- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
AmSpecBlog
Media Mattress Stuck on Sweet 16
Do the folks at Media Mattress -- sorry, Media Matters -- really believe in giving a pass to adult-child sex?
Let's walk through this v-e-r-y slowly for Eric Boehlert over at Media Mattress, where sleeping with the state run media is the achievable aspiration today and everyday.
Here's the link to Boehlert's story in which I, yes, moi, am called "monumentally dumb." Why might this be Mr. Boehlert's view? Well, because I did not note that the now famous "Brewster" in the Kevin Jennings situation (or "witch hunt" in Mattress parlance) was really 16, not 15. According to no less than "Brewster" himself, who has now stepped forward to say so. And, which, under Massachusetts law, makes the formerly young Brewster not that young at all for consensual sex but rather legal, barely. So to speak.
In his indignation, Boehlert does the usual bodacious liberal dance. As if, had he been defending O.J. way back when wifely murder was accused, Boehlert would have suggested to the jury that Mr. Simpson was really innocent because his murdered wife had cancer and was surely going to die anyway. So what's the big deal?
In other words, Boehlert the Bodacious, the issue here is not Brewster's actual age at the time. The issue is what Mr. Jennings thought his age was -- and thinking that thought, how did he respond? More to the point, is he carrying around these thoughts today and trying in some fashion to make them the official policy of the U.S. Department of Education?
As all now agree, Mr. Jennings himself has been revealed on tape -- a tape played on Sean Hannity's show -- saying this (relevant remarks highlighted):
And I said, "Brewster, what are you doing in there asleep?" And he said, "Well, I'm tired." And I said, "Well we all are tired and we all got to school today." And he said, "Well I was out late last night." And I said, "What were you doing out late on a school night." And he said, "Well, I was in Boston…" Boston was about 45 minutes from Concord. So I said, "What were you doing in Boston on a school night Brewster?" He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, "Well, I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him." High school sophomore, 15 years old. That was the only way he knew how to meet gay people. I was a closeted gay teacher, 24 years old, didn't know what to say. Knew I should say something quickly so I finally said, "My best friend had just died of AIDS the week before." I looked at Brewster and said, "You know, I hope you knew to use a condom." He said to me something I will never forget, He said. "Why should I, my life isn't worth saving anyway."
Boehlert responds to this by saying: "As anybody who's been following the Kevin Jennings Witch Hunt knows, the boy in question was at least 16 years old, the legal age of consent in Massachusetts where the incident occurred. This has been known for days. The Spectator, however, just doesn't like that fact, so it opts for its own version of the truth."
In other words, the "O.J.'s-wife-was-going-to-die-anyway" defense. The boy was really 16, not 15, so no problem.
Well, hello? "Brewster" could have been 35 for all we care. The point to all not blinded from too much time being rolled in the Media Mattress is that the issue was what Mr. Jennings thought the boy's age was. And quite clearly, as Jennings himself says on the tape, he believed "Brewster" to be 15 -- to quote exactly "High school sophomore, 15 years old." Which is to say underage for consensual sex by virtue of the laws of the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Overwhelmed by the boy's gayness instead of his childishness (would he have made the same suggestion to a 15-year-old heterosexual girl?) Jennings dished the condom advice.
Then, hilariously, Boehlert wants to know why I focused on the silence of Speaker Nancy Pelosi when it comes to the Jennings issue. I say hilarious because Boehlert knows as well as the rest of us, but just hopes none of us will notice. Unlike GOP leaders Senator Mitch McConnell and Rep. John Boehner -- and for that matter President Obama, Vice President Biden, Senator Harry Reid and a slew of other Democrats -- Representative Pelosi is the Member of Congress who demanded the ousting of GOP Congressman Mark Foley and castigated him for texting underage male House pages for sex. Foley, she cried, not to mention the GOP House leadership of the day, had failed to "protect the children." She labeled Foley's behavior "abhorrent." All the while during this episode she kept under wraps that she had marched in a parade celebrating Harry Hay -- quite famous for advocating exactly the same behavior that was apparently desired by Congressman Foley. Sex with underage boys.
