Rising Hegemon
I am writing because I am appalled and angered by Valerie Jarrett’s comments to the Washington Post regarding the suicide of 15 year old Justin Aarberg.
To say that this boy "made a lifestyle choice" not only shows that Ms. Jarrett is out of touch with modern understanding of gay & lesbian issues (this is terminology that fell out of favor with scientists and psychiatrists in the 1970s) but also seems to blame Mr. Aarberg for consciously inviting his own harassment.
She absolutely does. And the Administration needs to do a hell of a lot more in this area, and stupid and out-dated terms like this are code-words we expect from the likes of Newt Gingrich, not the Obama Administration.
7 comments:
Um, it's EXACTLY what I expect from O'Blowme and Obamco.
The Way Of The Ford/Harvard Warrior.
not to plead complete ignorance, but Ms Jarrett may have mispoke based on misinformation that was not transparent, and besides, who gives a hoot about what she says? In Obama world folks speak for themselves, not Mr. President. Look at all the Dems who announce opposition to health care
vox
what church if any is valerie jarrett member of? is that where she picks up her bigotry?
actions, not words, are what matter. obama has made clear acting on civil rights for gays are not a priority. ordering a study for DADT? the thing has been studied to death. that was just more foot dragging, an attempt to delay its eventual repeal. it is obama lawyers who are fighting DOMA. it is obama lawyers who equated homosexuality to incest and pedaphila. more and more it looks like obama has a personal bias against gays. the president needs to talk to parents whose kids have committed suicide because they were bullied for being gay. maybe then he'll understand that people need a leader who'll defend them. imagine if the president stood up and declared people have a right to be gay. how life affirming that would be.
How come Shirley Sherrod got such a rapid-fire condemnation and dismissal from the administration, and stuff like this is allowed to stand?
considering the economy and the republikkklans lockstep in blocking any recovery so THEY CAN WIN IN NOV may take a LITTLE priority over the gays. sorry.
can't win the battle if your team LOSES OEOPLE.
divide and conquer. keep your eye on the end zone.
having the courage for once to take a stand on principle might have made all the difference in keeping majorities. people respect courage. and it would have helped mitigate the stench of his being such a sell out. we know we can't count on obama when it comes to corporate interest. the least he can do is take a stand on this.
no guts, no glory.
considering the economy and the republikkklans lockstep in blocking any recovery so THEY CAN WIN IN NOV may take a LITTLE priority over the gays. sorry.
can't win the battle if your team LOSES OEOPLE.
What, the gays aren't oeople?
I'm really fucking sick of this argument -- saw an almost word-for-word version of it elsewhere in response to complaints about the dismissal of feminists who pointed out that Jerry Brown's use of "whore" to describe Meg Whitman showed a rather incredible lack of political savvy, if nothing else -- because it posits that the group whose rights are being stomped on aren't really part of the electorate.
Gays vote. Women vote. You want their votes consistently? Stop telling them to STFU and get in line and maybe someday we'll get to you.
This shit happens because candidates and elected officials do stupid things that tell marginalized groups that they're not considered very important. They don't happen because the marginalized groups are being difficult.
Post a Comment