “shit fairies” and whatnot.

    Mind you, he’s never called for the re-criminalization of anal sex, but has merely urged (in his own rude and rather fanatical way) that gay men should go on being gay and enjoying mutual j/o and “frot” and blowjobs, while voluntarily abstaining 100% from anal sex, which he regards as disease-spreading and emasculating.

    On the other hand, despite being a pre-Stonewall gay activist and having impeccable left-wing credentials, Weintraub has never, ever been an apologist for Man/boy sex — the worst he’s done is to have spent a decade or longer on his “Just Say No to Buggery” crusade, admittedly with very salty language directed towards gay men who disagree with him.

    But I can guarantee you that he’s far more of a radioactive pariah within the Gay Establishment than Harry Hay ever was!

    (Note: the linked “frot” article at wiki has a small, NC-17 cartoon illustration depicting the practice — it’s probably work-safe, but isn’t child-safe.)

  101. 101zombie on Oct 16, 2009 at 2:09 pm:

    Throbert McGee: (Note: the linked “frot” article at wiki has a small, NC-17 cartoon illustration depicting the practice — it’s probably work-safe, but isn’t child-safe.)

    You don’t need to warn people or apologize or give “NSFW” notices on zomblog. This entire site is already classified as “XXX” by most corporate filtering programs, and is blocked at most large workplaces, due to my numerous “Nude Bike Rides,” “Breasts Not Bombs,” inflated scrotum guys, Folsom Street Fairs, tranny marches, and so on. Hell, in my report itself I link numerous times to the NAMBLA site. Aside from maybe snuff porn, goatse, or Enumclaw equine antics, there’s not much you can link that’s worse than what I’ve already done.

  102. 102EdB on Oct 16, 2009 at 2:44 pm:

    Zombie, while straight, I love your site with your images of the idiocy and depravity of the left. Great stuff!

    But …

    Please stop supporting Mr. Jennings. Mr. Jennings will be toast before this month is out. Period, full stop.

    It won’t matter at all whether he knew about or supported Harry Hay, because Mr. Jennings is a supporter of gay indoctrination in elementary schools. His speeches and writings on the subject tell all that American families need to know to demand his removal. He will be removed very quickly, Harry Hay or not. Maybe the Harry Hay information makes his removal very, VERY quickly, but the die is cast and Jennings will be shown the door. And good riddance to the creep.

    You’re on the wrong side of this, sir. A ‘Safe Schools’ Czar simply cannot advocate for Queering of the elementary schools in the USA (or anywhere else). Ain’t gonna happen.

    Your research into this most recent political disaster for this lamentable administration and the Hay connection work you have done, is -very- admirable, but the gay movement hurts itself big-time by not rising with one voice, RIGHT NOW and demanding this freak’s removal.

    Unless, of course, you feel Jennings is correct….

    If you do, when the details of this prima facie case for hatred by everyday people of every gay in the USA and the -true- agenda of homosexuals gets even more widely known, via the net, etc., then you, the current gay activists, will be responsible for setting your movement’s support back to the 50′s or 60′s .

    Don’t say you weren’t warned. If you break your movement by your pig-headedness, you have no one to blame but yourselves. OK?

    A VERY fine site, otherwise. Thanks.

    Ed

  103. 103Ringo the Gringo on Oct 16, 2009 at 3:30 pm:

    I knew I’d regret it if I Googled the word “goatse”.

  104. 104Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 3:37 pm:

    Ringo the Gringo: I knew I’d regret it if I Googled the word “goatse”.

    Uh, yeah. Now you’ll have to burn your own eyes out.

  105. 105zombie on Oct 16, 2009 at 3:42 pm:

    Ringo the Gringo: I knew I’d regret it if I Googled the word “goatse”.

    Now you must put away chidish things, for you have become a man.

    Googling the word goatse means losing your innocence. A painful right of passage, but at least now the healing can begin.

  106. 106Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 3:51 pm:

    zombie:
    Now you must put away chidish things, for you have become a man.Googling the word goatse means losing your innocence. A painful right of passage, but at least now the healing can begin.

    Years and years ago a friend of mine told me that there was this web site I just had to see and, foolishly, I trusted him and went there. That’s when I saw goatse and the image is still burned into my brain. Then he tried to talk me into looking at Tub Girl–I wasn’t gonna fall for that one.

  107. 107zombie on Oct 16, 2009 at 4:40 pm:

    102 EdB:
    Please stop supporting Mr. Jennings. Mr. Jennings will be toast before this month is out. Period, full stop.

    Don’t say you weren’t warned. If you break your movement by your pig-headedness, you have no one to blame but yourselves. OK?

    That’s got to be the most interesting comment on this thread.

    I take it, from trying to interpret what you wrote, that you believe I am a left-wing gay activist who is “supporting” Kevin Jennings?

    First of all, there is a big difference between advising Kevin Jennings to take the right course, and supporting his ideology. While in theory I support the concept of clamping down on playground bullying, in practice I understand fully that Kevin Jennings has no real interest in 95% of bullying and only cares about bullying related to the victims’ nonstandard expression of femininity/masculinity. I know he is a left-wing ideologue promoting divisive “identity politics” and the creation of yet another grievance-based victim group where none existed before. And I understand perhaps better than anyone that he’s all in favor of indoctrination, while I myself oppose all forms of indoctrination, whatever the topic.

    But you ought to close your eyes and think a little deeper about the Jennings situation. Hoping for/predicting his ouster is not the preferred course of action. I offer Jennings a way out knowing full well that he can’t possibly take that way out. In the years since 1997, Harry Hay’s reputation has only risen further and further, to the point now where he has become an official hero of the gay movement and by extension the entire Left. October 8 was “Harry Hay Day” of GLBT month, which was celebrated in countless schools across the country. Advocacy groups provided materials to teachers for kids to read, praising Hay to the skies. Jennings can no more throw Hay under the bus than the NAACP can cast aspersions on MLK. Jennings is wedded to the concept of Hay, because he’s wedded to the concept of gay iconography.

    As a consequence, I can call for Jennings to publicly denounce Hay all day long, secure in the knowledge that he’ll never be able to actually do it. Which puts Jennings in a double-bind. Meanwhile, as part of my advice, I can point out over and over that Hay was a NAMBLA-ite, as a way of convincing Jennings to “do the right thing.” Which, of course, he can never do.

    What this means is that we’ve got a guy in the Obama administration who has radioactive eau de NAMBLA on him. And he can’t shake it off. (I’ve made sure of that.) Which means that the Obama administration itself has a droplet of eau de NAMBLA on its sleeve. And the only way to get rid of it is to get rid of Jennings himself.

    Now, apparently, shortsighted people such as yourself think it would amount to some kind of “victory” if Jennings got showed the door. But I see it the complete opposite way. Jennings is not the point here. Obama is the point. I want Obama to be saddled with the burden of a NAMBLA connection in his administration, which will seriously drag him down and lower the average American’s opinion of him. But if Obama wisely sacks Jennings, then he will have gotten rid of the problem.

    Jennings’ presence in the White House is like a gift on a silver platter for those who want to hinder Obama’s agenda. It’s hard to imagine a more toxic person bringing more discredit onto the administration. In truth, the “Safe Schools Czar” is mostly a toothless position, and Jennings can only encourage local school districts to do this or that; he lacks the power to actually mandate anything. Education in the U.S. is mostly a state-by-state and district-by-district affair, not something directly controlled by the federal government. And thus it would be better to have a known indoctrination advocate with a terrible public image in that czar role than some invisible bureaucrat enacting the exact same indoctrination more subtly (and hence more effectively).

    I plan to keep advising Jennings to impossibly “do the right thing,” while continuing to pile on the documentation of his unsuitability for the job. Eventually something’s got to break, and I hope it breaks in 2012 when the voters toss out Obama due to the unsavory people with which he has surrounded himself.

  108. 108Ken on Oct 16, 2009 at 5:18 pm:

    That’s when I saw goatse and the image is still burned into my brain.

    Quoth a friend of mine regarding goatse:

    “Damn…you could put a baseball bat in there…”

    I think that’s an accurate observation.

  109. 109Ringo the Gringo on Oct 16, 2009 at 5:56 pm:

    zombie,

    “Googling the word goatse means losing your innocence. ”

    I’ve been trying to hang on to any last remnants of innocence that I may still unknowingly posses.

    …I didn’t need to see that.

  110. 110CattusMagnus on Oct 16, 2009 at 5:57 pm:

    #107 Zombie,

    October 8 was “Harry Hay Day” of GLBT month, which was celebrated in countless schools across the country. Advocacy groups provided materials to teachers for kids to read, praising Hay to the skies.

    What? WHAT?!
    Harry Hay Day? Couldn’t they replace him with Oscar Wilde or something?
    I must be living under a rock because I’ve never heard of GLBT month. Is this a Bay Area thing?

  111. 111zombie on Oct 16, 2009 at 6:09 pm:

    CattusMagnus: #107 Zombie,
    What?WHAT?!
    Harry Hay Day?Couldn’t they replace him with Oscar Wilde or something?
    I must be living under a rock because I’ve never heard of GLBT month.Is this a Bay Area thing?

    No, I’m sorry to say: Harry Hay Day is a nationwide thing:

    Harry Hay Day, Ocober 8.

    GLBT Month is celebrated in schools coast to coast. Funding-rich advocacy groups provide resources to teachers to make exhibits, school lessons, etc.

