Below are Creative Commons photographs I released under the 3.0 attribution license that I took of Bernadette Peters at the premiere of Don McKay at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival. They are now available on Wikipedia and my Flickr Creative Commons stream.

Below are Creative Commons photographs I released under the 3.0 attribution license that I took of Leslie Bibb and Sam Rockwell at the premiere of Moon at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival. They are now available on Wikipedia and my Flickr Creative Commons stream.

Below are Creative Commons photographs I released under the 3.0 attribution license that I took of Matthew Broderick and Sarah Jessica Parker at the premiere of Wonderful World at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival. They are now available on Wikipedia and my Flickr Creative Commons stream.

Although I’m in retirement from my Wikipedia photography, if you looked at my recent contributions to the Creative Commons you would think differently.  I’m uploading a lot of photos that time did not permit me to upload; I’m taking care of the housekeeping.

Below are photographs I took of Swoosie Kurtz at the premieres of An Englishman in New York (with Cynthia Nixon and John Hurt) and PoliWood (with the eminent John Guare) at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival for the Creative Commons under the 3.0 attribution license. They are now available on Wikipedia and my Flickr Creative Commons stream.

The bedroom may be a more private place, but when politicos insert themselves in ours, we’re going to be damn sure to set up a camera in theirs. – Queerty

One of the weakest defenses of keeping hypocritical gay politicians closeted was written up by Joshua Alston on Newsweek’s blog The Gaggle.  I expect to see the mainstream media try to maintain the status quo that the only thing the media should not report about is a person’s homosexuality, even when they wield their power to harm the civil rights of fellow LGBT people; however, I did not expect to find one so inarticulate and logically flawed.

Alston starts out reasonable enough in the post by framing Oscar-nominated filmmaker Kirby Dick’s documentary Outrage! in the light the film was intended to be judged:

Of all the confounding behaviors that human beings engage in, perhaps none is more irritating—or more common—than hypocrisy. It’s fascinating when someone condemns behavior while engaging in it himself…
[....]
In the film, director Kirby Dick builds the case that there are politicians who live their lives as gay men, or at least engage in gay sex, yet have voting records that undermine gay rights.

Exactly.  However, Alston’s shoddily thought-out piece switches midstream when he focuses on the argument against outing these people:

[T]he film’s core argument—that closeted gay politicians should be outed—is still at issue. The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him. We live in a democracy, and everyone gets a vote, including bigots and homophobes, and they get to be represented as well. Now, it’s fair to suggest that the voting public has the right to know everything about its elected officials, including their personal lives. But if we knew the details of what everyone was doing and voted accordingly, who would we have to vote for? Political scandals over the years, ones that have nothing to do with homosexuality, have proved that most politicians have skeletons they keep. If a gay man wants to run for governor of a socially conservative state because he has terrific ideas on how to reduce crime, balance the budget, or bring new jobs to his state, should he put his sexuality front and center and risk going down to defeat? There’s a valid argument for both sides of that question, but Outrage pretends there isn’t. If you’re gay, the film suggests, then fighting for gay rights must always be job one, and anything less is an unforgivable betrayal.

The film’s core argument is not that all closeted gay politicians should be outed, but only the ones who are actively hypocritical.  Alston starts off with the correct premise, but when he is forced to justify the last remaining media topic ban on public figures, he changes the argument.

Outrage! does not argue “that the voting public has the right to know everything about its elected officials”; but it does argue that hypocrites should be exposed, and that the media is failing in its duties to inform the public of what boils down to a question of character.  Welcome to that club, Joshua Alston.

One of my readers, Ryan, made these points on an earlier post over this topic:

If a prominent and powerful senator who was secretly Jewish but made a habit of introducing legislation and supporting measures which would limit or take away the rights of other Jews, would it really be unfair, in your opinion, to expose that senator as a Jew? Should other people (including Jewish people) just keep their mouths shut and allow that senator to keep moving ahead with his campaign of anti-semitism simply because the senator “has a right to his privacy?” Perinally I feel that my right to fight for my civil rights is more important than the “right to privacy” of any gay politician who is attempting to limit or take those rights away from me.

Using his flawed change-of-argument, Alston brings up the gay man with “terrific ideas” who won’t be elected in a conservative state because he is forced to declare his homosexuality, lest he be exposed.  Never mind this scenario has nothing to do with Outrage! and its premise; Alston passes over the real glaring deficiency: that someone with terrific ideas would be voted down simply for being gay.

