Wonkette Goes After Trig Palin Again
posted at 8:37 am on June 29, 2009 by Legal Insurrection
printer-friendly
It really is hard to understand why some adults feel the need to make fun of Trig Palin, a one-year old who has Down Syndrome. Politics alone cannot explain it. If you don’t like Sarah Palin, fine, but why go after Trig? The controversy regarding the Photoshop of Trig by Alaskan blogger Linda Biegel is only the tip of the iceberg. Ever since Sarah’s nomination, Trig has been a target. Last fall, the popular DC-based “gossip” website Wonkette joked how Trig must have wished he’d been aborted. Now Wonkette has taken Biegel’s Photoshop antics as an excuse to go after Trig anew.
In a recent post, Wonkette promoted and joked about even cruder Photoshops of Trig at the Something Awful web forum, where people can post anonymously (examples below). Wonkette even included one of these photoshops in its post (above right) while mocking Trig as the “New Jesus,” “Holy Infant” and “Sacred One.”
All the attacks on Trig are Sarah’s fault, according to the Wonkette post, since Sarah had the audacity to bring Trig on stage at the Republican National Convention (where the original photo in question was taken), which Wonkette calls using Trig as a “cheap political prop.” I guess that makes the Obama kids fair game according to Wonkette since they were brought on stage at the Democratic National Convention.
Sarah is to blame for all the new Photoshops of Trig, according to the Wonkette post, because Sarah complained about Biegel:
The Virgin Palin, Our Lady of Eternal Anger, gave birth to the New Jesus at some point last year — or not, who knows, and now Andrew Sullivan just cares about Iran (which is a good thing!) so we’ll never find out the truth — and ever since it has been both a Cardinal/Venial Sin and Sharia Law that no mortal shall “desecrate” an image of the Sacred One … no one but Sarah Palin herself, because Allah both allows and encourages the use of the Holy Infant as a cheap political prop as long as such cruel hackery is performed by the Virgin Palin herself.
Palin’s fury was such, when she found out some blog “on the Internet” had combined a picture of her cradling one of her Magic Babies together with a picture of her Jedi Master, some dingbat old radio talk-show clown in Alaska, that she did verily send her dumbest disciple, “Brother Meg,” to start a Jihad against the Entire Internet.
But we know what happens when a fear-and-anger crazed Snow Witch starts a vain war she can never hope to win: The Internet Strikes Back.
Which is to say, Palin basically poked a stick in the world’s largest beehive filled with cheap & tireless insanity, and the SomethingAwful.com goons have unleashed a pack of Photoshop Dogs From Hell to make the most incredible collection of Sarah Palin Desecration Images in the History of Time, the end.
General Bullshit > Sarah Palin thinks photoshopping special needs babies is appalling [Something Awful]
Here are two of the milder Photoshops in the Something Awful forum which are Sarah’s fault according to Wonkette:
What a riot. It takes small people to stoop this low.
[Note: A commenter at Legal Insurrection Blog believes the face superimposed on the photo immediately above is that of a convicted child molester, making that Photoshop even sicker.]
Cross-posted with updates at Legal Insurrection Blog
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Greenroom Feed
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This is why whenever some Liberal pulls out the “At long last, have you no decency” canard, I laugh in their face.
Techie on June 29, 2009 at 9:18 AM
This is so wrong, words can’t describe.
Tazz 55 on June 29, 2009 at 9:27 AM
There are two kinds of ugly, ugly on the outside and ugly on the inside. These leftist are ugly on the inside. They have ugly hearts, souls and minds. It doesn’t matter what they look like on the outside because the ugliness inside has warped them to common human decency.