    According to Throckmorton,

    In 2006, for the launch, there were 20 GLBT History Month collaborating organizations with a link on their Web sites. In 2009, over 600 collaborating organizations have the link, making GLBT History Month the largest collaborative project worldwide for our community. High school GSA’s, youth groups, colleges, and community centers are creating GLBT History Month exhibits.
    Corporate workplace groups – including Aetna, Hallmark, McDonald’s, Monsanto, New York Life, and Pepsi - are utilizing GLBT History Month resources to promote diversity.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Harry Hay Day eventually becomes a national holiday, or at least state-wide holiday in some states (Like Cesar Chavez Day in CA, etc.).

  112. 112zombie on Oct 16, 2009 at 6:14 pm:

    If buzzsawmonkey was around, he might point out that we’re in the Hay Day heyday.

  113. 113Beckaholic on Oct 16, 2009 at 6:22 pm:

    Hay Day Heyday. Heh.

  114. 114Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 7:23 pm:

    Ken:
    Quoth a friend of mine regarding goatse:“Damn…you could put a baseball bat in there…”I think that’s an accurate observation.

    Oh, Gawd! Oh, Gawd! MAKE IT STOP!!

  115. 115Starless on Oct 16, 2009 at 7:25 pm:

    zombie:
    Ocober 8.GLBT Month is celebrated in schools coast to coast. Funding-rich advocacy groups

    Didn’t the infamous “fisting” question from a student come up in the context of some GLBT Month presentation?

  116. 116Bolero on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:18 pm:

    Gosh! You guys’ discussion led me to curiosity and googling…well I wish I didn’t….people actually do those things?? And for what reason???

  117. 117Throbert McGee on Oct 16, 2009 at 10:39 pm:

    zombie:
    No, I’m sorry to say: Harry Hay Day is a nationwide thing:Harry Hay Day, October 8.

    Reposting something I wrote on gaypatriot.net:

    In addition to supporting pederasty (either because he was a pederast himself, or because he was a nostalgic former catamite, or possibly both), and also being an actual Communist, Hay also seemed to be pretty enamored of the Victorian-era Urning / “third sex” model of male homosexuality, as evidenced by his tendency to find elevated spiritual significance in effeminacy, drag, and camp.

    In other words, Hay’s personal vision of “gayness” enthusiastically celebrated and promoted the notions that

    (1) we homosexual men enjoy diddling boys, and that
    (2) we’re political subversives, and that
    (3) we’re essentially women trapped in men’s bodies

    …all stereotypes that many modern gay men (including, I assume, Mr. Jennings) have expended quite a lot of energy in combating. And yet Hay is canonized, instead of being called a dinosaur!

  118. 118zombie on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:08 pm:

    Starless:
    Didn’t the infamous “fisting” question from a student come up in the context of some GLBT Month presentation?

    I don’t really know. I haven’t followed the “fistgate” story in the slightest, so I don’t know much about it. Also, the only things I know about the “Brewster” scandal are what I’ve read on other sites. (Though, in a bizarre coincidence, just a few minutes ago I was listening to De La Soul’s version of “Three is the Magic Number” and it contains these lyrics):

    Casually see but don’t do like the Soul
    ‘Cause seein’ and doin’ are actions for monkeys
    Doin’ hip hop hustle, no rock and roll
    Unless your name’s Brewster, cause Brewsters are Punky
    Parents let go ’cause there’s magic in the air

    Weird, hunh?

  119. 119Throbert McGee on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:13 pm:

    Following up on my previous comment — I might have added that Harry Hay was also a radical “gay separatist” and arguably also a “gay supremacist,” although both of these are outgrowths of point (3), namely the notion that gay men are in some way a “third sex,” rather than being plain ol’ men who happen to be located at one of the two extremes of a “bisexual continuum.”

    I encourage everyone to read that link to the wiki article about “Urnings,” aka “Uranians” — although hardly anyone remembers these 19th-century terms anymore, their spirit lingers on. Inside the Gay Male Community, it’s still more or less heretical to suggest that drag queens (and exaggerated, campy effeminacy by men not actually in drag) are perhaps backwards and dinosaurish and even misogynist, and also perhaps bad for the psychological health of homosexual men.

  120. 120Bolero on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:26 pm:

    Throbert McGee: I encourage everyone to read that link to the wiki article about “Urnings,” aka “Uranians”

    Thanks throbert for the lead…I did not know anything about the Uranians…interesting. And the classification of different types of sexuality.

  121. 121CattusMagnus on Oct 16, 2009 at 11:48 pm:

    Thanks Zombie. You’re a wealth of information. If I may be so bold, the whole GLBT month is a sham. Look at the 31 individuals they picked for each day: they’re all contemporary super-activists. Harry Hay? K.D. Lang? Gus Van Sant? Not that there is anything wrong with the later two, but when I think of great homosexuals throughout history, I don’t think of K.D. Lang or the guy who directed Good Will Hunting. I wasn’t kidding about Oscar Wilde. I think he’s fantastic. And they choose to highlight Lang and Van Sant over Tchaikovsky or Alexander the Great? If the people behind GLBT month really wanted to illustrate to children contributions that GLBT people have made to the world they would say, “Hey kids, ever heard of The Nutcracker? That was totally done by a gay guy. And remember that thing called the Greek Empire? All conquered by a bi guy. Leonardo Da Vinci? Virginia Woolf? Nope they weren’t straight!” These people made history. Why not take the time to showcase them? Because they’re taking advantage of a captive audience to sell politics and radicalism.

  122. 122Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 12:14 am:

    Starless:
    Didn’t the infamous “fisting” question from a student come up in the context of some GLBT Month presentation?

    Not exactly — the event was a public-school-sponsored Sex Ed event, officially for students in the 14-21 age group, and all participating students were kids who had already “come out” as gay and were there with parental approval. Unfortunately, that’s about all one can say in defense of the fiasco — that it was an opt-in event for kids whose parents already knew of their homosexuality and gave them permission to attend. But I suspect a lot of parents regretted giving that permission, because the adult presenters showed appalling judgment in answering student-initiated questions, including the one about fisting.

    Anyway, here’s a page with a synopsis of ”Fistgate”, including links to audio recordings and partial transcripts. The page itself is overtly anti-homosexual, and so it’s possible that some of the transcribed dialogue would be a little less shocking if read in full context rather than the partial transcript. On the other hand, some of the dialogue is utterly beyond mitigation and no amount of “context” could make it less disgusting.

  123. 123zombie on Oct 17, 2009 at 12:20 am:

    CattusMagnus: Thanks Zombie.You’re a wealth of information.If I may be so bold, the whole GLBT month is a sham.Look at the 31 individuals they picked for each day: they’re all contemporary super-activists.
    …Because they’re taking advantage of a captive audience to sell politics and radicalism.

    Yesterday was Rachel Maddow Day.

    ‘Nuff said.

  124. 124Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 12:34 am:

    Z, plz ck email, kthxbye.

  125. 125Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 2:50 am:

    Here’s some of that open-minded, non-judgmental dialogue about fisting (see the link in #122), with my emphases added:

    The first [student-written] question was… “What’s fisting?”

    A student answered this question by informing the class that “fisting” is when you put your “whole hand into the ass or pu$$y” of another. When a few of the students winced, the Department of Public Health employee offered, “A little known fact about fisting: you don’t make a fist like this. It’s like this.” He formed his hand into the shape of a tear drop rather than a balled fist. He informed the children that it was much easier.

    Margot Abels told the students that “fisting” is not about forcing your hand into somebody’s “hole, opening or orifice” if they don’t want it there. She said that “usually” the person was very relaxed and opened him or herself up to the other. She informed the class that it is a very emotional and intense experience.

    At this point, a youngster of about 16 asked why someone would want to do that. He stated that if the hand were pulled out quickly, the whole thing didn’t sound very appealing to him. Margot Abels was quick to point out that although fisting “often gets a really bad rap,” it usually isn’t about the pain, “not that we’re putting that down.” Margot Abels informed him and the class that “fisting” was “an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with.”

    My response to Ms. Abels: If fisting “usually isn’t about the pain” (NTTAWWT!), this is because the person getting fisted usually self-anesthetizes with various recreational drugs: “poppers” (i.e., the inhaled fumes from alkyl nitrites), pot, and good old alcohol; and also hardcore stuff like crystal meth. That fisting is nearly always* “chemically assisted” obviously wasn’t mentioned by the “safer sex counselors,” or else the transcript would’ve made a screaming headline out of it. So in other words, there’s a blatant lie of omission here among the “frank and unprejudiced factual information” from the safer-sex presenters.

    I’ll also point out that the provable link between the fisting subculture and recreational substance abuse seems to me like it would’ve been a perfect excuse for the “professional educators” to not discuss fisting with their teenage audience. Instead, they talked about it in some considerable detail, but just forgot to mention that red-hanky, right-pocket guys are quite often high as a kite when they voluntarily take someone else’s forearm into their rectum.

    *Or so I surmise — I have zero personal experience with the practice, but I’ve seen it discussed often enough on gay male talk forums, and the commonplace use of drugs during fisting is spoken of with complete candor. (Especially with regard to poppers and pot, which carry little or no social stigma in gay circles — on the other hand, crystal meth is often shrouded in euphemisms, though one quickly learns to decipher these.)

  126. 126Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 3:48 am:

    Also at the page with the “Fistgate” transcripts — the page author editorializes:

    This demonstrates clearly the two differing world views between heterosexual and homosexual sex. Homosexual sex forces homosexuals to attempt to beautify what is repugnant and bizarre. The ugliness of mixing sex and violence is best revealed through the world of sado-masochism – S/M. S/M goes hand in hand with homosexuality.

    The author is writing from an unabashedly anti-gay position, of course. But the unabashedly pro-gay, anti-anal activist that I mentioned above, Bill Weintraub, uses rather similar language in arguing that anal intercourse is by its very nature a mild form of S&M, because the “bottom” always experiences at least some minor and transitory pain during initial entry. (Even after becoming practiced enough to avoid severe pain and/or injury.) And Weintraub thus argues that the gradual but inexorable mainstreaming of S&M and fisting among gay men and in gay pr0n are the logically predictable outcomes of the gay subculture’s insistence that a practice inevitably associated with minor pain can nonetheless be completely “vanilla” and “not kinky.”

