Anti-gays fight for DADT (Don't Accessorize, Don't Tie A Rainbow scarf) policy
If you want to know what kind of takeaway messages the far-right hopes to cultivate in the military fairness discussion, look no further than to the imagery that they're using to visually shun us. First is TVC, second is CWA:
Ya know, because that is the right we're seeking -- the one that allows us to accessorize those oh-so-drab uniforms, amid witty repartee regarding the "so last season"-iness of camouflage. Because that's how we gays roll: Fashion first, basic freedoms second. Constituion, shmonstituion -- it's the fashion bill of rights to which we 'mos are beholden! [/snark, snark]
Ugh, so yuck. And good God, can't CWA at least get the Pride flag coloring right? They're certainly obsessed enough with it to know its hue-based breakdown!
*Interesting note about image 1: The photo is actually from a marcher in the Copenhagen Pride parade. If you look at the source photo on Flickr, you'll notice that the joyous young reveler has a Danish flag on his upper arm. But of course TVC removed it, so that they could rip the image from its context in and of a land where soldiers can and do serve openly without contention, and instead apply to a country where social conservatives' anti-equality nonsense is given far more respect than it deserves.
Have you contacted the photographer of that doctored photo? He should know how his work is being misused.
Posted by: Matt Algren | Mar 5, 2010 1:41:50 PM
I am constantly surprised (though I shouldn't be) by what lengths they will go to promote their agenda of fear and loathing.
Posted by: John Ozed | Mar 5, 2010 3:42:17 PM
"And good God, can't CWA at least get the Pride flag coloring right?"
You would think they could get right even if they do have objections to the flag.
After all, God did create the rainbow, says so in the bible.
Posted by: Bob Miller | Mar 5, 2010 5:28:54 PM
Interesting note, J-man; many men and women in our community have *NO* idea that each color on the flag has a distinct meaning! They are as follows:
* hot pink - sexuality
* red - life
* orange - healing
* yellow - sunlight
* green - nature
* turquoise - magic
* blue - serenity
* violet - spirit
Sadly, most people tend to think that the flag merely symbolizes "diversity"; and two colors were dropped by the manufacturing cos. because they were so difficult to assimilate, it seems...
The original flag was hand-dyed by Gilbert Baker and flown in one of the first Gay Freedom Day Parades in June of 1978. Personally, I would love to contact him for an insight into the deeper significance of each of these *somewhat* vague one-word definitions.
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 5, 2010 11:58:35 PM
I served four years in the Army and then transferred over to the Air force serving another four. I was out, proud and openly gay in both branches. From showers to chow hall, on the range or at night on our bunks, no one gave a damn! I was well respected and left both branches with an honorable discharge.
I pray that those pro DADT have served as there is no substitute for experience! I cannot, for the life of me, see a sergeant coming out to his battle-buddy after twenty five years of service and the military as we know it imploding!
Posted by: Jason J. | Mar 6, 2010 4:19:48 PM
Jason: Thank you for your service. And thanks for sharing. I take it you didn't push your rainbow headband agenda ;-)
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 6, 2010 4:40:12 PM
Huh. Guess all the gays in the service whilst I was in were just as boring as myself. Well we must have been because I never met a single sailor as *fabulous* as these folks.
Posted by: John | Mar 6, 2010 6:02:00 PM
Of course they don't care about copyright law. They think that all laws derive from them, and that they only apply to others anyway.
Posted by: marsmannetje | Mar 6, 2010 6:05:10 PM
The depth of their bigotry knows no limits. None.
Posted by: Bill S | Mar 6, 2010 8:44:25 PM
I hope (desperately) the artist in question sues (and wins) for Copyright infringement! That'll learn 'em!!! MUWAHAHAHA!!!
Posted by: Wade MacMorrighan | Mar 7, 2010 1:37:38 AM
While it's fun to envision TVC getting sued, I have to break from the crowd on this. The way they used the image (unreproducable thumbnail, only a portion of the source photo) is widely considered to be fair Internet practice. It's the whole "Good enough for Google" rule: If Google can reproduce images this way in their image search, then any website can.
Now, if I were using a personal flickr photo like this, I would always ask permission. I actually apply stricter photo usage standards than man, b/c I don't feel personally comfortable doing things that I *could* get away with. But just because I would (and TVC should've) ask permission, it doesn't mean they'll catch shit for it. Plus if rules were to come down against them in this way, then *so many* sites that we all read on a reg. basis would also be subject to recourse.
But that all being said: There's still good reason to contact the photog. He can still vent his frustrations, both to TVC and publicly, embarrassing/shame their usage/overall mission.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Mar 7, 2010 12:07:44 PMcomments powered by Disqus