chemman on June 29, 2009 at 10:08 AM
If Linda Biegel is free to express her distain for Sarah and her family according to the first amendment, then it is only our same right to turn it back on her according to the first amendment. This allows us to express our own distain for this Alaskan blogger Linda Biegel. I would wonder first if Linda Biegel has any disparaging skeletons in her own trailer. If Biegel has them, then should not some investigative reporter expose this bloggers inadequacies. If she requires a pharmaceutical only, then specific doctor’s must be consulted and double up on the dosage for her own sanity. If a doctor’s care is not needed, then Biegel is just a truly cruel and vindictive person toward the first family of Alaska without warrent, isn’t she? Something comical in her mind reflects a disturbed brain wavelength obviously. Has some legislation passed and signed in to law by Governor Palin affected Linda Biegel’s life or some one close to her? These question need some answers. Who will step up to find out about the true story of the Alaskan blogger? The obvious backlash coming to Biegel is a foregone conclusion. Is she aspiring to be the female version of Andrew Sullivan? We all know how Sullivan has his own disgusting reputation to live up to. Perhaps Biegel wants to be famous for all the wrong reasons. I think the investigative reporter should research her resume to find out if she has ever applied to be a columnist for Time, Newsweek, NY Times, Boston Globe or maybe the National Enquirer. America wants to know more about Linda Biegel now in the worst way. If she wants to be famous by being infamous, then the trek to her own exposure is required.
.
As the saying goes “sometimes you got to break a few eggs to make an omlette!” Or in this case a Wonkette.
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Check out the byline.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 10:21 AM
What seems to be forgotten in all of this shameful crap is that the outrage over Biegel’s “photo” is because she is officially tied to the DNC and the AK dem party. These other sick and twisted pervs don’t deserve any attention.
It begs the question — does the DNC sanction this kind of activity from one of their own minions? Their silence suggests that they support and condone her actions. THIS, at least in my opinion, is the real outrage.
TN Bean Counter on June 29, 2009 at 10:27 AM
Call and email DNC
PrezHussein on June 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM
One thing Wonkette can’t hide is that she’s crippled inside.
snaggletoothie on June 29, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Wonkette is where Daily Kosites go when their hatred gets too bad for even Kos to handle.
Speedwagon82 on June 29, 2009 at 12:03 PM
Wonkette isn’t necessarily a she. Genetically, at least.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 12:08 PM
the PC police strikes again.
sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 12:20 PM
Trnaslation: Let’s censor the reactions of people who find Wonkette and Biegel repulsive, in the name of freedom of speech!
CK MacLeod on June 29, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Check out the byline.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 10:21 AM
.
Indulge me. Have I directed my ire wrongly by addressing Biegel instead of Wonkette? If I have, then oops but not really. Too early in the morning apparently for me to comment. This should be considered a set back for me. I know that I’ll be over it before I finish typing this comment. Maybe next time I’ll wait until I am a little more awake. Anyway, If Wonkette is the focus rather than Biegel, then I double down on both of them. I have no excuse for misdirected error, so I am willing to accept your admonishment of my behavior Jim.
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 12:39 PM
Keep blowing through your ammo, libtards. Your magazines will be empty, and the public will see you for the pathetic excuses of “tolerance” that you are (if they have any sense at all). Then, 2010 and 2012 will be here, Palin will lay out her platform, and you’ll be shooting blanks.
cs89 on June 29, 2009 at 1:07 PM
A byline is where the person who writes something gives his or her name.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 1:41 PM
It takes a special sort of “mind” to call criticizing an attack on a little baby politically correct.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 1:42 PM
Also, just because a comment comes after yours doesn’t necessarily mean it’s directly addressing you. Welcome to the Internet.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It is the condition of their soul.
Anyone who would mock a child, let alone a child with Downs Syndrome, has a damaged soul.
As much as I dislike the Obamas, if they gave birth to a child who had some form of condition like Downs, and they knew before hand, I would do nothing but heap praise on them for THAT act because it is noble.
Any one who would do otherwise is rotten inside.
Daddy-O on June 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It is the condition of their soul.