    Therefore, Weintraub’s opposition to anal is only partly about minimizing HIV risk; even if space aliens landed tomorrow with a totally safe and effective vaccine against HIV and all other STDs, he’d still argue that gay men should cease to treat anal sex as “vanilla,” and at the very least recognize it as “mildly kinky and slightly taboo,” because it is linked with physical pain/discomfort and psychological dominance/submission in a way that mutual masturbation and fellatio are not. (Of course, fellatio CAN involve dom/sub role-playing, but it can also be simultaneously mutual and egalitarian. But there just ain’t no such thing as “anal 69″.)

    With that said, one might make the reasonable retort that Weintraub somewhat exaggerates the drawbacks of what-what-in-the-butt for his own polemic purposes — after all, men who want to have anal sex with each other can minimize the STD risk with condoms; they can minimize the pain by doing it slowly and gently and with plenty of lubricant; they can minimize the “non-egalitarian” dom/sub aspect by taking turns in the insertive and receptive roles. But in actual practice, gay pr0n frequently emphasizes the bottom’s physical discomfort/pain, reinforces the strict top/bottom hierarchy, and even exalts the suicidally unsafe act of “barebacking.” And the kneejerk response that Weintraub’s anti-buttfucking crusade gets from the gay community is “But, but, but — lots and lots of heterosexuals are into anal sex, too!” While, at the same time, treating Weintraub himself as a radioactive pariah, as I said above.

  127. 127Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 4:50 am:

    CattusMagnus: Thanks Zombie.You’re a wealth of information.If I may be so bold, the whole GLBT month is a sham.

    Just for the record, I personally prefer “GBLTQ” — not for politically-correct reasons, but because you can expand it to “Guacamole, Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato Quesadilla” (yum!).

  128. 128Starless on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:13 am:

    CattusMagnus: And they choose to highlight Lang and Van Sant over Tchaikovsky or Alexander the Great?

    This is just an observation: there seems to be a tendency for the gay activist community to push style over substance. One glaring example I saw of this was in the early ’90s. A friend of mine was in college at the time and she told me about someone she knew who was “questioning”. I had to have her explain to me what the vague term “questioning” meant. Shortly after that, there was another person “questioning”, and then another, and then another, and it started to sound like a fad to me–as though these people were all really just looking for attention. After a while, it becomes a case of people crying wolf.

    On the flip side of emphasizing pop stars and movie people as great gay icons, there was the fad of trying to make dubious claims. Abe Lincoln was gay because he used the adjective “purple”? Are you fucking kidding me?

    Throbert McGee:
    But I suspect a lot of parents regretted giving that permission, because the adult presenters showed appalling judgment in answering student-initiated questions, including the one about fisting.

    Some enterprisingly evil student should have sat with a laptop open to UrbanDictionary and rattled off questions. “Could you demonstrate a Rusty Fishhook for us? And what’s the best position for giving someone a pair of Arabian Sunglasses?”

  129. 129Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 7:16 am:

    I had to have her explain to me what the vague term “questioning” meant.

    I think it’s somewhat akin to being “1/64 Navajo” — essentially impossible for someone else to conclusively disprove, but carrying no particular practical advantage even if it’s true. However, if there’s absolutely nothing else interesting about you, at least you can say “Please do not mistake me for a supporter of The Man’s hetero-industrial complex — I’m Questioning.” Or to put it another way, if you’re totally straight, AND you’re so ridiculously “progressive” and spineless and easily-manipulated that you feel guilt-stricken after reading through this Heterosexual Privilege&trade checklist, then “Questioning” may be the perfect identity for you!

    (Incidentally, a quick Google shows that you must be able to prove at least 1/4 Navajo ancestry in order to be “legally Navajo” — each Indian nation/tribe has its own rules for this, but it’s officially one-quarter as far as the Navajos are concerned — with all the fabulous prestige and privileges that entails. So being 1/64 is fairly useless, unless you’re a louche humanities professor who’s trying to get tenure and bang grad-school chicks.)

  130. 130Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 7:17 am:

    I had to have her explain to me what the vague term “questioning” meant.

    I think it’s somewhat akin to being “1/64 Navajo” — essentially impossible for someone else to conclusively disprove, but carrying no particular practical advantage even if it’s true. However, if there’s absolutely nothing else interesting about you, at least you can say “Please do not mistake me for a supporter of The Man’s hetero-industrial complex — I’m Questioning.” Or to put it another way, if you’re totally straight, AND you’re so ridiculously “progressive” and spineless and easily-manipulated that you feel guilt-stricken after reading through this Heterosexual Privilege™ checklist, then “Questioning” may be the perfect identity for you!

    (Incidentally, a quick Google shows that you must be able to prove at least 1/4 Navajo ancestry in order to be “legally Navajo” — each Indian nation/tribe has its own rules for this, but it’s officially one-quarter as far as the Navajos are concerned — with all the fabulous prestige and privileges that entails. So being 1/64 is fairly useless, unless you’re a louche humanities professor who’s trying to get tenure and bang grad-school chicks.)

  131. 131Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 7:17 am:

    Oops, didn’t mean to double-post.

  132. 132EdB on Oct 17, 2009 at 7:42 am:

    Zombie, you are absolutely supporting Jennings. If you give the guy tips and strategies to dig his ass out of the hole his entire career and thought process has dug for him, well, yes, D’OH, you’re supporting him.

    You believe that if somehow Hay could be explained away by the scumbag Jennings, then maybe he could ‘survive’ this little problem he has. You actually believe that its OK for you to advise Jennings on what to do, yet not ‘really’ support him. BS. Where I come from, we call that ‘support’.

    You sound silly, sir, unless you think Jennings should be the Safe Schools Czar..

    Do you?

    a) If so, why?

    b) If not, why are you posting ideas on how he might escape his problems?

    Its one or the other, Zombie. Which is it? A or B.

  133. 133Starless on Oct 17, 2009 at 8:03 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    I think it’s somewhat akin to being “1/64 Navajo” — essentially impossible for someone else to conclusively disprove, but carrying no particular practical advantage even if it’s true.

    Hah! Well, when I suggested that these people may have less than sincere motives for “questioning”, I was quickly told how close minded I was being. How could I possibly question these people’s questioning?

    (Incidentally, a quick Google shows that you must be able to prove at least 1/4 Navajo ancestry in order to be “legally Navajo” — each Indian nation/tribe has its own rules for this, but it’s officially one-quarter as far as the Navajos are concerned — with all the fabulous prestige and privileges that entails. So being 1/64 is fairly useless, unless you’re a louche humanities professor who’s trying to get tenure and bang grad-school chicks.)

    Funny you should mention that. I know someone whose father is American Indian and whose mother is just about as blonde European as it’s possible to be. Naturally, she self-identifies as American Indian and has built a fairly nice writing career out of it.

    The privilege you get when you go with identity-politicking is a built-in community. And if your tribe has a successful casino, your built-in community can provide more and better jobs for each other.

  134. 134Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 8:17 am:

    Some enterprisingly evil student should have sat with a laptop open to UrbanDictionary and rattled off questions. “Could you demonstrate a Rusty Fishhook for us? And what’s the best position for giving someone a pair of Arabian Sunglasses?”

    Har!

    I’m actually a bit surprised that (apparently) none of the students asked about “felching,” and whether adult gay guys actually do it. (That term was in wide currency as A Gross Thing That Fags Do back when I was in high school in the late ’80s. But I don’t recall anyone ever talking about fisting — at least they didn’t until I stumbled across a paperback compilation of The Straight Dope, upon which I eagerly reported back to my friends, “Guys, you’re NOT going to believe this, but some homosexuals actually stick their fists up each other’s assholes… [flipping through pages] …although this guy says that the gerbiling thing is just a myth.”

  135. 135EdB on Oct 17, 2009 at 8:18 am:

    Zombie, I just re-read your post and strategy and I guess I understand your goal. I dunno.

    Sounds pretty wacked to me to drag out the expulsion of Jennings until 2010, or 2012, God forbid
    but, its your site, of course, and you are free to speak your mind..

    I’m just an old guy, Goldwater/Buchanan/Buckley, small-l libertarian, old-school conservative and I guess what passes for ‘conservatism’ today has simply passed me by.

    I never thought, in America, I would see a site such as yours do anything but call this motherfucker Jennings out for the scumbag he is. But, I’m not queer, either, and my encounter with your queer views about this issue on your forum, not the excellent photo work you do, made my already small-l libertarianism shrink a whole lot and now it’s so small I can’t find it anymore. I’m right-wing now, dude. No more live and let live.

    I’ve NEVER said anything like this before, but as a veteran, a great-grandfather of 6 children, I’ll work -every- day of the amount left to me to oppose homosexuality and this agenda in -any- form.

    I have to do it.

    I never cared all that much about the gay issue before, but when you politically, and glibly and physically fuck around with the minds of the little kids in our country, you stepped over _my_ personal line.

    I’m sure Andrew knows your agenda. Does Michelle and FR and Red State? Politico? AllahP? Charles?

    I am REALLY disappointed. I won’t be back, so feel free to delete my posts, whatever. Your site just entered my hosts file’s exclusions, so I won’t be accidentally be linked back here by another ‘conservative’ site.

    Fuck you.

    I’m a dot.