In sum, as pointed out before, Mr. Jennings has felt the need to say he would have handled things differently with Brewster, whom he did in fact believe to be 15, not 16.
So the question for Mr. Boehlert is simple: Was Mr. Jennings right in giving the advice he gave to a boy he believed to be 15? Yes? No? Maybe?
Will Mr. Boehlert roll over in the Media Mattress and answer? Will the Mattress speak on the advisability of sex between adults and children? Should this in fact be the policy of the Department of Education?
Stay tuned.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Alex M. Thompson| 10.7.09 @ 1:18PM
Thanks for providing a transcript of Jennings in his own words. I haven't yet heard the actual recording - and the attendant vocal inflections thereof (he could have easily made a mistake without noticing) - but I stand corrected in my assumption that Jennings himself had said the lad was 16. I think it would be more than appropriate for him to answer for himself to the media on this issue, once and for all. But I seriously doubt that will happen.
My instinct still remains that this issue is a red herring, as it were. I can't imagine how it could possibly affect his current job performance. It may reflect on his character, but I'm hardly ready to pass judgment on the man yet.
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 1:21PM
Mr. Lord, you said "If Jennings provides that fact (that the boy was of legal age - SLT) and can document it we will be happy to correct."
I see no correction in your original story. Will you be speaking to the editor to correct the falsehoods you inadvertently published in the "Pelosi to Polanski to Jennings" piece, as you said you would?
Also, because some time long after the fact Jenning misrepresented the kid's age as 15 does not prove that 1) he believed the boy was 15 *at the time it happened* or 2) that the boy *was* 15 at the time it happened. All it proves is that Jennings said "15" during the interview. He may have slipped up and said 15 by accident, or he may have misremembered that the kid was 15, or the kid may have actually *been* 15, but is now saying 16 t0 cover for Jennings. We simply do not know. In any case it is creepy.
I would also ask, Mr. Lord, whether you support abolishing the Dept of Education and all its attendant sub-departments, and if not, I would ask which Article of the Constitution you believe delegates to the federal gov't the power to regulate schooling.
Alan Brooks| 10.7.09 @ 4:57PM
"I would posit that anyone who does not fight to reverse course has no right to call himself a conservative."
And I would posit that any *conservative* who admires Noam Chomsky (and you do, Toddard--'fess up, we can go to the archive for proof) has no right to call himself anything but squishy.
Alan Brooks| 10.7.09 @ 5:00PM
but no matter what we say, Todd will find a way to wriggle out of an admission.
Like,
"I never said i believed everything Chomsky has written."
etc, etc.
Jeffrey Lord| 10.7.09 @ 1:30PM
SL...
To this moment Jennings has said only that he should have handled things differently. He has documented nothing. The boy came forward - and I have noted the boy says he was sixteen. I'm taking him at his word. But that is not the point, is it? Jennings apparently believed the boy to be fifteen. For whatever reason he is on tape saying so. He has never said otherwise. If you know of such a statement - where he says he knew the boy was sixteen and misspoke, I'd acknowledge that. Did he believe what he said? Is he lying? I can't get into his head. But he certainly said it.
I do not believe the Constitution provides for a federal power to regulate schools. This is a state and local responsibility. Alas, the horse long ago left that barn.
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 1:50PM
"But that is not the point, is it?"
Well, the piece itself states more than once that the boy *was* 15. According to the kid in question, that is wrong. A correction is in order, plainly.
"Jennings apparently believed the boy to be fifteen"
That is not at all "apparent". It might be apparent that Jennings believed that years later when he was interviewed, but there is nothing indicating he believed it *at the time*.
"I do not believe the Constitution provides for a federal power to regulate schools. This is a state and local responsibility. Alas, the horse long ago left that barn."
And? The immigration horse left the barn in 1965. The abortion horse left it in 1973. The small gov't horse left the barn during FDR's reign or earlier. That does not mean conservatives have no responsibility to try to reverse course. I would posit that anyone who does not fight to reverse course has no right to call himself a conservative. For if one accepts that liberal gains are irreversible, then one accepts the welfare state, federally-protected abortion, intrusive socialistic government and all the rest. When one accepts these abominations, and one votes for candidates who maintain them instead of trying to repeal and reverse them, then one is in effect voting *for* liberal policies and is, in fact, a liberal. In other words, isn't the active maintenance of left-wing policies as leftist as the implementation of them?
