'Safe School' Czar a Drug-Using, Homosexual God-Hater? (does it matter?), page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times

Topic started on 23-9-2009 @ 02:31 PM by KSPigpen

Critics Assail Obama's 'Safe Schools' Czar, Say He's Wrong Man for the Job

Sensationalism sells, right? Don't be hating. It's meant to get your dander up. It intentionally has a right-leaning slant to draw attention to the potential for distraction from pertinence.

www.foxnews.com...

Before we begin, let me make it perfectly clear. I have no issues with people sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or past, present or future use of chemicals. Do what you will.

Social conservatives are up in arms about yet another White House czar. This time it's Kevin Jennings, President Obama's director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools (OSDFS).

Jennings was appointed to the position largely because of his longtime record of working to end bullying and discrimination in schools. In 1990, as a teacher in Massachusetts, he founded the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which now has over 40 chapters at schools nationwide. He has also published six books on gay rights and education, including one that describes his own experiences as a closeted gay student

"I got stoned more often and went out to the beach at Bellows, overlooking Honolulu Harbor and the lights of the city, to drink with my buddies on Friday and Saturday nights, spending hours watching the planes take off and land at the airport, which is actually quite fascinating when you are drunk and stoned."

Sprigg said that quote is particularly unacceptable for someone who has been named to lead America's Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools.

"It would be nice to hear from Mr. Jennings ... that he regrets the drug use he engaged in when he was in school," Sprigg said. "But in this autobiography, which Mr. Jennings wrote only recently, he never expresses any regret about his youthful drug use."

For starters, I think it's great, and apparently very progressive that we are seeing the administration embrace some diversity.

Given that, this Czar crap is getting pretty ridiculous. Are they purposely trying to find the most controversial individuals they CAN to fill these newly created leadership positions?

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

Bill Clinton admitted using drugs, of course, he 'didn't inhale.' I think the biggest stink that's going to come from this is from those that are unwilling to embrace the diversity in sexual orientation. I don't have any issues with my brothers and sisters experiencing life the way they choose, but let's be honest, acceptance of alternative lifestyles is not a strong suit for many Americans.

Do you folks think this is going to cause an issue? Is it already an issue? Oh, in case you didn't think that this story had anything about religion...

The religious right is also alarmed by Jennings' personal views about religion. In his memoir, he wrote of his views while he was in high school:

"What had [God] done for me, other than make me feel shame and guilt? Squat. Screw you, buddy -- I don't need you around anymore, I decided.

"The Baptist Church had left me only a legacy of self-hatred, shame, and disappointment, and I wanted no more of it or its Father. The long erosion of my faith was now complete, and I, for many years, reacted violently to anyone who professed any kind of religion. Decades passed before I opened a Bible again."

Ok...this almost seems comical. I can hear it now.

"This guy is a homosexual, drug-using God hater! We don't want him in charge of our schools!"

I don't think they could have picked a more controversial figure, or a position to put him in that would create any more of a stink. It really makes me wonder what it is we are REALLY supposed to be looking at. This is a little too far over the top to be anything but a deliberate attempt to stir something up.

Is this supposed to teach us a lesson about tolerance? Is it a distraction? I mean, it really can't be any worse than a guy wanting to depopulate the planet through our drinking water, right?

Edit to change the title slightly and add a bit of a disclaimer.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by KSPigpen]

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 02:58 PM by Jenna

Wow. I think they really did find the most controversial person they could for the job. Has me wondering what it is we're not supposed to notice too. It's like they intentionally made sure they pushed every button they could with this guy to make sure there's a big stink made over him.

Have there been any bills passed in the last day or two they don't want us to read? Executive orders maybe? I don't care what the guy does in his free-time, or what he has done for that matter, whatever floats his boat. But it sure seems like they're begging for an uproar..