  136. 136Anonymous on Oct 17, 2009 at 8:36 am:

    have ya’ll seen this, funniest damn thing on the interwebs

    Bite Me comics

    Chuck Johnson Race Detective

    http://racedetective.blogspot.com/2009/10/chuck-johnson-race-detective-vol-i.html

  137. 137Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 9:16 am:

    EdB: But, I’m not queer, either, and my encounter with your queer views about this issue on your forum, not the excellent photo work you do, made my already small-l libertarianism shrink a whole lot and now it’s so small I can’t find it anymore.

    Just take a Cialis, have a soak in the hot-tub, and I’m sure your “libertarianism” will pop up bigger and firmer than ever.

  138. 138zombie on Oct 17, 2009 at 9:20 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    Just for the record, I personally prefer “GBLTQ” — not for politically-correct reasons, but because you can expand it to “Guacamole, Bacon, Lettuce, and Tomato Quesadilla” (yum!).

    When the radical gay groups inexplicably joined the anti-war movement in the 2003-7 era, I liked to refer to them as GLBTQQQ :
    Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgender, Questioning Queer Quislings.

  139. 139Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 9:38 am:

    zombie: You don’t need to warn people or apologize or give “NSFW” notices on zomblog. This entire site is already classified as “XXX” by most corporate filtering programs, and is blocked at most large workplaces, due to my numerous “Nude Bike Rides,” “Breasts Not Bombs,” inflated scrotum guys, Folsom Street Fairs, tranny marches, and so on.

    Well, that’s a good point. But I still like to give “parental advisories” when linking from an all-text thread to a site that has any kind of imagery in the “R to NC-17″ range, even if it’s just a thumbnail view of a rather tame line drawing that’s miles away from being photorealistic, as in the case of that “two men frotting” illustration on wikipedia — because I’ve been scolded in the past by moms who read blogs with toddlers on their lap, for not giving them fair warning when linking to pictures that might involve awkward explanations to young’uns.

  140. 140zombie on Oct 17, 2009 at 9:44 am:

    EdB: Zombie, you are absolutely supporting Jennings. If you give the guy tips and strategies to dig his ass out of the hole his entire career and thought process has dug for him, well, yes, D’OH, you’re supporting him.
    You believe that if somehow Hay could be explained away by the scumbag Jennings, then maybe he could ’survive’ this little problem he has. You actually believe that its OK for you to advise Jennings on what to do, yet not ‘really’ support him. BS. Where I come from, we call that ’support’.
    You sound silly, sir, unless you think Jennings should be the Safe Schools Czar..
    Do you?
    a) If so, why?
    b) If not, why are you posting ideas on how he might escape his problems?
    Its one or the other, Zombie.
    Which is it? A or B.

    It’s “A.” Yes, I want Jennings to remain as “Safe Schools Czar,” for the exact reasons stated in my original reply:
    First, that it’s a toothless position so that he can’t really do any more harm where he currently is than he was doing as the head of GLSEN;
    and second, because he already has become (and will become even more in the near future) a political liability for Obama. So all Jennings ends up being is an albatross around Obama’s neck. His very presence in the administration is a strategic disaster for Obama; it takes away time and energy from O getting his agenda done; it gives his opponents another legitimate reason to criticize him; it creates a general sense of distrust and unease on the public’s part about Obama’s staff; and Jennings’ presence will hurt Obama’s chances for re-election in 2012. Obviously, there are many other political factors at play, but if the “Jennings Factor” can knock a few percentage points off Obama’s vote totals, then that may be all that was needed to swing the election, which is once again bound to be very close.

    You don’t have to agree with me–that’s fine. You might have another political strategy in mind. But if you truly are an implacable enemy of Jennings, then perhaps you should thank me for being the one to dig up the dirt on him, rather than criticize me for the manner in which I present that dirt.

    Other bloggers can play “bad cop.” In this situation, I’m comfortable playing “good cop.” And besides, and most importantly of all: It doesn’t matter what my “motivation” is for my investigations or style of presentation, nor does it matter if I’m gay, nor does it matter if I have some esoteric political strategy: The evidence stands on its own and cannot be debunked. Lastly: I strongly suspect that you are a troll trying to goad me into saying something anti-gay, who will then turn around and throw that in my face in some futile attempt to discredit the evidence I bring forth. Sorry, dude: Ain’t gonna happen. ‘Cause I’m not anti-gay, or even anti-Jennings. I’m just anti-Obama.

  141. 141zombie on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:02 am:

    EdB: Zombie, I just re-read your post and strategy and I guess I understand your goal. I dunno.Sounds pretty wacked to me to drag out the expulsion of Jennings until 2010, or 2012, God forbid
    but, its your site, of course, and you are free to speak your mind..I’m just an old guy, Goldwater/Buchanan/Buckley, small-l libertarian, old-school conservative and I guess what passes for ‘conservatism’ today has simply passed me by.
    I never thought, in America, I would see a site such as yours do anything but call this motherfucker Jennings out for the scumbag he is. But, I’m not queer, either, and my encounter with your queer views about this issue on your forum, not the excellent photo work you do, made my already small-l libertarianism shrink a whole lot and now it’s so small I can’t find it anymore. I’m right-wing now, dude. No more live and let live.I’ve NEVER said anything like this before, but as a veteran, a great-grandfather of 6 children, I’ll work -every- day of the amount left to me to oppose homosexuality and this agenda in -any- form.
    I have to do it.
    I never cared all that much about the gay issue before, but when you politically, and glibly and physically fuck around with the minds ofthe little kids in our country, you stepped over _my_personal line.
    I’m sure Andrew knows your agenda. Does Michelle and FR and Red State? Politico? AllahP? Charles?I am REALLY disappointed. I won’t be back, so feel free to delete my posts, whatever. Your site just entered my hosts file’s exclusions, so I won’t be accidentally be linked back here by another ‘conservative’ site.Fuck you.I’m a dot.

    Whatever, dude.

    I’m still a laissez-faire “social libertarian,” and I have no problem with people doing whatever the hell it is they want to do in their private lives behind closed doors.

    You want to fuck men, women, pepperoni pizzas, electrical sockets or an inflatable ducky? Be my guest, People can stick their dicks wherever they want. What concern is it of mine?

    You want to worship Jesus, Satan, Allah, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Barack Obama, or John Frum? Have at it. Go to town. Again: What’s it got to do with me?

    But AS SOON as you cross the line and start telling me or my family what to do, or indoctrinating children, or forcing your private practices into the public sphere: It’s a whole different ballgame. Then I switch from being a social libertarian to being your worst nightmare.

    Sorry you can’t grasp that. If there’s some aspect to my site you find distasteful, then you are free to avoid it if you so choose. Good luck.

  142. 142Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:09 am:

    zombie: Yes, I want Jennings to remain as “Safe Schools Czar,” for the exact reasons stated in my original reply:
    First, that it’s a toothless position so that he can’t really do any more harm where he currently is than he was doing as the head of GLSEN;

    I think the primary harm Jennings is doing is in being a “gay recruiter.”

    However, I don’t mean “gay recruiter” in the mythical (and homophobic) sense of someone who converts people who were previously 100% heterosexual into flaming limp-wristed pooftahs. I mean, rather, as I said above in my comment #66, that Jennings wants to turn “garden-variety homosexuals” (and bisexuals) into loyal “members of the LGBTQ Political Tribe.”

  143. 143Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:44 am:

    That’s when I saw goatse and the image is still burned into my brain. Then he tried to talk me into looking at Tub Girl–I wasn’t gonna fall for that one.

    There’s one that’s a trillion times worse — I won’t say the name of it, but it involves a naked Russian man, his anus, and a glass jar that’s about as thick around as a (very thick) penis, yet much more brittle.

    Compared to THAT, lemonparty is a refreshing and even wholesome palate-cleanser. It’s just some naked dudes gettin’ off together in a very “vanilla” three-way — Mr. A and Mr. B french-kiss, while Mr. C sucks Mr. B’s dick.

    (Oh, and all three men are quite over 70.)

  144. 144Starless on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:51 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    Har!
    I’m actually a bit surprised that (apparently) none of the students asked about “felching,” and whether adult gay guys actually do it. (That term was in wide currency as A Gross Thing That Fags Do back when I was in high school in the late ’80s.

    Ah, man, I had forgotten about felching. Thanks so much for reminding me…

    “Guys, you’re NOT going to believe this, but some homosexuals actually stick their fists up each other’s assholes… [flipping through pages] …although this guy says that the gerbiling thing is just a myth.”

    The Urban Dictionary used to be an awesome source of complicated-gross-sexual-things-thought-up-by-fratboys. People in the real world can get into some pretty weird stuff, but the more complicated and extreme they sound, the less likely they are to be true. When I first heard of the Dirty Sanchez, I immediately recoiled in horror but then I thought about it and placed it in the “urban legend” column. I mean, seriously, who besides Eric Cartman would do something like that?

  145. 145Starless on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:52 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    There’s one that’s a trillion times worse — I won’t say the name of it, but it involves a naked Russian man, his anus, and a glass jar that’s about as thick around as a (very thick) penis, yet much more brittle.
    Compared to THAT, lemonparty is a refreshing and even wholesome palate-cleanser. It’s just some naked dudes gettin’ off together in a very “vanilla” three-way — Mr. A and Mr. B french-kiss, while Mr. C sucks Mr. B’s dick.
    (Oh, and all three men are quite over 70.)

    The worldwide web is a horrible, horrible place. Tim Berners-Lee should be ashamed of himself.

  146. 146Lincolntf on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:15 am:

    I think that Jennings has no business being “Safe Schools Czar”. The fact that he’s yet to denounce Hay pretty much tells me how he feels. He admires the man. The man is known only for his sexual-political views, ergo Jennings admires those views. What else about Hay could possibly have “inspired” him? His fashion sense?
    I could find a more suitable candidate for the job in any school system in the country.