Daddy-O on June 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
You are so right. These people lack a fundamental chip of common decency and are damaged down to the core. This is why they cannot stand Jesus. Jesus stood for one principle “love one another.” They must denounce him because they are incapable of loving their fellow man. I never feel any hatred for them, just sadness for their children.
tessa on June 29, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Horrible. Grow some decency.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 29, 2009 at 2:21 PM
It is disturbing to see this, but after going to the picture it is even more disturbing to read the comments.
Do people have no sense of right and wrong anymore?
There are certain things that do not have any excuse and those pictures are one of them.
momof2 on June 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM
gave birth to the New Jesus at some point last year — or not, who knows, and now Andrew Sullivan just cares about Iran (which is a good thing!) so we’ll never find out the truth
Heh.
Siobhan on June 29, 2009 at 2:40 PM
read the comments on wonkette – they are so filled with rage and envy it is mind boggling. Grown people having “fun” with a helpless, beautiful baby. No one EVER EVER EVER makes fun of the obama children. This country is one f**ked up place for kids. Vile putrid sickness is all they learn.
Ris4victory on June 29, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Call me a neanderthal, but some folks just need an old fashioned ass-kicking. Nuance not included.
hamnj7 on June 29, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Also, just because a comment comes after yours doesn’t necessarily mean it’s directly addressing you. Welcome to the Internet.
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 1:44 PM
.
Whatever, I took the the words “check the byline” and re-read Wonkette post and how I had commented prior to your comment, then responded to it. ES&D
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 4:41 PM
R.S. Mccain
.
I should have his post first.
.
http://rsmccain.blogspot.com/2009/06/it-takes-small-people-to-stoop-this-low.html
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 5:13 PM
+ read
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Consistently wrong;
I’m outraged, because it was always universally understood that the children of political figures were off limits.
We’re not advocating censorship. We’re advocating a return to a standard of decency that your side of the political spectrum has abandoned.
Now, simply;
Would you prefer to go back to the standards of polite behavior, or do we go to the mattresses?
It’s your call.
massrighty on June 29, 2009 at 6:30 PM
Where are all the developmentally disabled advocacy groups? I mean the really big ones? They should go after every network the wonkwhore appears on and every magazine that publishes her. Take no f’en prisoners.
Blake on June 29, 2009 at 6:31 PM
Let’s see how allahpundit’s little lefty girlfriends react to this. One might complain, but the majority will try to justify this.
One think the lefties do is sound the alarm and email/tweet/post any thing they view as a transgression. The RNC ad spoofing Pelosi that they went ballistic on — they were nonstop spreading the word that allahpundit was a sexist a-hole.
Blake on June 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Oh, because AP didn’t immediately and unequivocally condemn it event though he said he did not agree with it.
Blake on June 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM
Without even going to Wonkette, if you want to express some displeasure (without driving up hits) you can email http://www.tips@wonkette.com
Leave them a tip.
massrighty on June 29, 2009 at 6:49 PM
There is an exclusive section of Hell for people that make sport of a disabled child.
RobCon on June 29, 2009 at 6:53 PM
And what was the byline, grouchy?
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM
It’s really very simple. They are so committed to abortion and especially abortion of “burden babies,” that mocking those who have the utter gall to carry the horrible things to them is the perfectly right and just thing to do.
Couple that with their absolute right to punish anyone daring not to toe the party line wrt “women’s views” and it’s always open season on those baby-poppin’, gun-totin’, Bible-quotin’ disgustos. Why when you take the ‘need’ for abortion by all those poor poor women into account, it’s practically noblesse oblige.
Do you imagine it’s Trig they’re trying to hurt with these photoshops? Oh my no. These are shots across the bow. And thankfully Gov. Palin isn’t taking them lying down anymore.
inviolet on June 29, 2009 at 9:25 PM
LOL
inviolet on June 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM
And what was the byline, grouchy?
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 8:38 PM
.
The byline is: posted at 8:37 am on June 29, 2009 by Legal Insurrection. Is this right this time?
.
Treacher wins this coin toss — now what do you want to do; receive the ball, or kick off. What can I say. Reading journalism versus being trained in journalism isn’t the same is it.
