"WHEN FASCISM COMES TO AMERICA IT WILL BE WRAPPED IN THE FLAG
AND CARRYING A CROSS." -SINCLAIR LEWIS

Thursday, June 25, 2009

American Power And Trig Palin "Ghoulshopping"

My conservative counterpart Donald Douglas over at American Power has his digital panties in a knot over the supposed "ghoulshopping" of Sarah Palin's youngest son Trig in a fundraising graphic at liberal Alaskan blog Blue Oasis in his post "Democratic Values! Left-Wing Alaska Operative 'Ghoulshops' Trig Palin!":

A top Alaska Democratic Party operative once again proves the everyday demonology of left-wing secular progressives.

Via
Gateway Pundit and Conservatives for Sarah Palin, it turns out that Linda Kellen Biegel, the publisher of Celtic Diva's Blue Oasis, has Photoshopped a ghoulish picture of Trig Palin at her blog.
Trig was born with Down Syndrome and is mentally handicapped. My youngest sister also has Down Syndrome so you can imagine that I too would be considerably offended and justifiably outraged at such an attack against a defenseless child, only I have taken the time to arm myself with a few weapons that Don appears to lack: restraint, common sense and the Google. Here's the supposedly offensive graphic:
Now it certainly does appear that someone has gone to great pains to make little Trig Palin pretty damn ugly, almost "ghoulish" if you will (and let's face it, the authoress of Blue Oasis is no prize herself). Where Don and every other conservative in a tizzy over this supposed outrage epically fail though is that the ghoulish face in question belongs to conservative Alaskan talk radio host and self-proclaimed "Palinista" Eddie Burke. Even after having this pointed out in an update on Blue Oasis however Don still can not see the satirical forest for the ignorance trees, as he relays in the comment section of his post:
She lying:

"She is claiming that it was a photoshop of the Alaska radio talk show host Eddie Burke being held in Gov. Palin's arms ...

The photoshop doesn't look at all like Eddie. It simply looks like a grotesque manipulation of Gov. Palin's beautiful baby boy. It was a tasteless and heartless thing to do. It was the sort of thing a person who is sick with hatred would do..."
Now to be clear, Don did not himself write the words saying that the photoshop doesn't look at all like Eddie Burke. He just claims that the blogger at Blue Oasis is lying (one would assume without actually doing any research or checking it out for himself first) and then posts someone else making this claim, but I think most intelligent people will agree that by stating that the explanation is a lie and posting the quote he has at least tacitly agreed with the sentiment. And even in the update to his original post he again mentions:
"ghoulshopping" Trig Palin into a grotesque ridicule of Downs syndrome
Oh, I almost forgot. After all of that you're probably wondering what Eddie Burke looks like, huh? Now while I wouldn't go so far as Don in saying that he's a grotesque ridicule of Down Syndrome I will say that he does indeed look a bit ghoulish, fairly tubby and exactly like the photoshopped picture in question:
That's the everyday demonology of left-wing secular progressives for you. Oh wait, no it's not. That's the everyday stupidity of right-wing religious neoconservatives. Sorry, I'm always confusing the two. Incidentally, I found the original picture used in the photoshopped graphic on the very first page of my Google image search, even before I noticed that Blue Oasis had posted it in their update.

In a recent post about the faux Palin/Letterman controversy I asked what the next outrage du jour from the Republicans would be, a question that I think was aptly phrased in that it certainly does appear that there is something new that positively infuriates these people every single day. The term "sore losers" seems a bit simplistic and trite to explain this apparent derangement and never ending persecution complex but at this point I can't think of any other rational explanation for this type of behavior.

[Update: Don has added a follow up post with the following supposed tit-for-tat photoshopped picture of Blue Oasis blogger Linda Kellen Biegel:
I told you she was no prize, even without the photoshopped baby body. The picture comes courtesy of No Sheeples Here! which offers the accompanying commentary:
The Great State of Alaska is known as “Seward’s Icebox” and it seems that Linda Kellen “Blimpie” Biegel has made a few too many trips to her own icebox. The blubber-butt blogger from Alaska has crossed a bright red line with a photoshopped picture of Governor Sarah Palin and her son Trig. Donald Douglas of American Power has dubbed her work a “ghoulshop”.

Trig Palin, as we are all aware, is a Down Syndrome baby. An innocent child is being demonized by demented dilettantes in the Democratic Party. Why? The Palin Derangement Syndrome that permeates the left’s diatribe is inexplicable to me. What is it about Sarah Palin that strikes fear in the hearts of these panty-waisted perverts?

Well, I own Photoshop™ too. So here’s to you bitch!
I guess No Sheeples has decided that moral indignation is a suitable substitute for the lack of class she bemoans in Biegel. And as I always say: Palin doesn't scare us at all, she's merely entertainment because we take so little of what she says and does seriously. Also notice that using a mocking photoshop of Palin for fund-raising purposes is now "Palin Derangement Syndrome", and thus any other reasoned and logical argument against her and her policies can now and will be conveniently dismissed as such from here on out (see: Bush, George W).

Don also features the following commentary from Dan Riehl at Riehl World View:
Apparently Linda Kellen Biegel thinks it funny to alter an image to portray Trig as her "humorous" version of what a child with Down's syndrome would look like.

At right is what Linda Kellen Biegel's un-altered picture looks like.

Need I say more?

She must be relying on PETA to protect her. But I doubt they'll want that face for one of those warm fuzzy billboards during "Hug an Animal" week.
Now I guess this is the point that eludes me: How is the photoshop a "'humorous' version of what a child with Down's Syndrome would look like"? Isn't the original picture itself what a child with Down Syndrome does look like? It seems to me that the photoshopped picture is meant to be a humorous version of what Eddie Burke would look like as a baby (an admittedly tubby and ghoulish baby, but still...), special needs or not.