  147. 147Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:25 am:

    Lincolntf:
    What else about Hay could possibly have “inspired” him? His fashion sense?

    “Does this I Walk With NAMBLA T-shirt make my tummy look fat? Be honest, now…”

  148. 148stuiec on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:32 am:

    zombie: Gay, Lesbian, Bi, Transgender, Questioning Queer Quislings.

    What’s up with the little “i” (for “Indeterminate”)? What the hell?

    They did an episode of the tv show Bones where the team had a visiting Japanese scientist working with them, and the visitor made sure to dress, groom and behave in a totally gender-ambiguous way. Finally at the end of the episode, the “brash bisexual” woman on the team gave the visitor a full-body hug to say farewell, and was able to report back that HE was very happy to receive it.

  149. 149stuiec on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:52 am:

    What I want to know more about is Jennings’s involvement with ACT UP. ACT UP is not necessarily a “kiss of death” thing because it’s a decentralized organization whose various chapters have widely divergent policies. But if Jennings was in a chapter that was really radical, that would be a big deal for me, as the most radical ACT UP activists were very damaging to the effort to stop the spread of HIV (opposing drug company R&D on the basis of unreasonable profit, agitating against HIV testing, promoting bizarre theories of the disease).

    Apparently Jennings’s partner has confirmed that Jennings was involved with ACT UP, but I wonder which chapter and to what extent.

  150. 150jd on Oct 17, 2009 at 1:01 pm:

    Outstanding work Zombie. I am wondering why the Obama administration wants even a whiff of support for Nambla to fall under their watch. Even if Jennings comes out and pulls back his implied support for Nambla he is still tarnished. And another feather in Obama’s crown. There is no reason to give nambla an iota of legitimacy.

    Interesting that these old stories are identifying pedophilia with gay and then arguing about the association. The modern lit I have come across says that usually Pedophiles are hetero. Or not gay. Maybe something is being lost in the political translation of these affairs.

  151. 151jd on Oct 17, 2009 at 1:08 pm:

    EdB turn in your internet card. You are not mature enough to navigate it’s tides.

  152. 152stuiec on Oct 17, 2009 at 1:31 pm:

    Throbert McGee: “Does this I Walk With NAMBLA T-shirt make my tummy look fat? Be honest, now…”

    And that’s the perfect opening to create the connection to a previous thread with this Chebama T-shirt.

  153. 153Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 1:37 pm:

    stuiec: What I want to know more about is Jennings’s involvement with ACT UP. ACT UP is not necessarily a “kiss of death” thing because it’s a decentralized organization whose various chapters have widely divergent policies.

    You’re right that his ACT UP involvement is unlikely to be politically damaging, but to me it’s one more reason why the man is a thoroughly mediocre role model for gay teens and for young people in general — unless he has the wisdom AND the balls to say, “Ya know, I was pretty proud of my ACT UP involvement at the time… but in hindsight, most of ACT UP’s efforts were at best a triumph of style over substance, and at worst were stupid and juvenile and counter-productive.” But of course he will never, ever say that.

  154. 154Manny on Oct 17, 2009 at 2:20 pm:

    Zombie:
    Does it bother you that Jennings was a member of Act Up? Do you think Act Up was OK, but NAMBLA not? Or that J bought his position at Educ Dept by fundraising for O’bama (incl hostintg O at an event in J’s own home)?
    See report & videos at
    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/kevin_jennings/act_up/index.html

  155. 155Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 2:30 pm:

    CattusMagnus: If I may be so bold, the whole GLBT month is a sham. Look at the 31 individuals they picked for each day: they’re all contemporary super-activists. Harry Hay? K.D. Lang? Gus Van Sant? Not that there is anything wrong with the later two, but when I think of great homosexuals throughout history, I don’t think of K.D. Lang or the guy who directed Good Will Hunting. I wasn’t kidding about Oscar Wilde. I think he’s fantastic. And they choose to highlight Lang and Van Sant over Tchaikovsky or Alexander the Great?

    Cattus, I went and checked out the “GLBT History Month” page. If you go to their Archives link — Tchaikovsky and Alexander the Great were mentioned in previous years (going back to 2006), along with Cole Porter and Michelangelo and Florence Nightingale and Alan Turing. On the other hand… no wuv yet for Florence King, or Tammy Bruce, or Jack Donovan, or Bill Weintraub.

  156. 156CattusMagnus on Oct 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm:

    Starless:
    The worldwide web is a horrible, horrible place. Tim Berners-Lee should be ashamed of himself.

    Don’t you mean that Al Gore should be ashamed of himself?

  157. 157Ken on Oct 17, 2009 at 5:17 pm:

    it involves a naked Russian man, his anus, and a glass jar

    Saw it once, was horrified by it (the blood! the blood!), and never looked at it again.

    The Internet should be banned.

  158. 158Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:11 pm:

    Starless: But, hang on, if it’s something you’re just born with, that points a big neon arrow at genetics and genetic science will eventually allow people to manipulate babies in utero and likely change a person’s gender preference.

    I suppose it’s possible that in the year 2525, a blue-collar pregnant woman will be able to buy an encapsulated swarm of gay-gene-deleting nanobots OTC at her neighborhood space-pharmacy, for about the price of a Soylent Green Big Mac at space-McDonalds. But until that day comes, the kind of genetic manipulation you’re describing is going to be expensive and invasive and quite likely to cause a spontaneous miscarriage 1 out of 3 times. So while a small percentage of parents-to-be who are both wealthy and homophobic may try to “fix” their gay fetus, the vast majority of the proles won’t bother.

    So I, for one, certainly ain’t losing sleep over the possibility that us homos might become an “endangered species” within my lifetime (and I’m hoping that between cyborg replacement parts and plenty of vitameatavegamins, I’ll be able to make it to at least the mid-22nd century, albeit as a shriveled, hideous affront to God and Nature who’s more machine than man, but who still loves wrapping my vat-grown, surgically-grafted neo-lips around a dude’s kielbasa).

  159. 159Throbert McGee on Oct 17, 2009 at 6:36 pm:

    Speaking of gays in the year 2525:

    This deftly edited clip from Star Trek: The Next Generation is pretty dang funny.

    (Although the absolute best in the YouTube series is “Episode 16: PicArt” — the quick cuts from Data to the horse and back to Data and back to the horse just about asphyxiate me with laffin’!)

  160. 160stuiec on Oct 17, 2009 at 8:04 pm:

    A quaint and amusing meditation on The Way of The Fist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6y4FtJJ-v4&feature=player_embedded

  161. 161CattusMagnus on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:03 pm:

    stuiec: A quaint and amusing meditation on The Way of The Fist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6y4FtJJ-v4&feature=player_embedded

    That was the best thing. Ever.

  162. 162stuiec on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:41 pm:

    CattusMagnus:
    That was the best thing.Ever.

    Then this may potentially be the Worst. Thing. Ever. Or not.

  163. 163CattusMagnus on Oct 17, 2009 at 11:59 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey,
    Have you seen this shiz?

    #161 stuiec,
    Oh. My. God.

  164. 164Desertrat on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:19 am:

    Nice piece! I have never read more evidence of what a sick rat bastard is now a “CZAR” that has infuence over my kid. The old adage of “Hit them on the head with a sledgehammer” takes on new meaning! :) You used the “Nuclear Option” totally right! Keep up the great work, someone has to have our kids back. Thanks :)

  165. 165Starless on Oct 18, 2009 at 6:06 am:

    CattusMagnus:
    Don’t you mean that Al Gore should be ashamed of himself?

    No, no. alGore invented the internet. Besides which, he is entirely incapable of shame.

    Throbert McGee:
    I suppose it’s possible that in the year 2525, a blue-collar pregnant woman will be able to buy an encapsulated swarm of gay-gene-deleting nanobots OTC at her neighborhood space-pharmacy, for about the price of a Soylent Green Big Mac at space-McDonalds. But until that day comes, the kind of genetic manipulation you’re describing is going to be expensive and invasive and quite likely to cause a spontaneous miscarriage 1 out of 3 times. So while a small percentage of parents-to-be who are both wealthy and homophobic may try to “fix” their gay fetus, the vast majority of the proles won’t bother.
    So I, for one, certainly ain’t losing sleep over the possibility that us homos might become an “endangered species” within my lifetime (and I’m hoping that between cyborg replacement parts and plenty of vitameatavegamins, I’ll be able to make it to at least the mid-22nd century, albeit as a shriveled, hideous affront to God and Nature who’s more machine than man, but who still loves wrapping my vat-grown, surgically-grafted neo-lips around a dude’s kielbasa).

    IIRC my thinking for that particular comment, I was presenting the genetics argument as a hypothetical ideological problem for gay political activism within the shifting justifications for why gay people should be allowed to be gay. That is, the basic nature v. nurture arguments about human behavior. I was suggesting that there is no way to win that argument on either side and engaging on that level mostly serves to either make people already on their side feel better or give ammunition to those who aren’t.

  166. 166Manny on Oct 18, 2009 at 8:04 am:

    Questions for libertarians:
    When traditional sexual moral standards are ignored and non-hetero sex is normalized, why is there outrage over adult-child sex among libertarians? Anything goes, right? What’s the problem? Where/why is any line drawn? What’s your authority? (And if there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do libertarians want to protect children from indoctrination/recruitment?)

  167. 167Ray on Oct 18, 2009 at 10:19 am:

    Superhero Zombie just ate what was left of Media Matter’s brains. That’s what happens when you take on the Zombie! Raaawwwrrrrrrrr!