.
Thanks, I researched much much more this time. I like it when I learn at least one thing a day. Will you ever forgive me?
.
Still shy of twitter though. I have not joined for that very reason. Your exchanges there with the masses get a little heated. BTW, did you ever go back and read my final post here:
.
http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2009/06/16/why-sarah-palin-should-appear-on-letterman/#comment-11668
.
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 9:52 PM
LOL
inviolet on June 29, 2009 at 9:26 PM
.
Yes, I am laughing now too.
Americannodash on June 29, 2009 at 9:54 PM
translation: don’t read wonkette if it so unsettles you.
sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM
How tough is it to go to the Wonkette link and look at the byline? Am I being obtuse?
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
I really think these attacks against Sarah Palin are being orchestrated (most likely from the whitehouse) ala Alsinsky. The whitehouse has the motive and the means
What they don’t realize is just how much this type of attack really ticks people off.
bullseye on June 30, 2009 at 12:42 AM
Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
.
Found this online: BY DAVID YOUNG
http://www.stuffjournalistslike.com/2008/12/14-bylines.html
.
Journalists work hard. They slave over their keyboards and notepads. They work endlessly to report the news. And what do they have to show for at the end of the day? Money? Power? Fame? No. After all of it, journalists are left with only their cherished bylines.
Every journalist likes to see their name in on online cell phones print . Be it a tiny contribution line, or a front-page byline, journalists like to get their name in the paper. Even if only a handful of readers actually bother to read who wrote the story, that one line of ink means the world to journalists.
This is because journalists are narcissists. Journalists, no matter if it is their first article or the 100,000th article, never get tired of seeing their name in print. It is not uncommon to hear a journalist say something like, “I had 589 bylines last year” in an effort to show what an intrepid journalist they are. No matter if 400 of those “bylines” were for stories that were simple one source stories or press release rewrites.
In a journalist’s mind a byline is a byline is a byline and they like them all equally.
.
.
Are you being obtuse? Perhaps, yet to inform you again that I have only been a reader of journalism. This is not my field of expertise. I did not know the all the terminologies or jargon “speak” of journalism, but I was only a reader prior to today. Not all readers take a title line that identifies the source of the story or where it originated. I would have hoped for maybe some layman’s definitional terms such as “Who is the source for this story? Or, “What original author penned this subject that we are talking about?” Or, “Hey, check out Wonkette’s link embedded in the HA post.”
Journalism is a profession where journalism “speak” is taken for granted between fellow journalist. What you consider to be common knowledge may not be so common outside of your professions sphere. Like all professionals in a particular field of expertise, you know that not everyone’s skills are equal. Yet, many try to exhibit the same level of narcissistic attitude such as admiration of oneself and of their own works. It is actually the readers or the consumers rather of their works that allows them their noteriety, thereby allowing them to continue their employment. If you lose your readership [e.g. the NYT's], your editor/employer have the tendancy to trim the deadwood or terminate your a*s because of your ineptitude or lack of revenue generation. I did not mean to totally divert from the subject at hand of bylines. Hey, I am not a professional, not even amateur journalist. Those are the facts in this subject matter. Although, I know that you will acknowledge that as a fact. Obtuse? Nah, so I now will leave you with this last remark taken from my sourced byline.
.
What do they have to show for at the end of the day? Money? Power? Fame? No. After all of it, journalists are left with only their cherished bylines.
.
Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM
translation: don’t read wonkette if it so unsettles you.
sesquipedalian on June 29, 2009 at 10:49 PM
I’m sure you say the same when people complain about Rush’s “hate speech”, right?
venividivici on June 30, 2009 at 7:16 AM
Actually, that is correct about the second photoshop. It is the super-imposed face of a convicted child molester named Brian J. Pepper. I’ve been wondering where that gruesome image came from and I finally found out from snopes.