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 03:07 PM by groingrinder

People smoke weed. Lots of people smoke weed. Lots of people that you know personally smoke weed. Maybe they do not tell you because they fear your paranoia. I am tired of those who discriminate against those of us who access "the peoples pharmacy".

Cops
Judges
Doctors
Nurses
Teachers
Lawyers

I have personally known all the above who smoked weed. They would not come out of the closet for fear of their jobs though. With the constant paranoia, nobody will ever truly know just how many people do smoke weed. You will only know those courageous enough to admit it. Or unlucky enough to get caught.

We need a law that our legislators will take a breathalyzer test before coming back to work from lunch. Just to make sure they are not legislating under the influence of alcohol.

[edit on 9-23-2009 by groingrinder]

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 03:11 PM by KSPigpen

Originally posted by groingrinder
People smoke weed. Lots of people smoke weed. Lots of people that you know personally smoke weed. Maybe they do not tell you because they fear your paranoia. I am tired of those who discriminate against those of us who access "the peoples pharmacy".

Cops
Judges
Doctors
Nurses
Teachers
Lawyers

I have personally known all the above who smoked weed. They would not come out of the closet for fear of their jobs though. With the constant paranoia, nobody will ever truly know just how many people do smoke weed. You will only know those courageous enough to admit it. Or unlucky enough to get caught.

I agree, but I would like to avoid getting too far down that path. It's understood that it, and many other chemicals are used pervasively in our modern society and in those countries not 'civilized' as much as 'we' are. That's not really the discussion.

I DO appreciate your input though. Do you think there is any motivation behind the choice of this guy for a position at the top of the educational food chain other than qualifications?

p.s. They wouldn't be fearing MY paranoia.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by KSPigpen]

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 03:19 PM by Benevolent Heretic

reply to post by KSPigpen

People need to chill out.

Everyone has a past. And everyone has opinions and ideas. I'm thrilled to see this administration embracing diversity. Jennings won't last long, though... not with the right-wing smear machine and The Family Research Council on his tail.

The Right Wing Smear Campaign Against Kevin Jennings

As the blog Good As You noted, Jennings was relaying “his frustrations as a gay teen, when his inability to ‘overcome’ his gay desires convinced him that he was detached from God.” FRC also doesn’t bother to include what Jennings writes a few sentences later: that he later returned to religion. “Decades passed before I opened a Bible again.” Jennings later went on to serve as an active member on the board of the Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, the nation’s most prestigious Protestant seminary. ThinkProgress spoke with Rev. Serene Jones, President of UTS, who disputed any claims that Jennings was anti-religion:

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 03:19 PM by Rams59lb

I'll agree that a persons sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or past use of chemicals isn't my place to judge a persons qualifications for a job.

Now, taking into account that this is a right leaning article/report of an indiviual who has been chosen by this administration whos policies are not agreeable with more then half of the U.S. I believe the question of who this man is, has he been properly vetted and the awareness to the public should be put out to the public.

I personally have done my share of mistakes in the past, my beliefs are pretty much balanced and fair to others around me but I know plenty of jobs that I simply should not be given without a huge background check, pubic anoouncement of my job placement and an oppertunity for those who oppose can be heared especially when it has to do with our tax dollars.

If I'm applying for a job as a waiter, does my past immoral and unethical involvement in the food industry come into play? Of course it does!

reply posted on 23-9-2009 @ 04:36 PM by KSPigpen

reply to post by Rams59lb

You make a really good point. I just can't help but wonder WHY they would want to put this guy in this position, KNOWING that it's going to cause such a big problem for a lot of people.

I mean, com on. You would HAVE to know that a LOT of people are going to be very, VERY vocal about an appointment like this, right?

Why even do it?

reply posted on 5-10-2009 @ 06:39 PM by Matyas

Well now, we are doing a second recall on our mayor because he is gay, and in theory it can be stepped up to the national level. So now it is matter of time before we can recall Obama on the premise he is in league with known paedophiles.

Pages: ^^TOP^^