Tuesday, June 28, 2011

New York City Gay Pride Parade, June 26, 2011

In the wake of the Stonewall Riots of June 28, 1969, when police raided the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village, the homosexual community has unified to fight for its civil rights. One of the outcomes of this event has been the Gay Pride Parade, the first of which took place in June of 1970 as a civil rights demonstration. Over the years it has grown less confrontational and challenging and much more celebratory, and this year it was particularly celebratory because of the recent passage of the Same Sex Marriage Equality Bill.

Just imagine someone walking down the middle of Fifth Avenue passing out posters promoting the freedom to marry:






Or, given the often antagonistic relationship between New Yorkers and the State of New York governors, historically, just imagine hundreds of people walking down that same avenue while holding aloft signs thanking Governor Cuomo:






This was truly a wonderful celebration, and I almost regretted not staying for the parade itself.  However, whenever I am in the City on this weekend, my preference is not to find a good vantage point from which to watch the parade, but to wander the cross streets between Madison and Sixth Avenues an hour-and-a-half before it begins to photograph some of the participants as they get ready.




Butch/Femme Motorcycles, East 41st. Street, looking towards NY Public Library




This year, because of unusually restrictive access to those streets for whatever reason, I managed to get many fewer shots of the individuals, particularly the drag queens (and kings) and their marvellous costumes. It was obvious that even they were having difficulty getting access to the cross streets, and some had to get ready right on Sixth Avenue, with all of its traffic.




Lion King Prepping on 6th. Avenue




Others had to take detours of several blocks to get to their assigned gathering point.  




Rainbow on 6th. Avenue




Nevertheless, little could dampen the high spirits, and it was a beautiful, sunny day.

Below are more photographs of this Sunday morning which, I hope,  capture some of the raucous and festive mood of this event.





Strutting down 6th. Avenue




Couple Prepping




Another Couple






Madame & Priest hamming it up




Ready to strut

Street Hero


Harlequin









I discovered that an astounding 274 organizations were participating in this Parade, and even if most of my photographs captured individuals, below are a very few shots of some of those organizations: 



Gay Police Officers




Gay Men's Chorus




NYC Gay Basketball League




Maybe next year I'll photograph the preparations as I usually do, but then make my way down to Greenwich Village to watch the parade as it ends its route.


This year would have been a good one to actually watch the parade, as John Leland of the New York Times reported, Governor Cuomo "was the parade's rock star, eliciting shrieks as he made his way down Fifth Avenue."


Leland also noted that "several people carried hand-lettered signs thanking by name the four Republican senators who voted for the [Same Sex Marriage Equality] bill."  Given this rare bit of bipartisan spirit, what are the chances of getting Dick Cheney and his gay daughter to participate in the parade next year?



Thursday, June 23, 2011

Introducing BRAC USA



Summer trips, brief as they may be, separate me from my computer and the research needed for my blog posts.  But, I want to share one e-mail exchange I had today with BRAC.

As I was going through a backlog of e-mails, I opened this piece from BRAC.

Given that I receive many mailings from organizations that only identify themselves by some acronym, I decided today to write back to BRAC asking them who they were. After all, as I told them, I live in the Bronx and receive material from the Bronx River Art Center, aka BRAC.

Our (local) BRAC always clarifies who it is, and I know that it can’t possibly be partnering with UNICEF in Uganda or working with a woman community organizer in Liberia named Cecilia Doe. So I asked this (other) BRAC, “who are you?”

I never expected a response, but I did get a moment’s satisfaction from taking out my annoyance at the many organizations that assume that everyone knows who they are by their acronyms.

However, within twenty minutes (maybe less), to my surprise and delight, I received a response from Michelle Chapin, Program Manager, BRAC USA.  Here it is:


Dear Tyko,

Thanks for your question – I know it can be confusing! BRAC is actually not an acronym anymore. It formerly stood for “Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee,” but since we’ve moved beyond the borders of Bangladesh and do programs in both rural and urban areas, the acronym no longer applies. So now we are just BRAC, a small relief initiative that has grown into the largest anti-poverty organization in the developing world.

I hope that clarifies things, and please let me know if you have any more questions!

Best regards,

Michelle 



So, for any of my readers and followers who were as clueless as I about BRAC--or maybe as forgetful as I, for I clearly had received  material from them previously--I pass on this informative response from Michelle and encourage you to look at some of the work of this, the “largest anti-poverty organization in the developing world.”

