Monday, September 15, 2008

"Outrage!" you can't live without!

From Kathleen Connally's Photoblog

I prefer my photography in the best sense of the word. Take a Walk through Durham Township, Pennsylvania, for example. Kathleen Connally lives in a county not far from my home, and it's even closer with but a click of a mouse. Her photography is breathtakingly beautiful. Comforting scenes of the ordinary made sublimely exquisite.

Strength and Compassion by Michael Yon

Or have a look at Michael Yon's work. Also moving, in the best sense of the word. If one feels outrage at the cost of human lives in wartime, it is the genuine kind that emanates from a wellspring of deep sorrow and anger, and the word is appropriate.

So I am not too outraged by anything during this endless election cycle. Why the hell is McCain outraged by Obama's "lipstick on a pig" remark, anyway? Grow a humor gland old man. Laugh at your political opponents. THAT's the American Way™, buddy.

But "OUTRAGE!", being the cool new emo of the day, is almost an epidemic. I seem to be somewhat immunized by it, due to the fact that there are some things about which one can be truly outraged, and September 11th, 2001 is but one of the very few things that outraged me thus far in my lifetime. Ah, yes, the British nanny, Louise Woodward, she outraged me. When I get outraged, I get cold in the hands and face. I don't get loud, I get quiet. I can't speak. Anger courses slowly like icebergs through me. I feel the adrenaline rush of outrage. Real, definable outrage.

All this insanity of what passes for outrage is just another word being dumbed down. You know, like racism and rape, which are evil things, but which have come to mean almost anything and nothing at all. Add to that the whole pantheon of "-ism" godesses all newly invented for your outraging savor: sexism, ageism, and the phobia gods: Islamophobia, and homophobia....Hell, even the Christians are getting into it with Christophobia.

Meh. All theses silly psychobabble words were invented by people who think with their spleens instead of their brains.

Having said that, I am not against saying that certain unprofessional behavior isn't outrageous . There is a difference. People do outrageous things for which the standard response should be measured in kind. As of late, all kinds of professional codes of ethics and conduct have flown out the window among the chattering classes. I agree, that it is a time for anger, but the collective bi-partisan meltdown of blogosphere and press is over the top in its use of the word "OUTRAGED!" It is the response to the outrageous with outrage that bothers me so much, since a slice of humor would suffice.

Here is one "outrageous!" bit of conduct: Obama talks about lipstick on a pig in response to Sarah Palin's joke about pitbulls and hockey moms (spoiler: the punchline is lipstick), and that sends his acolytes and lemmings over the edge with glee. Nice comeback, Mr. Obama. I am not actually outraged by his lame ass joke, at all! But McCain responds, with, yeah, you guessed it: "OUTRAGE!" Well, here is a better response:

From American Digest

Here is another photo for you to be outraged by, and really, you have to read the whole messy saga at A.D. for the hot and bilious taste of spleen: It really is outrageous misbehavior on the part of Atlantic photographer Jill Greenberg. Here is but one photo from her site in question:

Nice touch of class with the lipstick, Jill!

I won't link to Greenberg's site, you can do that through American Digest, where Gerard really picks apart the unprofessional conduct of the photographer. I don't like Greenberg's photography at all. It is sick and creepy. She is also manipulative of little kids for political purposes the sake of her art.


If a photographer is to have a say about politics, and even use and manipulate images as she sees fit, fine, but somewhere, Greenberg crossed a professional line by keeping and grossly manipulating photos from The Atlantic's story on John McCain, where neither McCain nor the author of the article had any idea these images were going to be manipulated by her and published on the internet. Now, while this conduct was certainly outrageous, it would have been scorched earth time if the Atlantic had published those doctored photos, and real outrage would have been appropriate. In fact, Think In Pictures had two responses to her outrageous conduct concerning the emotional manipulation of children as a professional photographer. One sober and one satirical. Both were great responses to her outrageous conduct.

So, what to do with all the churning and burning going on in our organs? Laugh a little.

Case in point. If I were Sarah Palin, and I saw THIS photoshop of myself, I would definitely ask for residuals:

Well, some folks ain't happy with the gratuitous sexualization of McCain's Veep choice, but if they feel outraged, they ought to click over to The People's Cube for the Ultimate Photoshopping of political enemies - which include the candidates' white grandmothers and mischievous but otherwise cute children. And their cats.

See how it works? Michelle Obama is truly a Hot First Lady Contender. She ranks way higher in BootyLicious factors than Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, Laura Bush. Did that stop Comrade Politilemologist from enhancing her beauty even more with a swimsuit-babe-on-the-beach photoshop of Madame Michelle?

SNAP! Oh NO he dint!

And what should Mr. Michelle's response be to the "OUTRAGEOUS!" sexualization of his already really hot babelicious wife? Well.....

That would be classy. Not that he would see that picture of his wife. Ever. Seriously. Don't email him this link!

Now THIS is funny! For a change. The outrage is that Saturday Night Live calls itself a comedy show. They got this one right, methinks.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Don't just sit there, say something!