I wrote the following in the comment section of this post as a reply to a commenter who found me via Don's site claiming that Biegel "intentionally" and "willfully" used the picture of Trig:
The point of the photoshop did not have anything to do with her holding a special needs baby, it was just that she was holding a baby. That's the problem with so many people like yourself. You don't look at that picture and see her holding a baby, you see her holding a poor "retard". Then you moan and wail and gnash your teeth and feign outrage that anyone could have used poor little Trig this way, as if using a non Down's child would have been completely different and entirely acceptable.

She most likely "willfully" used the picture of Trig because it was so famous and iconic, and it was so because Palin callously chose to bring her infant child up on stage as a campaign prop in the last election. She injected her own son into the political arena, but now that someone has used just a partial image of that action they've somehow crossed some imaginary line of decency with you people. Personally, I don't think most of you have any clue where that line is located at all.
And finally my blogger buddy and fellow dirty, liberal nihilist repsac3 offers up the definitive commentary on this latest of many faux outrages from the Palin camp in a post that includes a glowing endorsement for this post by yours truly (thanks, Reppy!):
I don't want to tell Cons4Palin.com and the wingnut echo chamber (Yeah, that last one is, predictably, a PUMA site) what to do or nothin', but wingnut ladies and gents, the last thing your 2012 candidate needs is yet another manufactured outrage to make her look like she's everlastingly playing the "poor me" card. It's hard enough just being a female candidate playing in a male dominated world, without you folks making her look weak by throwing these serial pity parties for her. And besides, Sarah Palin is so bad on the merits, that these dirty tricks and personal attacks you folks are endlessly alleging on her behalf really are unnecessary.
Well said. So bring on the next outrage du jour, Palinistas. I can always use a good laugh, and Sarah Palin inspired laughs are some of the goodest.]

11 comments:

ex DLB said...

To be perfectly fair, Eddie Burke was probably just as ugly as a baby. Sorry if that upsets anyone.

quietmagpie said...

I can offer a rational explanation:

Palin has nothing to offer.
Therefore she has to be turned into a living saint.

JBW said...

There's nothing worse than an ugly baby, ex DLB.

That's actually a pretty good explanation, quietmagpie. It would explain how supposedly intelligent people like Don are able to rationalize supporting such an incurious dullard.

Tim said...

Seriously, if this is all Donald and the Palinistas have, good luck to 'em.

Chris Wysocki said...

You know for years the libs have been telling us that regardless of what we meant, if an "oppressed minority" felt offended, we had offended them. We were "homophobic" or "racist" or "insensitive" even if such a conclusion was not supported by what was actually said.

We were always told that the feelings of the "oppressed minority" outweighed our intent.

Fair is fair. The shoe is now on the other foot. If we perceive ourselves to be offended, the rules of your politically correct society dictate that you must accept that you have offended us.

They're your rules. We're just finally using them against you.

TRUTH 101 said...

I've been getting alot of traffic with my naughty posts lately. Plus the google search hits for my neocon lesbian hottie pics. I see nothing wrong with an ugly baby pic if it attracts some attention.

Just so the masses know JBW; I would be happy to pay higher taxes to fund research, treatment and ways to prevent Downs Syndrome. I'd be glad to make a donation in lieu of the tax hike also. I'm poking a little fun at those that feign outrage at an obvious attempt at humor. Not belittling anyone afflicted with Downs or those that care for them.

Lisa Graas said...

Trig's picture was intentionally used for a reason -- Burke's image notwithstanding. She could easily have photoshopped a picture of a mother holding a baby using Palin's face and Burke's face......but no, she willfully used a photo of Trig.

JBW said...

I'm not "the libs", Wysocki. I'm one man with an opinion and I don't do "politically correct". I'm sure I offend people all the time and as long as I consider what I've said to be truthful they and their hurt feelings can kiss my ass. Those are my rules.

If you and your side of the aisle want to hypocritically fashion yourselves into a perpetually offended, whiney minority after decrying the practice by others for years be my guest. Just don't be surprised when nobody takes you seriously either.

You might have noticed that Barack Obama is president, not Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Look how relevant they are now. If this is your grand new plan you can expect the same.

JBW said...

So Lisa, when a photoshop of Palin holding an infant was required for use in that graphic you're saying that instead of using an existing picture of Palin holding an infant that her head should have been transplanted onto the body of another woman? Because what, the infant she was holding was her Down Syndrome child?

The point of the photoshop did not have anything to do with her holding a special needs baby, it was just that she was holding a baby. That's the problem with so many people like yourself. You don't look at that picture and see her holding a baby, you see her holding a poor "retard". Then you moan and wail and gnash your teeth and feign outrage that anyone could have used poor little Trig this way, as if using a non Down's child would have been completely different and entirely acceptable.

She most likely "willfully" used the picture of Trig because it was so famous and iconic, and it was so because Palin callously chose to bring her infant child up on stage as a campaign prop in the last election. She injected her own son into the political arena, but now that someone has used just a partial image of that action they've somehow crossed some imaginary line of decency with you people. Personally, I don't think most of you have any clue where that line is located at all.

Anonymous said...

How low will liberals go in this country..how much trash can they throw out there? There will be a day of reckoning for all of you..!
Don't bother commenting back..I will not read any of your trash comments..

JBW said...

Glad you like Brain Rage, Anonymous. Thanks for commenting!