BRAC's dedication to empowering the poorer people of our world is impressive, and the fact that an international organization will take the time to respond to a stranger's e-mail signifies an unusual breadth of commitment and concern for everyone.

Thus, what began, on my end, as a slightly peevish letter to BRAC has resulted in my decision to send them monetary support for their programs.  Maybe some of you will also choose to support BRAC.  

Friday, June 10, 2011

Un-American Accusations, Part 2: Pols and Pundits



In “Un-American Accusations, Part 1: Big Oil” (May 15, 2011), I commented on the inane public statement and gratuitous whining by Conoco Phillips and its CEO, James Mulva, that any possible withdrawing of governmental subsidies to the large oil corporations would be “un-American.”

Our coddled and obscenely wealthy oil companies, however, are not alone in using such divisive language to alienate those with whom they disagree. Politicians and pundits succumb all too often to applying the word “un-American” to members of the opposition, and it is their use of this word in political discourse that I return today.

What does it mean for someone to be “un-American?” It may simply mean that the person is not a citizen of the United States of America, although in that case we are most likely to say that such a person is “not an American,” a phrase carrying no negative implications. The term “un-American,” on the other hand, carries with it all sorts of negative implications, foremost of which is that the person is “other,” not “one of us.”

It was my impression that the accusation of being “un-American” most often would be made by members of the right wing against liberals, and after what I consider to be an objective investigation of this topic, I found this to be the case.  What follows are seven examples, the first two from the liberal wing and the rest from the conservative wing. What stands out in these examples is not the quantitative difference (2 : 5) but the qualitative difference, with the liberal clearly much less comfortable with making such an accusation.




Example 1: Obama as Accuser (?) 

In an appearance on Morning Joe in mid-April, 2011, Mark Halperin (editor-at-large for Time and a senior political analyst for MSNBC) claimed that President Obama called Ryan’s budget plan “un-American.” Now, I can believe many politicians saying such a thing, but I thought to myself: “Obama is too careful to make such a slip of the tongue. Did he really say this?”

It turns out he didn’t. What he said was that Ryan’s vision was “about changing the basic social compact in America,” and he later concluded with these words: “That’s not a vision of the America I know.”

This is quite different from saying that Ryan’s budget plan is “un-American,” and Halperin, Joe Scarborough and the rest who were present that day on MSNBC have a responsibility to be much more accurate and more careful in their analysis of language. I would have been aghast had Obama called the plan “un-American.” I am, however, in total agreement with President Obama that Ryan’s plan “is not a vision of the America I know.”

Pundits and listeners who think these two statements say the same thing either have no understanding of the importance and subtlety of language or are not interested in applying the subtlety of language in this case. Shame on them, not shame on President Obama!



Example 2: Pelosi and Hoyer as Accusers 

As health care reform was being debated in Congress in August of 2009, Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Steny Hoyer (D, MD) wrote an Op-Ed in USA Today. They complained that the many disruptions of town-hall meetings being held by members of Congress over the summer recess by protesters from the right were “simply un-American.”

Now, it is true that these “town hall” protests were far from spontaneous responses from constituents. They were
organized by such right-wing organizations as Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, along with instructions to “Yell,” “Stand Up and Shout,” and “Rattle Him,” and were funded by, among others, Koch Industries.  Nevertheless, these demonstrations were as American and as much a part of our culture--even if far from its best part--as were the two KKK rallies and marches in Skokie, Illinois (in 1978 and 2000).

Therefore, despite the projected hate, the disruption of civic dialogue, and the undermining of any modicum of what we would consider democratic debate, this behavior ought not to have been called “un-American.” So it was appropriate that, the next day, the White House voiced its displeasure at the words used by Pelosi and Hoyer, and that Hoyer, eventually, also would come to regret their use of this characterization.



Example 3: Michelle Bachmann as Accuser 

On October 17, 2008, Michelle Bachmann (R, MN) appeared on Hardball and, in response to Chris Matthews’ questions, claimed that Barack Obama had a “very strong association with Bill Ayers (one of the Weathermen of the late 1960s). Building on this issue of guilt by association with people whom she claims are “anti-American,” Bachmann adds the name of Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and Tony Rezko. As Matthews pursued these accusations further, he actually got Bachmann to say that the media needed to probe Congress for evidence of “anti-American” views. In her words, “I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out, are they pro-America or anti-America?” 