Jeffrey Lord| 10.7.09 @ 1:37PM
Alex...
Thanks. The concern here is not "gotcha" with Jennings. He's a liberal and we are not, so be it. His side won. The problem is whether or not this attitude as evidenced with "Brewster" is in play right now in Jennings official conduct. Is it translating itself into bureaucratese where it is difficult to find but, as with most bureaucratic rule-making, certain in its effect for better - or as I would believe here - for worse. Using, in other words, the government to lower the bar on what is appropriate in an adult-child relationship. Or, to put it more colorfully, to Polanski-ize the American school system in some fashion.
Alex M. Thompson| 10.7.09 @ 1:54PM
It was more likely than not simply a moment of poor judgment from a man who was grieving, etc. Ultimately, there's absolutely no way this will "Polanski-ize" anything about the American school system. As you say, he's a bureaucrat; he's a just a functionary with a modicum of responsibility who has to follow the script and play the rules. Plus, I would argue, as you say that the "horse left the barn" concerning perverting schools. I mean, if you wish, this story is a symptom and not the disease.
Angel| 10.7.09 @ 2:38PM
Jeffrey, republicans are now calling for congressional hearings on Jennings. Shine the light on this man so we can see who Obama put in charge of our children's safety. I want to find out what he's really about. No more secrecy.
Thank you for your courage in defense of our children; you and Sean Hannity are American heroes. Keep it up.
C4P| 10.7.09 @ 3:29PM
Great work, Mr. Lord! Jennings out now!!
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 2:55PM
"Shine the light on this man so we can see who Obama put in charge of our children's safety"
Shouldn't you be more incensed that Obama is putting *anyone* in charge of your children's safety? Shouldn't you have objected when George W. Bush decided a government bureaucrat should be in charge of your children's safety in the first place? Isn't that *your* job - your responsibility, sacrosanct and inviolate - and shouldn't you jealously guard it from an over-reaching federal government that seeks to usurp your role in your own home and community?
The real problem isn't that the wrong government bureaucrat is in charge of your children's safety - it's that the government feels it should be in charge of your children in the first place.
Angel| 10.7.09 @ 3:28PM
You make a lot of assumptions, Toddard--all of them wrong. How do you know I didn't object to George W's big government policies? Your arrogance is astounding; you are a smug fool of a man.
Why do you have a problem with my concern about Jennings? Why do you support Obama's secrecy? Who the hell are you anyway to tell me how to mother my children, buttinski?
You have way too much time on your hands, clown.
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 3:33PM
"How do you know I didn't object to George W's big government policies?"
You voted against George W. Bush?
Angel| 10.7.09 @ 3:43PM
Who did you vote for? John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry?
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 6:08PM
I voted for Bob Barr, though I rather regret it. I should have voted for Chuck Baldwin.
I ask again, did you support George W. Bush's big government policies with your vote (as I assumed), or did you vote against George W. Bush and his big government policies?
Angel| 10.7.09 @ 6:54PM
SLT, answer my questions first. Why do you have a problem with my concern over Jennings, why do you support Obama's secrecy and who the hell are you anyway to tell me how to mother my children, buttinski? (Emphasis on buttinski).
Are you now AmSpec's resident child-care expert? Since you think you know everything, can I come to you for your expert advice on the challenges of breast feeding toddlers and the pitfalls of potty-training? Hmmmm?
Please, please, SLT; please elucidate me with your sagacious, perspicacious omniscience. Oh, please.
S.L. Toddard| 10.8.09 @ 7:33AM
"Why do you have a problem with my concern over Jennings"
Because it is misdirection. The real problem isn't that the wrong government bureaucrat is in charge of your children's safety - it's that the government feels it should be in charge of your children in the first place.
"why do you support Obama's secrecy"
I do not.
"and who the hell are you anyway to tell me how to mother my children"
I have not.
