Pages

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Baby Burke Brouhaha

I've been pondering this week's brouhaha over the picture of Baby Eddie Burke in Sarah Palin's arms. While I enjoy satire, I also feel that political humor generally feeds the faithful and ticks off the targets. Only brilliant satire has the possibility of changing the minds of the committed.

Looking at the picture, I didn't realize it was Eddie Burke's face and it was only after I read the explanations that I got the point. I certainly wasn't going to post the picture and I figured I'd stay out of the discussion altogether. But then the Governor's spokesperson, Meghan Stapleton, released a statement (copied here from Conservatives4Palin) (If the picture is so terrible why did C4P post it on their own website? You can see it at the link.)
Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.


Paragraph 1:
Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother's love for a special needs child.(emphasis added.)
Desecration. Merriam Webster's online dictionary isn't too helpful:
: an act or instance of desecrating : the state of being desecrated
But you can link to desecrate:
1 : to violate the sanctity of : PROFANE
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously
And sanctity?
1: holiness of life and character : godliness
2 a
: the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability
b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights

So there is a religious etymology to this word, but it has come to be used in other contexts as well. But then Stapleton also uses the term "iconic representation of a mother's love. . ."

Back to the dictionary:
Icon

1: a usually pictorial representation : image
2 [Late Greek eikōn, from Greek] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Christians
3: an object of uncritical devotion : idol
4: emblem, symbol
5 a: a sign (as a word or graphic symbol) whose form suggests its meaning
b: a graphic symbol on a computer display screen that usually suggests the type of object represented or the purpose of an available function


Using both desecration and iconic image in one sentence strongly suggests to me that there was either intentional manipulation to give this a religious spin, or that Palin's staff are so steeped in religion that they think in those terms and just write this sort of language naturally. Here's my picture (from talaria) of an iconic image of a mother and child.


Paragraph 2:

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.
Why is a special needs baby, in this case, any different from any baby? Why are they continuing to emphasize that this is a special needs baby? It's like saying "this is my black friend' as opposed to just "my friend." What's the point? If Biegel had 'doctored' a picture of a 'normal' baby, would that have been ok? What if they had photoshopped the baby out completely and used a different baby in the picture? Would that have been ok? Or what if she had put Palin's face over Mary's in the icon and Burke's over the baby Jesus'? Would that have been ok?

Because here the outrage all seems to be that someone would make fun of a special needs baby. And as I see this picture, it's aimed at parodying Burke's and Palin's close relationship. Palin doesn't complain about Burke's degrading comments about women and he seems to be infatuated with Palin. The emphasis on 'special needs' seems to be Stapleton's effort to remind people that Palin is indeed an icon of motherhood because she kept her special needs baby. As if such a baby is less than a 'normal' baby and keeping it shows Palin's holiness. (Hey, I could be totally wrong. But at least I pose my comments as possible interpretations, while the tone of Stapleton's release suggests there can be no other interpretation than hers.)

And why is it more sickening that Alaskans did this? Are Alaskans supposed to give Palin more respect than other people? It seems people who are most affected by Palin have the most responsibility to closely monitor her actions as governor.

And I have to note the use of the term "Democrat Party." This is a way you can tell a Republican, sort of like catching a Canadian from her pronunciation of the word "out." As I understand it, using Democrat Party was a conscious Republican effort to denigrate the Democratic Party by replacing the official name with one that sounded harsher. I didn't find a good credible citation, but you can see a discussion of the issue here.

Paragraph 3:
Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned."
First, when was there decency in American politics? If I recall my history, things were pretty wild in Jefferson's day. If a politician uses the kids to pump up his image, but the image the candidate is portraying is misleading, then the kids are fair game. Bristol's unwed motherhood was announced by Palin. If a blogger had announced the pregnancy before Palin did it would have been a disaster, so she really had to do it. But the irony of the pregnancy, given Palin's stand on abstinence-only-education, is certainly newsworthy. Picking on a baby's behavior makes no sense since a baby is not responsible. On the other hand, the baby is totally unaware of the debate. And despite Stapleton's take on this, I don't see the picture as being about the baby.

OK, I do understand Stapleton's plea to Obama to somehow censor Linda. After all, among the Republicans, especially in the Bush2 years, everyone was expected to toe the party line. Obviously, from the Republican perspective, if they assume the Democrats are the same, Linda doesn't say anything without approval from the Oval Office. And if she does, she should be edged out. . Well, that image of Democrats is a joke.


To a certain extent, I find the constant attacks on Palin by fellow bloggers to be borderline reasonable. The pointing out of ethical violations - even those that are rejected by Palin's favorite review board - is certainly reasonable. The bloggers do not have access to all the available information and may not be able to prove the violation, but at least these things should be pursued if there is reasonable evidence. Think of all the trouble that might have been avoided if bloggers had been poking into the relationships between Bill Allen and various legislators early on.

What I find less appealing are the snarky comments about clothing and behavior. But that's part of the American tradition of politics and the media. When Palin was on the Bob and Mark radio show, she laughed when they called cancer survivor and political rival Lyda Green a "cancer" and a "bitch." And I recall Palin being the attack dog in the McCain campaign. So let's cut out the crocodile tears here.