Now, coming from a member of our Congress, this is truly over the top. Could Bachmann really want our country to return to the witch hunt trials of Joseph McCarthy?   The “threat” she posits is, at some level, much more amorphous and fictitious than McCarthy’s pursuit of Communists: At least, McCarthy could claim that he was seeking out “card-carrying Communists.”  Does Bachmann think there is such a thing as a “card-carrying Anti-American?” Does she really fear that many of her liberal, democratic colleagues in the House need to be rooted out for being un-American?  In saner times, a member of Congress who made such accusations would at least have been reprimanded, if not censured.  Yet, for these outlandish remarks, she never even apologized. The fact that she is considering a run for the presidency of our country is an affront to all of us.



Example 4: Pundit JB Williams as Accuser 

The right-wing political commentator, JB Williams, wrote an article in December of 2005 titled, “Why Many Modern ‘Liberals’ Qualify as ‘un-American.” His rant makes no attempt to clarify his positions with clear examples; but a careful reading does allow one to understand how he defines “American” (and “un-American”).

He defines Americans as those who hold “a set of common beliefs based upon a love and respect for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, freedom, self-governance and self-determination.”   I would have thought that this defines all of us, not only in America, but also most common citizens the world over, but I digress.

Among the other aspects that define an American for Williams are Capitalism (the love of; ‘Capitalism = Americanism’); “free religious expression”; right to life (anti-abortion); patriotic love for one’s country; distrust of the federal government; and belief in corporate profits. He implies that these all emanate from the actions and beliefs of our “founders,” as if these wise men ever talked about abortion or voiced a distrust in the very government that they were working to create!

Those whom Williams considers “un-American” are Americans (in contrast to “anti-American” foreigners) who “hate American principles.”    Williams claims that the term “un-American” describes “the behavior of many liberals living in America today.” 

He then focuses ad-hominem attacks on certain liberals to prove his point that they are un-American by embracing some of the lies and distortions about them that were made by conservative attack ads during earlier election cycles. So Jack Murtha (D, PA) earned three Purple Hearts from “self-inflicted surface scratches,” and John Kerry (D, MA) was called “unfit to command” by his “military band-of-brothers.” Actually, Murtha earned two Purple Hearts, not three, as well as a Bronze Star and a Cross of Gallantry, and his injuries were definitely not “self-inflicted.” Kerry, by the way, earned three Purple Hearts, a Silver Star and a Bronze Star.

After these and a few other examples, Williams makes this blanket statement: “The examples of un-American politicians are nearly endless today.” And so, if one were to believe him, one can understand how, three years later, Michelle Bachmann might ask for an investigation of her colleagues in Congress.  As was the case with Bachmann, Williams feels no remorse or need to apologize for his statements, false though they are. In fact, he takes pride in his (apparent) lack of education, “a dirt road scholar with a degree in BS from the school of hard knocks” who claims that “formal education seems a poor substitute for common sense.”

I would call this “pride in one’s ignorance,” and Williams’ attitude does get us closer to a real issue of how a segment of our citizenry 
defines being American. It has to do with not having too many advanced degrees, not being overly educated, not being an “elitist.” And the population segment that holds this attitude is pretty much limited to the conservative and Republican side of the American political spectrum.

Consider, for example, the regard given to the opinions of “Joe the Plumber,” as if he were a major thinker or Sarah Palin’s repeated embrace of “Joe Six-Packas the model American during our most recent Presidential campaign.   Less recently, many of us can remember Spiro Agnew’s rant at liberals in 1969 which was subsequently condensed to the three words, “effete intellectual snobs.” Going even further back in time, we are able to unearth this attitude in the mid-19th century nativist American Know Nothing movement, which originated in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party.



Example 5: Fox News as Accuser 

I’ll leave it to someone better equipped than I to make connections between the Know Nothings and contemporary Republicans, but the idea that anti-intellectualism is a desirable “American” quality is, unfortunately alive and well today, and it appears to have a long history. But, back to the present.

In February of 2010, Ryan Mason, demonstrated how Tucker Carlson of Fox completely (or purposefully) misinterpreted a report by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute which showed that those with higher degrees tend to have more liberal stances.
Mason even titled his article, Fox News: Being Liberal Is Un-American.” In the video, we hear Carlson state, in regard to higher education, “propaganda works,” while host Clayton Morris anxiously asks, “How do you fix this?” as if Universities actually were propaganda tanks (a case of Fox projecting its own behavior on other institutions?) and these needed to be cleaned up.