  168. 168stuiec on Oct 18, 2009 at 10:26 am:

    Starless: IIRC my thinking for that particular comment, I was presenting the genetics argument as a hypothetical ideological problem for gay political activism within the shifting justifications for why gay people should be allowed to be gay. That is, the basic nature v. nurture arguments about human behavior. I was suggesting that there is no way to win that argument on either side and engaging on that level mostly serves to either make people already on their side feel better or give ammunition to those who aren’t.

    What, you mean like the conflict between the belief in the absolute right of a woman to abort her pregnancy and the use of ultrasound technology to let parents see the gender of their unborn child and thus abort the unwanted females?

    BTW, it may well turn out that there’s no need to manipulate genetics to control a child’s sexual orientation or propensity thereto. It may just be a matter of giving the fetus hormone therapy during gestation to make sure that the balance of testosterone and estrogen to which the fetus is exposed is “gender-appropriate.” Hell, it might only require the mother taking the right pills.

  169. 169Ray on Oct 18, 2009 at 10:28 am:

    Manny: Questions for libertarians:
    When traditional sexual moral standards are ignored and non-hetero sex is normalized, why is there outrage over adult-child sex among libertarians? Anything goes, right? What’s the problem? Where/why is any line drawn? What’s your authority? (And if there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do libertarians want to protect children from indoctrination/recruitment?)

    This is very easy. You are protecting the liberty and freedom of parents and children when you protect children from predatory adults. It is the predators who are looking to violate the liberty and rights of others, not the other way around. The human brain is not fully developed to make rational decisions to ensure significant probability of self preservation until late-teens if not early twenties for some. That is why we have parents and guardians, to ensure the liberty and rights of teenagers are protected until their neurology and wisdom are developed enough to protect themselves in most circumstances. Anything goes for consenting adults who do not violate the rights, liberties and freedoms of others, anything does not go for children. Hopefully that is clear enough.

  170. 170buzzsawmonkey on Oct 18, 2009 at 10:49 am:

    CattusMagnus: shiz

    Very funny and very, very well done.

  171. 171zombie on Oct 18, 2009 at 11:09 am:

    Manny: Questions for libertarians:
    When traditional sexual moral standards are ignored and non-hetero sex is normalized, why is there outrage over adult-child sex among libertarians? Anything goes, right? What’s the problem? Where/why is any line drawn? What’s your authority? (And if there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do libertarians want to protect children from indoctrination/recruitment?)

    Good question.

    The answer is a simple one: it comes down to the concept of “consent.” Our society correctly acknowledges that children don’t know what’s best for them, either in the present or in the long run. Give a child half a chance, and the ability to make its own choices, and it would eat nothing but potato chips and chocolate syrup all day long. Ask a child — even a teenager — if they voluntarily wanted to go to the dentist, they’d almost assuredly tell you “No.” And in the long run, they’d have rotten teeth for the rest of their lives. Leave around an unlocked loaded gun in your house, and warn your child never to touch it, and the odds are someone is likely to get shot accidentally. Make school attendance completely voluntary, and you can rest assured that half the kids in the country would go completely uneducated. To the great detriment of society at large. We know kids cannot be trusted to make good decisions. As a result we don’t let them vote, we don’t let them join the army, we don’t let them take intoxicants, we don’t let them drive vehicles, and so on, until a certain age of consent or maturation level has been reached. And we deny the children total autonomy for their own good, because left to their own devices they are likely to make decisions that will hurt themselves, and/or society, in the near term or long term.

    Now, innumerable studies and an overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence have shown that the younger a child has sexual contact, unwillingly or even willingly, the more traumatized they are, and/or the more their lives get screwed up in the future, due to feelings of abuse, resentment, etc.

    So, if you combine these two concepts — that children are not able to make wise decisions nor give legal consent, along with the fact that early sexual contact is often traumatic and leads to a worse life — then it makes perfect sense that we have rules that prohibit sexual contact between children and adults. In fact, this situation is even more dangerous than any of the others listed above, because at least the bag of potato chips isn’t actively pursuing you, and the gun doesn’t talk you into pulling the trigger; children make bad enougb decisions with inanimate objects. But when you get another person involved, especially someone who is actively trying to make you make the wrong decision, a person who is older, more manipulative, experienced, etc.; and they’re manipulating you for their own benefit (i.e. a satisfaction of their sexual fetish), not the child’s — then you have a serious problem.

    So, as a social libertarian, I give a shrug as to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But I draw the line when one of the participants has not or can not give consent. (That’s why I oppose bestiality too, because the animal did not and can not give consent, so it counts as a form of animal abuse.) When you look at the consent issue, then you can see that pedophilia and bestiality are both forms of rape — rape being defined as sex with a partner who did not give consent.

    And as to your second question, “And if there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do libertarians want to protect children from indoctrination/recruitment?”, my answer is that I oppose indoctrination into any concept, lifestyle or belief. I oppose religious indoctrination in schools (whatever the religion), I oppose political indoctrination, sexual indoctrination, cultural indoctrination, etc.

    But of course the Kevin Jenningses and “social Marxists” of this world have tried to turn this argument on its head, by trying to claim that our culture at large “indoctrinates children into heterosexuality,” and that school civics classes “indoctrinate children into democracy and capitalism,” and so on. And that the values we all perceive as “normal” are themselves nothing more than the result of indoctrination. And my counter-argument to that is: humans and all other mammals have been 95+% heterosexual since the beginning of recorded history and undoubtedly long before that as well, and there was never any indoctrination involved. You don’t have to brainwash kids in order to turn them heterosexual. 19 out of 20 of them will just naturally grow up to be that way. And the rest will naturally be bi/gay/asexual/questioning/whatever-other-variant you care to name. And once again, they’re that way naturally, and you can’t make a gay teen turn straight by showing him some Playboys or making him watch movies featuring husbands and wives.

    So the conclusion is that sexual orientation arises naturally, and we shouldn’t make it our business to try to twist it into something it isn’t. Just let the kids come to their own way of being. The very fact that people like Jennings say that our culture indoctrinates kids to be straight means that in his belief, many kids are naturally gay but get their gayness brainwashed out of them. First of all, he’s obviously wrong, but second of all, if that’s what he believes, then it means he is trying to increase the size of his self-defined minority by “recruiting” new members. It’s the oldest ideological trick in the book for a recruiter to claim that he’s not really recruiting you, he’s simply freeing you from the shackles of the previous brainwashing you didn’t know you endured. (For example, old Soviet posters often showed people “breaking the shackles of capitalism,” and so on.)

    Anyway, I oppose all forms of indoctrination — not just “gay indoctrination.”

  172. 172zombie on Oct 18, 2009 at 11:12 am:

    buzzsawmonkey:
    Very funny and very, very well done.

    Your lifelong dream of being immortalized in a 1930′s comic book has finally been realized!

    (Even if they did misspell your name as “buzzsaw monkey.”)

  173. 173buzzsawmonkey on Oct 18, 2009 at 11:13 am:

    zombie:
    Your lifelong dream of being immortalized in a 1930’s comic book has finally been realized!
    (Even if they did misspell your name as “buzzsaw monkey.”)

    It was just a misguided effort to “give me space.”

  174. 174threecoloursblue on Oct 18, 2009 at 2:42 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey:
    It was just a misguided effort to “give me space.”

    I’m sure that your father, who pioneered the use of tritium in early nuclear warheads, would be proud of you.
    What a spoofer.

  175. 175John on Oct 18, 2009 at 4:12 pm:

    Zombie, an extraordinary piece of work. As a gay man, I believe it is imperative that Keven Jennings must resign. His association with a NAMBLA founder and friend are reprehensible. Responsible gay men do NOT abuse children, and he demeans us all buy extolling this creep. He is an embarrasment to all gay people. Thank you for taking this important stance against pedophilia.

  176. 176Pianobuff on Oct 18, 2009 at 4:27 pm:

    Hi Zombie – Don’t know if you remember me, but either way it’s probably irrelevant to this post. Just wanted to take a moment to give you some kudos for adding some original content to the blogosphere. In this case, the association and endorsement merits discussion of policy implications since we are talking about people with administration power and/or influence.

    The most interesting aspect of the Jennings story, in my mind, is if/how the left-leaning media will respond if at all. Generally speaking, the Van Jones incident received anecdotal but after-the-fact coverage. One would think that the pressure to provide complete and consistently probing coverage (‘consistently probing’ being defined as similar to the last 8 years of executive administration coverage – more about comprehensiveness than quality) is amping up.

    MSM media outlets continue to suffer from poor revenue streams and ratings. How many newspapers are on decline as the WSJ contemporaneously exceeds anyone’s wildest expectations in vying with USA Today as the largest circulating U.S. newspaper? How many cable news stations are rationalizing poor ratings by playing the blame game? To what extent will our President and his minions wrangle with those outlets that won’t ‘conform’? If MSNBC, CNN and their ilk feel the only way to survive and flourish is to keep the bed warm for our current administration than I would expect this story to linger like a bad genital fungus – never publicly advertised but persistent nonetheless. Should they decide that the best way to an attract and retain an audience is to apply basic journalistic principles, there is some hope that this pimple might burst instead of developing into a fatal carbuncle (which as the resident Pianobuff I am compelled to note killed the famous composer Alexander Scriabin).

    I’m watching and wondering.

    Best regards Zombie, and long life to your blog.

  177. 177zombie on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:31 pm:

    threecoloursblue:
    I’m sure that your father, who pioneered the use of tritium in early nuclear warheads, would be proud of you.
    What a spoofer.

