What's going on here is that during the campaign, Barack Obama promised to lift the ban on funding needle exchange programs, which:
- Do not encourage drug use.
- Reduce AIDS transmission.
- Reduce the cost to society.
- Provide an entry point with addicts for counseling.
So this wasn't even a matter of his not fighting for the program, it's a matter of him submitting language reauthorizing a program that he explicitly campaigned against in his budget.
A president's budget is purely advisory. Congress can, and does, amend it, or ignore it, as they see fit, but he is unwilling to even leave out a bit of language authorizing a program he claims to oppose.
I'm with John Aravosis's take on this
- The candidate promised to lift the ban.
- The White House Web site reaffirmed the president's commitment to lifting the ban.
- The White House Web site no longer reaffirms his commitment to lifting the ban.
- The president now refuses to lift the ban.
- The president actually affirmatively makes things worse by administratively supporting [and] defending the ban.
- The spokesman reiterates the president's support for lifting the ban, some day, once Congress gets around to it.
Either there is some real homophobia here, or there has been a political calculus made that appealing to homophobia is a political win, because the opposition wants gay people dead.
At best, it's no different than the prosecutors in and around Baltimore who will routinely demand more severe sentences in plea bargains for black defendants, because they know that they have a better chance to convict a black man, even in front of a black jury.
I believe that this action has been taken because it can be seen as a gay issue, not in spite of it.
This is dog-whistle gay bashing, and it is quite deliberate.
0 comments :
Post a Comment