Skip to main content

A worthy Truthdigger of the Week award winner

This piece from truthdig speaks for itself.

"Coming out of the closet is the most important act in a gay person’s life.

It is a gift to those who are already exposed to prejudice and an example to those who live secret, frightened lives.

Harvey Milk is best remembered as a pioneering gay politician who was murdered in San Francisco City Hall, but there is another reason to hold him in memory: his most important cause, getting people to come out.
 

“I would like to see every gay doctor come out, every gay lawyer, every gay architect come out, stand up and let [the] world know,” he said in 1977. “That would do more to end prejudice overnight than anybody would imagine. I urge them to do that, urge them to come out. Only that way will we start to achieve our rights.”

Add to that list “CEO of the most valuable corporation in the world.”

Apple CEO Tim Cook came out this week, not to his friends and colleagues, who already knew, but to the rest of us.

“I’m proud to be gay, and I consider being gay among the greatest gifts God has given me,” Cook wrote.

In the majority of U.S. states, that statement could cost Tim Cook his job. That’s because, 37 years after Harvey Milk urged every doctor, lawyer and architect to come out, it is perfectly legal in most of this country to discriminate against gay people, to fire them on the basis of their sexuality.

And then there’s the rest of the world. Apple is a multinational corporation, worth about $230 billion more than Exxon and more than twice the value of GE. It does business in countries that shame, imprison and torture people for loving those of the same gender. Who knows what ripple effects Cook’s statement will have on his business, or what impact it will have in the cultural lives of those countries. Surely the easiest thing, for business reasons, would have been to stay hidden."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...