It probably is that guy's son. That nutcase is certainly not helping the GOP.

Um, the Union apologized.

Several commenters there have noted that it cannot be the same person. The person in the IUPAT shirt has attached earlobes, the brother has free earlobes. And that's an unchangeable genetic characteristic.

Details, man. Always check the details.

what a Monk moment! the two look similar (which doesn't faze me -- all light-skinned young men with a certain hair color and short hair look alike to me anymore) until you look at the earlobes! Tony Shaloub rocks.

Here's a (small, fuzzy) photo of the Parlocks, from Glenn Beck's page. clan photo

I see similarities in the "separated at birth" photos, but the earlobes don't look right to me.

Um, the Union apologized.

Um, the White House didn't disavow the documents. :-)

Sure, the union apologized. Normal reaction.

Given the man's history when it comes to claiming attacks at rallies there is good reason to be skeptical.

A commenter there made the point that occurred to me: the girl wouldn't be crying like that if it was her brother picking on her. That's a cry of a girl that's upset with a mean stranger.

Also, I've read that it's a small town, and the locals would have recognized the family.

I made my sibling cry all the time. Shrug.

It cannot be the older child Peter as he is currenty serving in the Army in Afghanstan right now!

[Okay--I just made that up. If Dan can do it, why can't I?]

The father has already debunked this alleged hoax (source: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000535.htm). He pointed out that pulling a stunt like that in his own small town would be idiotic b/c everyone knows his son.

I still think some liberal sites are putting too much emphasis on the theory that the fellow in the picture is one of Mr. Parlock's sons. He might be. Or he might be some other friend of Mr. Parlock's. Or he might be a union guy who picked up a piece of the sign from the ground. Or he might have torn the sign from the little girl (although I've already explained why I find this hard to believe).

There are plenty of reasons for not taking Mr. Parlock's story at face value regardless of who the guy in the blue shirt turns out to be. For those interested in following the story, I strongly recommend this link:

http://huntingtonnews.net/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=001898&p=1

It's a local message board in Huntington. There are a few people posting there who were at the event, including one woman says she saw Mr. Parlock and that no one ripped a sign out of his hands or his little girl's. She says at one point Phil's son dropped his sign and Democratic kids made a grab for it (not the man in the picture), and that people near Phil tried to hide his signs with their own, but that was it. She says Phil's sign fell apart because it was hidden in his pant legs before the event.

Now she seems believable to me. Of course it's possible that she just wasn't watching when the event Mr. Parlock described occurred. The people she describes were kids, not the union members in the photo, and I'm having trouble reconciling her testimony with the photo; I haven't come up with a coherent picture of what happened. But she seems to me to be a credible witness, and I think people following this should at least take into account what she's saying.

As to the argument that it couldn't be Mr. Parlock's son because someone would recognize him, here's what this woman had to say:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rick, Phil says this is a small town and he wouldn't be able to get away with using his oldest son. The rally brought in people from all over the tri state. This place has 50,000 (almost) residents. I barely know my neighbors much less who Phil Parlock's children are. To my knowledge the "union" painter has not been identified. Maybe if he is that will put a lot of the questions to rest. Looking at the pictures it's certainly possible he was parlock's son.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can hear two interviews with Parlock at this address:

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/09172004-2.shtml

I've already explained why I don't believe the events could have happened the way Mr. Parlock describes in these interviews. But of course maybe he's exagerating things that actually did occur.

Now I don't think it's been proven that someone didn't grab a sign from a little girl and rip it up. I just think given Phil's history and what people are saying, extreme skepticism is warranted. And that's regardless whether the theory that the union man is Phil's brother turns out to be correct or not.

At any rate, while I've very much appreciated the way a few conservative sites (including Bill's) have resisted the temptation to leap to conclusions, I've been annoyed with the way so many other conservative sites have used this to pontificate about how awful liberals are. It's interesting to speculate how this story would have been recieved if Phil had been a Kerry supporter whose daughter had her sign stolen at a rally for Bush. I'm sure that the conservative blogs who leaped on the story in its current form would have hesitated. They would have felt a natural skepticism. Yes, things are getting out of hand, but would a Bush supporter really rip a sign out of a little girl's hands while a bunch of other supporters watched or even participated as Phil described? Phil's history of saying he was assaulted by Republicans would have raised alarm bells. We all know how sneaky those Democrats can be, and how they like to feel victimized. Is it really plausible Republicans physically assaulted him three elections in a row, even if he was being a jerk? And the similarity in the photo between the assailant and Phil's brother would look a lot more significant to them than it does now. I am sure of it. That's the way the human mind works.

--Rick Taylor

Still, Bill, if it's a stunt, it would require 1) foreknowledge of how a three-year old is going to react and 2) that a photographer would happen to be there.

As a semi-professional photojournalistic photographer, let me indicate what happens when you do my style of photography. This might deflate those who think the photographer must have been tipped off earlier.

When I do events like wedding receptions, I pay close attention to body language. I watch people who look like they're telling a joke, having a conversation, dancing, etc. all for one single thing - the timing. You can tell when someone is going to laugh, point or use their hands in conversation, or 'bust a move'. We live for those moments and learn how to capture them on film / digital.

So, I'm willing to bet the photog overheard some shouting or heated conversation and simply did what came natural - snapped the shot at the right moment.

Just some useful trivia.

I would say that a preponderance of the evidence seen so far shows that Mr. Parlock has a history of "infiltrating" rallies with opposing signs, and risking attack in the process... and that he is an idiot for bringing his daughter into such a situation. I'm not prepared to go any farther than that though.

To believe this was a setup you would have to believe that 1. he was forewarned that IUPAT would be present at this gathering 2. he obtained a IUPAT tee shirt prior to the gathering 3. The photographer was in on the hoax 4. The union apologized without confirming one of their members was involved.

Don't know about this photo "hoax," but have another off-topic possible photo hoax. You know that much publicized photo of George W. Bush in the cockpit of the F-102? The one with another soldier standing to his left, looking down into the cockpit? Well, tell me that "other soldier" isn't Joe Piscapo!

Malkin says the the union identified the guy.

Well, I have no trouble believing #3, J. Webb. I called the union to thank them for apologizing awhile back. I think it was the right thing to do under the circumstances even if they could not yet establish the exact identity of the person. I'm glad to know they've followed up on their promise to find out who they guy was and take action.

Oops, I meant #4, not #3.

Yet another humiliating "scoop" for the Democratic Underground.

Um, the Union apologized.

Um, the White House didn't disavow the documents

Um, how do they disavow documents that do not exist?

If the earlobes aren't attached, the pictures aren't matched!

Funny. The VRWC nails a story based on forged documents on a major news channel (Te heirs of Murrow!) and all that Kos/Atrios/et.al. can come up with is earlobes.

Shove it Bill, guess you're wrong (shrug):

Just received a call from the IUPAT, which has now identified the union member who grabbed the Bush/Cheney sign from Phil Parlock's daughter and threw the pieces at the family as they left the event. "We are taking steps to deal with the individual," the union told me. -- Michelle Malkin

Hey "Matt," didn't you read the post? I have Malkin's link in the last update.

God people are stupid.

Ralph -

Um, I was kidding, mocking CBS's defense.