One More Thing

To put the religious tone of the first paragraph into context, we can look at the language of Ahmad Khamani from a Reuters article:
ISLAMIC LAW

Ahmad Khatami, a member of the powerful Assembly of Experts, said the judiciary should charge leading "rioters" as "mohareb" or one who wages war against God.

"I want the judiciary to ... punish leading rioters firmly and without showing any mercy to teach everyone a lesson," Khatami told worshippers at Tehran University on Friday.

"They should be punished ruthlessly and savagely," he said. Under Iran's Islamic law, punishment for people convicted as "mohareb" is execution.
He too is equating the demonstrators' behavior to desecration. At least Khamani is a religious leader and an official of a religious nation. That may be Palin's dream, but so far it isn't the case.

12 comments:

  1. Luckily I am not a politicians so my words are not checked so strictly.
    Icons are very important in Church History. These were the reasons for the great Schism (the one in 1054 as far as I remember anyway it was in the middle of the 11th century and not the one between 1378-1417). It was about the split of Orthodox and Roman Christianity. The real reson was the struggle between the patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome. The Roman pope wanted to ban iconoclasm while in East it was supported.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This militant drive to working to define what is "acceptable discourse" when discussing Palin (the quote comes from one of the sites leading the crusade against anyone not showing proper "respect") is a scary development in the American psyche. It must be exposed and stopped.

    When I pointed out in a comment on this site that Burke wearing a shirt proudly proclaiming himself a Nazi when attending a hearing on gay rights was truly offensive, given that the Nazis exterminated homosexuals the same way they did the Jews, I was told the shirt was a JOKE and I had no sense of humor. (picture head spinning here) So it's only Sarah and offspring who are "sacred." That use of religious terminology is very deliberate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If Palinistas are saying "it's a JOKE" when progressives object to t-shirts like the one Burke was wearing, yet they spin and rant like the Tasmanian Devil when someone ELSE jokes/parodies Burke's mommy-complex toward Sarah Palin -- is it any wonder the word "hypocrite" is the first word that comes to mind when used to describe the Palinistas?

    (or just about any neocon Republican, as they portray themselves these days)

    And this rant about "desecration" of an "iconic" mother-child portrayal is crazy in a fundamentalist-evangelical-obsessive sort of way, but I'm sure its main objective was to distract, point in a different direction, suppress previous speculation on other matters.

    It's time to re-focus on what those other matters are.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Protestants don't talk about icons. Is Meg a Catholic? Palin will blame this on her.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apparently the Palin camp believes in freedom of speech: Theirs. All others need not apply.

    Then again, Palin has always been pro-censorship. Just ask the former Wasilla Librarian.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree, Protestants don't talk about icons, but I married into a large Catholic family 25 years ago and have never heard any of them use the words icon or iconic either. Maybe they do it in secret, when the Lutheran (raised as, not practicing) is out of the room? Or possibly only "uppity" Catholics use that kind of language?

    In my opinion, Meg Stapleton is either trying to transform our Valley Trash (can I say that here?) Guv into some kind of freaky modern day Madonna. Or else she doesn't really have a good understanding of the word iconic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hey - I really like your writing and your perspective. We could also diagram Stapleton's first sentence, which actually seems to say that the "malicious desecration of the photo" is in fact, the iconic image to which she is referring. The actual meaning of that sentence as it is written, is not clear. But, then, what else is new?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think that it is pertinent to point out the lack of response by Sarah Palin, Meg Stapleton and her supporters to the other photoshop pictures that have been appearing since Meg released that statement on behalf of Sarah.

    The lack of outrage at these others who are taking the photoshopping to an entirely different level tells me that this entire situation was simply an attempt to discredit and denounce one particular blogger (Celtic Diva) due to negative personal feelings towards this blogger on the part of the Palin administration and her supporters.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What bothered me most about Stapleton's statement was its blatant inaccuracy. Linda is not the "official Democrat [sic] Party blogger for Alaska," nor is she affiliated with or promoted by the DNC. She was the Alaska state blogger for last year's convention, a role for which she was selected (but not, that I saw, promoted) by the convention committee (not to be confused with the DNC).

    I don't know why I continue to be surprised by the half-truths and untruths propagated by the governor's spokespeople, but this one was particularly lazy and unnecessarily provocative in its inaccuracy (I mean, really? The President of the United States should drop what he's doing and make Linda stop being mean to Sarah?).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Governor Icon has elevated herself from being covered by the media news organizations to being covered by the media night late comedians. Governor Do and Know Nothing is having a hard time trying to divert attention from her inability to put a sentence together. She has a limited shelf life in Alaska and the rest of the country too, also.

    ReplyDelete
  11. While anyone has the right to their opinion on any matter. The attack on a defenceless child has no merit. It only serves to outrage the family and alienate the ones you are trying to speak to or for. If it doesnt speak to real issues it has no basis or meaning in my view and is viewed as just meanspirited.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cora, first, I really like the picture of trees in D and R Park.

    Making fun of kids is not something I support. But I don't see the child as the target of the picture. The picture is parodying the relationship between Palin and Burke. Still, I didn't post the picture here.

    The issue here that I see is that Palin had no problem attacking people during the presidential campaign and even to the point of stoking the latent racism of some of her supporters. Yet she cries foul when people make fun of her. The point of this parody has much more validity - the relationship between a woman governor and a talk show host who says pretty nasty things about women - than, say, Palin's comments about Obama "palling around with terrorists."

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.