"Are you now AmSpec's resident child-care expert?"
I am not.
"Since you think you know everything"
I do not think that.
"can I come to you for your expert advice on the challenges of breast feeding toddlers and the pitfalls of potty-training?"
No.
There - I have answered your questions. You said earlier that I "make a lot of assumptions... all of them wrong." I ask again, did you support George W. Bush's big government policies with your vote (as I assumed), or did you vote against George W. Bush and his big government policies?
Angel| 10.8.09 @ 11:27AM
Who made you AmSpec's resident scold and why are you so interested in my personal life? Stalker comes to mind.
It's none of your business how I rear my children is it? I find it shocking that someone who calls himself a paleo-conservative wouldn't 'especially' object to the appointment of Jennings as school czar. Shocking.
I agree that with you about the encroachment of government and I would like to dismantle most of it; but that doesn't mean my objections to a malignant appointment like Jennings is hypocritical. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, can't you?
I am a small-government conservative--always have been, regardless of the man in the Oval office.
S.L. Toddard| 10.8.09 @ 1:03PM
“Who made you AmSpec's resident scold and why are you so interested in my personal life”
No one did. I am neither Amspec’s resident scold nor am I interested in your “personal life”.
“It's none of your business how I rear my children is it?”
Correct, it is not.
“I find it shocking that someone who calls himself a paleo-conservative wouldn't 'especially' object to the appointment of Jennings as school czar. Shocking.”
I find that shocking as well. Who are you describing? Point out this mysterious paleoconservative who doesn’t object to Jennings as school czar (actually he’s technically the School Safety czar) and I will give him a good talking-to. As for me, I oppose the office itself, and do not believe anyone on earth is an appropriate School Safety czar.
“I agree that with you about the encroachment of government and I would like to dismantle most of it; but that doesn't mean my objections to a malignant appointment like Jennings is hypocritical. I can walk and chew gum at the same time, can't you?”
Yes, I can. I do not believe it is “hypocritical” to object to Jennings’s appointment and oppose the encroachment of government. It is, however, hypocritical to oppose the encroachment of a government while voting for a person or party that accelerates and recklessly increases that encroachment.
“I am a small-government conservative--always have been, regardless of the man in the Oval office.”
Yes, I understand that you make that claim. That is why I ask whether you supported George W. Bush's big government policies with your vote or did you vote against George W. Bush and his big government policies?
Angel| 10.8.09 @ 4:13PM
You and I both object to the notion of a school czar but I further object to the appointment of Jennings as same. I guess that's where we differ.
Alan Brooks| 10.7.09 @ 5:11PM
"You make a lot of assumptions, Toddard--all of them wrong. How do you know I didn't object to George W's big government policies? Your arrogance is astounding; you are a smug fool of a man."
You got it just so, Angel. And who did Toddlard vote for? Ron Paul? Libertarian? ask Toddlard, this is what would happen:
Phone rings:
"you don't say'
"you don't say"
What happened?
"he don't say"
Alan Brooks| 10.7.09 @ 5:16PM
Toddlard voted for Michael Moore in 2000, 2004, and 2008,
and Moore wasn't even on the ballot.
S.L. Toddard| 10.7.09 @ 6:09PM
Of course, like all conservatives, I voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. That's the main reason I joined the ultra-statist Republican Party.
Angel| 10.7.09 @ 6:58PM
Yes, Alan--he's a big jackass; way too much time on the clown's hands, too.
Flee| 10.7.09 @ 3:09PM
I think the reason for concern among many about this guy getting appointed to a school safety position is that the only episode we know of where he had the opportunity to protect a student, all he could come up with was to suggest "safe" sex. Trying to justify his behavior by reason of the age of consent masks the real problem with the advice. The double standards of Pelosi are too numerous to recount here and par for the course. The next time she condemns a liberal for something will be the first. Get the Feds out of the education business, energy business, welfare business, regulation business, medical business, etc... Just protect our borders and enforce security and leave us alone.
electgogo| 10.29.09 @ 10:40AM
The contents of article are wonderful!!!Great!
brand new discounting Laptop Batteries
brand new discounting Laptop cpu fans