    So, which would you prefer:

    That buzzsawmonkey’s father had not improved the safety of nuclear warheads, so they they were more likely to malfunction and kill innocent people, and/or need to be maintained/upgraded more frequently, leading to greater radiation exposure for military technicians?

    or…

    That we simply had let the USSR take an unbeatable lead in nuke design, giving us a serious disadvantage in the Cold War, possibly leading to the continued existence of the USSR to this day and the consequent economic and intellectual enslavement of tens of millions of people?

    or…

    That FDR had never ordered the Manhattan Project in the first place, risking the possibility that the Nazis would develop it first, and possibly also leading to at least 1 million additional military and civilian deaths in the Pacific Theater as the allies would have had to invade the Japanese mainland against a population who had taken a vow to fight to the death before surrendering — an outcome that was only avoided due to the success of the Manhattan Project?

    What exactly was wrong with working on the US side of the Cold War to design safer nukes?

    And don’t give me any of that mush-headed “all weapons are evil” crap. Tell that to Hitler and Stalin who were both working like crazy to develop their own nukes, and one of them undoubtedly would have succeeded eventually and the world may very well have been plunged into darkness for centuries had there not been men like buzzsawmonkey’s father holding back the tide of totalitarianism.

    I’d rather have safely designed nukes in the hands of a well-disciplined democratic military answerable to the people through the Commander-in-Chief, than leaky ill-designed nukes in the hands of expansionist despots and madmen.

  178. 178Ron L on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:41 pm:

    “That FDR had never ordered the Manhattan Project in the first place, risking the possibility that the Nazis would develop it first, and possibly also leading to at least 1 million additional military and civilian deaths in the Pacific Theater as the allies would have had to invade the Japanese mainland against a population who had taken a vow to fight to the death before surrendering — an outcome that was only avoided due to the success of the Manhattan Project?”
    I know this of off-topic, but it is an area of interest to me, and I’d say you’ve done the reading, but your numbers are on the conservative side.
    August 9th ought to be a day of celebration in Japan, because it represents the day Japan was saved from many hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths.

  179. 179buzzsawmonkey on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:48 pm:

    #176 zombie: Thank you; very eloquent.

    The hydrogen bomb was/is an astonishingly successful weapon, having prevented an open, all-out world war between the Soviets and the West, and having never yet been used in hostilities.

    Slight correction, though: my father didn’t improve the safety of the hydrogen bomb; he made it possible to build one. The theory was there, but the means were not; he created the means.

  180. 180Anonymous on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:53 pm:

    threecoloursblue:
    I’m sure that your father, who pioneered the use of tritium in early nuclear warheads, would be proud of you.
    What a spoofer.

    Let us not forget Ireland’s contribution to the defeat of the Nazis and Japanese: Nothing. Quislings of the first order.

  181. 181pat on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:54 pm:

    oops, that was me.

  182. 182Ron L on Oct 18, 2009 at 6:03 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey: #176 zombie:Thank you; very eloquent.The hydrogen bomb was/is an astonishingly successful weapon, having prevented an open, all-out world war between the Soviets and the West, and having never yet been used in hostilities.Slight correction, though: my father didn’t improve the safety of the hydrogen bomb; he made it possible to build one.The theory was there, but the means were not; he created the means.

    Can I ask who your father is?

  183. 183buzzsawmonkey on Oct 18, 2009 at 6:06 pm:

    Ron L: You can, but answering that goes beyond the line of what I am willing to reveal–especially given that I seem to have acquired a little stalker of my very own.

  184. 184Ron L on Oct 18, 2009 at 6:23 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey: Ron L: You can, but answering that goes beyond the line of what I am willing to reveal–especially given that I seem to have acquired a little stalker of my very own.

    Understand.

  185. 185zombie on Oct 18, 2009 at 6:37 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey:…Slight correction, though: my father didn’t improve the safety of the hydrogen bomb; he made it possible to build one.The theory was there, but the means were not; he created the means.

    Ron L:
    Can I ask who your father is?

    buzzsawmonkey: Ron L: You can, but answering that goes beyond the line of what I am willing to reveal–especially given that I seem to have acquired a little stalker of my very own.

    I’ve just done a bit of poking around on the Web and can confirm with complete certainty that buzz is telling the truth: His father did indeed play an instrumental role in the development of the hydrogen bomb.

    No names here, please. But, Ron, if you’re really interested, Google is your friend.

    U.C. Berkeley is one of the most schizophrenic places in the world on this topic. Much of the theoretical work for building the bomb happened at Cal, and the Manhattan Project team was assembled there, and Oppenheimer and Teller — the two key figures — were both at Berkeley. So you’d think the city’d be proud of the history. But noooooooooo…..nothing but deep shame surrounds the whole topic. When the UC campus did a complete political about-face in 1964, suddenly its role in helping to defeat totalitarianism become a dark and hideous secret.

    The city of Berkeley recently had a celebration of all the “firsts” and inventions that originated in Berkeley. Predictably, the two greatest “firsts” associated with Berkeley — 1. The world’s first modern police force and the invention of most of the techniques of law enforcement used today [first organized criminal record-keeping, first motorcycle cops, first police cars, first lie-detector tests, first affirmative action for minority cops, etc.], all invented by Berkeley’s police chief August Vollmer; and 2. The creation of the Manhattan Project team, and the design of the first nuclear bomb, done by Oppenheimer and his crew in LeConte Hall on the Berkeley campus — were both conveniently ignored by the city, which chose instead to focus on firsts like first municipal recycling program, first free speech protests, etc. Because nothing is more un-P.C. than cops and nukes.

    The place is a self-parody, really. A city of global importance, but still a self-parody.

  186. 186Ron L on Oct 18, 2009 at 7:09 pm:

    Zombie,
    “No names here, please. But, Ron, if you’re really interested, Google is your friend.”
    Really don’t need it. I’ve read probably 6 or 8 books on the matter and can make a guess that’s within XXX people, none of which I will name. And therein lies the question; there is some, shall we say, disagreement about who identified tritium as a matter of importance.
    Suffice to say I was curious as to which side of the disagreement the person fell on. Not a question of ‘morality’; a matter of scientific ‘sociology’ if you will.
    And I had dealings with Lawrence’s widow some years back in which she swore Lawrence ‘had no connection’ to the bomb, so I understand both the schizo Berkeley gestalt and Buzz’s concern about his/her privacy.
    I’ll leave that question open, especially if the answer would mean grief to any party.

  187. 187CattusMagnus on Oct 18, 2009 at 7:56 pm:

    buzzsawmonkey,
    Your dad rocks.

  188. 188Throbert McGee on Oct 19, 2009 at 1:26 am:

    Manny: Questions for libertarians:
    When traditional sexual moral standards are ignored and non-hetero sex is normalized, why is there outrage over adult-child sex among libertarians? Anything goes, right? What’s the problem? Where/why is any line drawn? What’s your authority? (And if there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality, why do libertarians want to protect children from indoctrination/recruitment?)

    Hey, Supergenius: When adult homosexuality is taboo but adult heterosexuality is normalized, what exactly is the basis for getting outraged over heterosexual pedophilia (that is, adult men fucking pre-teen girls, or the much rarer cases of adult women messing around with preteen boys)?

    If adult homosexuality is taboo BECAUSE of its non-heterosexual character, then it’s pretty easy to argue by extension that homosexual acts between minors and adult/child homosexual pedophilia should also be taboo. But any case to be made against hetero-pedophilia has to made without relying on this taboo against homosexuality, for the RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS reason that man/girl is non-homo.

    To put it another way, arguments against hetero-pedophilia must attack only its pedophilic character, without attacking its heterosexual character — as any arguments in the latter character would also (presumably) tend to disparage adult heterosexuality as well.

    And, Manny, if you accept the general point that it’s possible to have a taboo against hetero-pedophilia while normalizing adult heterosexuality, why on earth would you assume that this can’t be extended to non-hetero contexts?

  189. 189Starless on Oct 19, 2009 at 6:05 am:

    stuiec:
    What, you mean like the conflict between the belief in the absolute right of a woman to abort her pregnancy and the use of ultrasound technology to let parents see the gender of their unborn child and thus abort the unwanted females?BTW, it may well turn out that there’s no need to manipulate genetics to control a child’s sexual orientation or propensity thereto.It may just be a matter of giving the fetus hormone therapy during gestation to make sure that the balance of testosterone and estrogen to which the fetus is exposed is “gender-appropriate.”Hell, it might only require the mother taking the right pills.

    I’d put hormone treatment under the category of “genetic manipulation”–genetic manipulation doesn’t necessarily require mechanical techniques and IMO those mechanical means will be seen in the future as a sledgehammer approach. But that’s just my opinion.

    I like the abortion analogy. One analogy I think of is cochlear implants for deaf children. Deafness is considered a deficiency except within the deaf community where the use of those implants is seen as denying a child the experience of deaf culture and a means of destroying that culture. Not everyone goes for the cochlear implants for their deaf children just as I don’t think everyone will go for the hypothetical gender manipulation I was talking about, but it would be a major battleground for those who have a vested interest in gender politics.

    (“Lengthening”, I think it’s called, for people with dwarfism is another possible analogy. Heh! For a pop culture reference, think of the episode from Seinfeld where Kramer’s dwarf actor friend is caught “heightening” with lifts in his shoes and how he’s ostracised by the other Little People for it.)

    zombie:
    Much of the theoretical work for building the bomb happened at Cal, and the Manhattan Project team was assembled there, and Oppenheimer and Teller— the two key figures — were both at Berkeley. So you’d think the city’d be proud of the history.

    To add to the schizophrenia, by completely ignoring Oppenheimer they’re completing ignoring how he was persecuted by the gov’t and academia (to a lesser extent) for his perceived Commie sympathies. A rich area for Leftist bitching, I would think.