EMR on June 30, 2009 at 7:49 AM
This is HILARIOUS! In fact, I think I will start a website that mirrors Wonkette’s and start taking her lead. I will start taking her stories and just replace the people that are being maligned with leftists. So everytime she/it comes out with one of these attacks I will mirror it with the same attack on, oh I don’t know, maybe Obama’s kids. Wouldn’t that be so much fun!
Sporty1946 on June 30, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Please see a licensed physician immediately.
Jim Treacher on June 30, 2009 at 2:37 PM
If that’s your philosophy, what are you doing here?
Jim Treacher on June 30, 2009 at 2:38 PM
.
My previous post: get ready, aim, shoot & hit your bull’s eye.
.
Physician heal thyself.
Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 4:19 PM
Honestly, what in the world are you talking about? You seem to have a mean-on for me for some reason, and you’re babbling like a kook. What’s up?
Jim Treacher on June 30, 2009 at 4:36 PM
I think I’ll pass on giving Skankette the traffic, thanks.
holdfast on June 30, 2009 at 5:09 PM
.
It is simple.
.
First: I found the chink in your armor.
.
Second: the reliable indicator for winning the argument is when your opponent calls you an unusual name.
.
Third: recognizing the fig leaf presented in one hand which is followed by an arrow being drawn back in its bow in the other.
.
I am not an eccentric Jim, analytical is more accurate.
.
In the future save your unpleasant verbal volleys for your enemies. I am a good guy really but will turn on you in a New York minute when I ask you a simple question & you give me a rude answer. Keep it in layman’s terms & we’ll get along just fine.
.
Americannodash on June 30, 2009 at 5:45 PM
Knowing the Palin family, Trig will be just fine.Obamas daughters on the other hand, will spend their adult lives as crack whores.
See works both ways. And don’t bother with the “we shouldn’t attack the kids bit”, with Letterman the gloves came off
Jeff from WI on July 1, 2009 at 9:00 AM
I have no idea what you’re talking about. I was pointing out that Wonkette isn’t necessarily a “she.” I’m pretty sure most of the bloggers there these days are male. And I was not directing it at you. But congratulations on your stunning victory, whatever that might be.
Jim Treacher on July 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM
For Pete’s sake: The Wonkette post in question was written by Ken Layne. That’s all I was saying. Whatever insult you choose to derive from that, I have no control over. Good day.
Jim Treacher on July 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM
.
.
I had an initial response in mind to your latest comments but I paused, reflected and had a change of heart. I will concede that I made a few errors in some of my early comments. That said, it was my response on June 30, 2009 at 5:31 AM to your comment saying “How tough is it to go to the Wonkette link and look at the byline?” “Am I being obtuse?” by Jim Treacher on June 29, 2009 at 11:30 PM
that gave me quite a bit of insight about Jim Treacher. Anyone viewing your twitter “JTlol” account can either affirm or deny the exposé presented by David Young. The question now is are you a narcissist when it comes to your bylines? Do you have the ability to distinguish on whether or not you have any humility of your work? I took an observation that was made by David Young’s hypothesis and applied it to you. It was a bull’s eye to you personally and you took offence to it. Recognizing what bylines mean to you and acknowledging that fact of it is not the first step to mending. Denial, defiance and rationalizing are steps 1, 2 & 3 of which is in evidence thus far regarding to how you have plainly retorted. I am refering to your most recent comments.
.
.
I propose a poll be taken on the Hot Air site. Let’s have all the HA commenters weigh in on David Young’s hypothesis. Whether they agree with me or not that David Young’s hypothesis applies to you as well can also be added to the poll and be addressed. If Allahpundit, Ed or the Boss wants to have a post like this, it is up to them. It is after all their turf. I can see a lot of traffic hits on this site when and if that occurs. I am willing to let the masses decide. Are you? Personally I have observed that Allahpundit, Ed or the Boss show their humility time and again. This poll IMO would not apply to them.
Americannodash on July 2, 2009 at 8:52 AM
Well, that’s another way of looking at it…
Jim Treacher on July 2, 2009 at 10:47 AM