Example 6: Obama as the True “Un-American” 

As we might expect, the main target of the accusation of being “un-American” is Barack Obama, our first African American president.    Some accusations fall into the category of anti-intellectualism, as when Obama is castigated for pronouncing words such as Pakistan correctly.   Some accusations stem from the reflex to protect one’s own, even if in the wrong, as when Liz Cheney said that prosecuting members of the Bush administration for torturing prisoners was being “un-American,” or when
James Inhofe (R, OK) called a speech by Obama “un-American” because in it he called the Iraq war a “war of choice.”   Other accusations derive from the need to defend the Republican’s close alliance with business, as when Rand Paul (R, KY), appeared on Good Morning America last year and complained about Obama’s tough stance on the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico with these words: “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”    Still other accusers take on Obama’s cosmopolitanism--derived from his formative years when he attended local schools in Jakarta and his other travels abroad--as un-American; so Mike Huckabee (R, AK) noted last year that Obama “grew up more as a globalist than an American," which leads him to this non sequitur--"to deny American exceptionalism is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation."

Similar to Huckabee’s criticism of Obama, but much more rabid and even more indefensible is that of conservative columnist and radio talk show host, Ben Shapiro.  Shapiro asked, “why does President Obama appear to be so un-American?” and then answers his question with these words: “He is not one of us – he is rather a member of the same global community that despises America and tolerates Islamism, that slams American consumerism and praises Chinese communism, that rips evangelical Christianity while ignoring Muslim-imposed clitorectomy....President Obama is the culmination of a century of foreign infiltration already in place.” All I can say to this is “Wow, is this guy for real?!”

But, to take Shapiro’s fatuous and indefensible assessment of President Obama, what could be less “like us” and more like some “foreign infiltration” than some animal species?  Obama may have been born in America (although Hawaii is so far away!),   he may not have been educated in an Islamic Madrasah (as some like to claim),  but he is black and his father was Kenyan, so it clearly didn’t take much for Marilyn Davenport (R, CA) of the Orange County Republican Central Committee and a Tea Party activist to send out this picture [below] of this most “un-American” president--the ostensible birth certificate photo of baby Barack Obama with his mother and father.




Given the tendency of conservative Republicans to deny the relevance of the theory of evolution, it may be that Ms. Davenport actually believed that this picture made Obama into the “other” as far as possible. But just consider how mean-spirited this doctored photograph is, and what a different view of America it presents when compared to Barack Obama’s words during his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention when he mused that, given his unusual upbringing, "in no other country on Earth is my story even possible."

In way of a conclusion, I call on Dana Sciandra, the Florida host of Stimulated Boredom, who describes himself as a “staunch Independent....neither liberal, conservative, libertarian, moderate or progressive. As should be the case with any intelligent human being who is contemplating the complexities of domestic, foreign and social issues.” This is a good start, because I am a liberal, progressive and a Democrat, and here is someone who isn’t and who comes from a very different position, yet who arrives at the same conclusions that I would on this topic.

In his article, “On Personal Politics,” (May 7, 2011), Dana writes the following in a section on the topic of hypocrisy: “Most Democrats (I’m looking at you, former Rep. Alan Grayson) don’t call people, “un-american” for disagreeing with them. Democrats don’t call parts of the country, “more American” than others, simply because they do agree with them.   Democrats don’t pander to the basest prejudices and fears of race, nor do they incite and/or encourage imagery of violence, revolution and hatred.”

So it is that Republicans and America’s conservative movement--in contrast to Democrats and liberals--are much more comfortable and willing to use language that divides and demeans their opponents, language that is meant to belittle and disgrace them, to turn whatever they say and do into something unworthy of consideration.  “Un-American” is the ultimate word of gratuitous disrespect and it ought to have no place in intelligent political discourse. 

Sunday, June 5, 2011

No Post this week

My apologies to any and all who may be following Tyko's Wassup This Week.


As I try to limit my time spent before a big screen, either my desktop or the TV, I frittered away much too much this past week in watching the French Open.


"Frittered" may be too strong a word and certainly sends out the wrong impression, because I enjoyed all of the matches--particularly both of the finals: they revealed how much tennis can be a mental game.  


Too bad that American tennis broadcasts (at least on the major networks) hardly ever show doubles, which can be much more fun to watch than singles because doubles really is a Rock, Scissors, Paper game--he/she who throws only "rocks," for example, will never win in doubles, so one gets to see a much greater variety of shotmaking.


I'll be back before the week is over, I promise.


Tyko