  190. 190Throbert McGee on Oct 19, 2009 at 7:03 am:

    stuiec:
    BTW, it may well turn out that there’s no need to manipulate genetics to control a child’s sexual orientation or propensity thereto.It may just be a matter of giving the fetus hormone therapy during gestation to make sure that the balance of testosterone and estrogen to which the fetus is exposed is “gender-appropriate.” Hell, it might only require the mother taking the right pills.

    Stuiec: I’m not sure what the current favored position is among scientists trying to explain sexual orientation in terms of fetal hormonal exposure. But I do know that in the past, at least, there were at least two schools of thought on how uterine hormones might make male fetuses more prone to be homosexual as adults — with one school assuming that male homosexuals had been hormonally “feminized” as fetuses (i.e., too much estrogen, not enough testosterone), and the other school working on the hypothesis that male homosexuals had been hormonally “hyper-masculinized” as fetuses (i.e., TOO MUCH TESTOSTERONE during some crucial window of fetal brain development — a window that may well have been only a few weeks long).

    Note that the “hyper-masculinized” hypothesis did NOT assume that male homosexuals have unusually high testosterone levels in childhood, adolescence, or adulthood; nor did it assume that hyper-masculinized male fetuses would necessarily be “macho” and “non-effeminate” homosexuals as adults. It merely sought to investigate the (rather counter-intuitive) possibility that a “testosterone overdose” could be a homosexualizing factor in male fetuses.

  191. 191Marauder on Oct 19, 2009 at 7:54 am:

    It was beyond ridiculous to claim that Kevin Jennings didn’t know about Harry Hay and NAMBLA; I knew about Harry Hay and NAMBLA when I was fifteen and Googled HH because I’d heard his name somewhere and I wanted to know who he was. KJ has done some good things – I liked an anthology he put together about GLBT people recalling their childhoods and teenage years – but then Roman Polanski made some good movies, and, you know.

    Oh, Zombie – I went to San Francisco a few months ago and there were no naked people having sex in public! I was shocked, SHOCKED. Here I thought I was going to be encountering public indecency at every turn and all I found were a bunch of hipsters and smelly sea lions! [/tongue-in-cheek] :D

  192. 192stuiec on Oct 19, 2009 at 8:08 am:

    Marauder: Oh, Zombie – I went to San Francisco a few months ago and there were no naked people having sex in public! I was shocked, SHOCKED. Here I thought I was going to be encountering public indecency at every turn and all I found were a bunch of hipsters and smelly sea lions! [/tongue-in-cheek]

    You really have to plan your trips better. Make sure to get to the Folsom Street Fair, or Up Your Alley, or Pride Weekend. Or maybe just a dark doorway or parked car in the Tenderloin on a Friday night.

    But you’re right: most of the public indecency in SF takes the form of public urination and defecation, which is not nearly as fun to watch as public sex.

  193. 193Marauder on Oct 19, 2009 at 8:13 am:

    P.S. About “questioning” – if you’ve ever been a bisexual adolescent, this isn’t strange. I’m sure some “questioning” people are posers, but there are also those who are bisexual, or those who aren’t sure what it meant that they didn’t find it gross when they made out with their best friend on a dare, can’t stop looking at a good-looking person of the same sex, et cetera.

  194. 194Starless on Oct 19, 2009 at 10:20 am:

    Marauder: P.S. About “questioning” – if you’ve ever been a bisexual adolescent, this isn’t strange. I’m sure some “questioning” people are posers, but there are also those who are bisexual, or those who aren’t sure what it meant that they didn’t find it gross when they made out with their best friend on a dare, can’t stop looking at a good-looking person of the same sex, et cetera.

    IN RE: my comments on that, I was talking about a particular time in history when, IMO, “questioning” became hip and fashionable. I don’t doubt there are people who are genuinely confused or can’t make up their minds.

  195. 195Dianna on Oct 19, 2009 at 11:15 am:

    Starless:
    IN RE: my comments on that, I was talking about a particular time in history when, IMO, “questioning” became hip and fashionable. I don’t doubt there are people who are genuinely confused or can’t make up their minds.

    Forgive me, but: That’s because they’re gemini.

    Yes, it’s a stupid joke. But I couldn’t resist. (I’m a libra – feel free to mock)

  196. 196Starless on Oct 19, 2009 at 11:37 am:

    Dianna:
    Forgive me, but: That’s because they’re gemini.Yes, it’s a stupid joke. But I couldn’t resist. (I’m a libra – feel free to mock)

    That gets a LOL. And I really don’t know shit about astrology, so I wouldn’t even know how to mock a Libra. I’m an Aries, so I assume the primary attribute for that sign is “asshole”.

  197. 197Dianna on Oct 19, 2009 at 12:41 pm:

    Starless:
    That gets a LOL. And I really don’t know shit about astrology, so I wouldn’t even know how to mock a Libra. I’m an Aries, so I assume the primary attribute for that sign is “asshole”.

    The joke about libras is that we’re so balanced we can’t make a decision, and we always over-explain; Ares, being the Greek god of war, tends to (supposedly) rule over hot-heads.

    Personally? It’s total bunk; but it’s nice for a boss to be a capricorn. Then the most arbitrary and capricious behavior is excused.

  198. 198Throbert McGee on Oct 19, 2009 at 2:52 pm:

    zombie: The very fact that people like Jennings say that our culture indoctrinates kids to be straight means that in his belief, many kids are naturally gay but get their gayness brainwashed out of them.

    Okay, how do you know what Jennings actually believes on this point? I know he did say that reading Romeo and Juliet in English class and the social pressure to attend the Senior Prom amounts to “promoting heterosexuality” — but he said that by way of emphasizing that all this “promotion” or “indoctrination” did not make gay kids any less gay. In fact, the actual language he used was, “if what they teach you in school could affect your sexual orientation, there wouldn’t be any gay people.”

    And of course, the intended implication is that just as a steady diet of hetero-romance in literature, movies, and music doesn’t turn gay kids straight, reading Mary Renault’s The Charioteer in an English literature class or watching this claymation short about Achilles and Patroklos in a history class will not turn straight kids gay.

  199. 199zombie on Oct 19, 2009 at 5:48 pm:

    Throbert McGee:
    And of course, the intended implication is that just as a steady diet of hetero-romance in literature, movies, and music doesn’t turn gay kids straight, reading Mary Renault’s The Charioteer in an English literature class or watching this claymation short about Achilles and Patroklos in a history class will not turn straight kids gay.

    Wow — that’s just about the best claymation I’ve ever seen — gay themes or no gay themes.

    New thread coming up soon, BTW!

  200. 200Poteen on Oct 19, 2009 at 6:50 pm:

    180Anonymous on Oct 18, 2009 at 5:53 pm:

    threecoloursblue:
    I’m sure that your father, who pioneered the use of tritium in early nuclear warheads, would be proud of you.
    What a spoofer.

    Let us not forget Ireland’s contribution to the defeat of the Nazis and Japanese: Nothing. Quislings of the first order.

    Quislings? Tell that to my granddads dead cousins. You’d best stay anonymous.

    Zombie. Bright lights usually draw small flying insects. Howcome you get cockroaches and slugs too?

  201. 201zombie on Oct 20, 2009 at 3:48 am:

    New thread up!

  202. 202Starless on Oct 20, 2009 at 5:49 am:

    Throbert McGee:
    “promoting heterosexuality” — but he said that by way of emphasizing that all this “promotion” or “indoctrination” did not make gay kids any less gay. In fact, the actual language he used was, “if what they teach you in school could affect your sexual orientation, there wouldn’t be any gay people.”

    The statement you quote sounds like bullshit hyperbole to me. His whole career is about the effects of indoctrination on the fundamental character of adolescents. Just as extreme Christians believe that we can pray-the-gay-away, Jennings apparently believes that we can pray-the-prejudice (bullying)-away. Maybe Zombie was a little imprecise and it would be better to say that Jennings’ belief is that many kids are naturally gay but get their out gayness brainwashed out them.

  203. 203CattusMagnus on Oct 20, 2009 at 11:56 pm:

    Starless:
    The statement you quote sounds like bullshit hyperbole to me. His whole career is about the effects of indoctrination on the fundamental character of adolescents. Just as extreme Christians believe that we can pray-the-gay-away, Jennings apparently believes that we can pray-the-prejudice (bullying)-away. Maybe Zombie was a little imprecise and it would be better to say that Jennings’ belief is that many kids are naturally gay but get their out gayness brainwashed out them.

    Oooooo . . . . I like your comparison of extreme Christians and Jennings. I never thought of it that way. It is an exercise in futility to try to pray away gayness and to pray/hope away prejudice.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks:

  1. Is Harry Hay an icon? — Warren Throckmorton

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:25 am
  2. GayPatriot » Kevin Jennings Knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Connections?

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 6:45 am
  3. Zombie Takes Media Matters To Task On “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jennings « Nice Deb

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:04 am
  4. Bookworm Room » Zombie decimates attempts to defend Kevin Jennings

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 12:27 pm
  5. 53 confront Team Obama about unqualified freak of a safe school czar « DPGI – the aftermath

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 1:09 pm
  6. Kevin Jennings “Safe School Czar” Praised NAMBLA Member : Stop The ACLU

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 5:49 pm
  7. Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings Knew About Hero Harry Hay’s NAMBLA Support : Conservative Nation

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 10:19 pm
  8. GayPatriot » If Jennings Were Aware of Harry Hay’s Support of PederastyDid he have a duty to denounce his inspiration?

    Pingback on Oct 15, 2009 at 11:00 pm
  9. Zombie decimates attempts to defend Kevin Jennings | Right Wing News

    Pingback on Oct 17, 2009 at 12:14 pm
  10. Memo to Media Matters: Kevin Jennings knew of Harry Hay’s NAMBLA connections | Fire Andrea Mitchell!

    Pingback on Oct 17, 2009 at 10:57 pm