This shows who Alston was pandering to: liberals who don’t feel people should be denied a job, or public service, because they are gay.  Under Alston’s logic, Ted Haggard would still be leading New Life Church and Larry Craig would still be a Senator; the public would be none-the-wiser.  Homophobes and bigots, who previously adored these people, would never be challenged to face the basis of their bigotry.

Alston’s understanding of democracy

It might be Alston’s misunderstanding of how democracy works.  He writes, “The job of a public official, after all, is to represent his constituency, not to vote in the way that would most benefit him.”  No, Joshua, the job of a public official is to vote his or her conscience, and the public puts that person in office not to be controlled by the shifting winds of poll numbers.  This is consistently a point of criticism against politicians.  Conservatives and liberals both make the point.

The public puts politicians in office to become far more educated on the issues than the public is able to be, and to vote accordingly.  Politicians aren’t elected to be puppets of their constituency, although to ignore them is to put their re-election at risk.

Democracy also works when the media does its job.  Alston’s post underscores the ultimate shame that he and others in the mainstream media engage in: not informing the public.  It’s a dereliction of their responsibilities.  People like Alston decide that hypocrisy is not worthwhile to report to voters–including gay ones–so that they can make an informed decision.  If liberal and conservative voters can agree on one thing, it’s that they don’t want to elect an anti-gay closeted politician.

The media decides this information is not worth your knowing, as they report on just about every other facet of a person’s private life.  Again, my reader Ryan:

[S]enators, congressmen and all other elected officials should be held to a certain standard and shouldn’t be exempt from close scrutiny. In fact, close scrutiny of politicians’ personal lives routinely occurs when it comes to heterosexual politicians. Their extr-marital affairs, drug use, domestic violence, drinking problems and all sorts of other “personal” things are fodder for the press already. Do you really want the press [to] treat all gay politicians so differently from the way they treat straight politicians?

Joshua Alston’s post is a defense that doesn’t judge the film Outrage! on its own merits; he judges it on the mainstream media’s double-standard.   That’s the real outrage.

Click here to watch the Outrage! film trailer.

Although I’m in retirement from my Wikipedia photography, if you looked at my recent contributions to the Creative Commons you would think differently.  I’m uploading a lot of old photos from series that time did not permit me to upload, so I’m taking care of the housekeeping.

Below are photographs I took of Tim Daly and his sister Tyne Daly at the premiere of PoliWood at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival for the Creative Commons under the 3.0 attribution license. They are now available on Wikipedia and my Flickr Creative Commons stream.

Some of the people I have photographed present unique circumstances.  With some, such as Uma Thurman, they move so quickly down the red carpet that it it is hard to capture them in a flattering way.

With others, I have several good portraits, but none that cry out “I’m perfect!”

I had the latter problem with Mary-Kate Olsen.  I find her fascinating because she has lived a life few other people can ever imagine.  I allow her wide latitude with problems she encounters in life.  It has to be very difficult to always be in the public eye, with every stumble relentlessly reported.  And to never have known different.

I wanted to find the perfect Mary-Kate portrait from Tribeca.  The one to the right is the one I decided was the ideal capture for her Wikipedia article lead.  Below were the runners-up, in order of preference.

Mary-Kate Olsen (born June 13, 1986) is a Daytime Emmy Award-nominated American actress, producer, fashion model and fashion designer. She has had a successful acting career beginning at a very young age, in roles with her twin sister Ashley Olsen.

These images are licensed Creative Commons and are part of a public art project.  Click here to see more.

I’ve uploaded the vast majority of my portraits from Tribeca (191 images).  Here are a few that were overlooked my first skim through the 10 days of photos I shot at the festival.

Connor Paolo – (born July 11, 1990) is perhaps best known for his portrayal of the adolescent Alexander the Great in Oliver Stone’s Alexander and his portrayal of Eric van der Woodsen on The CW series Gossip Girl.

Brian Williams – (born May 5, 1959) is the anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News, the evening news program of the NBC television network^.  Williams replaced Tom Brokaw on December 2, 2004.

Richard Meier – (born October 12, 1934 in Newark, New Jersey) is an American architect known for his rationalist designs and the use of the color white.

Leslie Bibb- (born November 17, 1974) is an American actress and former fashion model.

It’s all about freedom – these images are Creative Commons. Click here to see more.

Below are new Wikipedia portrait shots I took during the Tribeca Film Festival (as with all of my photography, these images are licensed Creative Commons):

Aidan Quinn – (born March 8, 1959) is an Emmy Award-nominated American actor.

Campbell Scott – (born July 19, 1961) is an American actor, director, producer, and voice artist.

Christian Parenti – is an American investigative journalist and author.

It’s all about freedom – these images are Creative Commons. Click here to see more.