The Southern Scholar

Friday night cartoon roundup

2005-09-30T03:23:00.000-07:00

Posting at The Southern Scholar will probably be light this weekend, as three of us will be partaking in a weekend of friendly reunions, drunken football game watching, and lots of debauchery of all sorts -- just like good little liberals (and one libertarian).

There's so much stuff going on right now. DeLay, Frist, Chief Justice Roberts, avian flu. Dude -- this real world stuff is harshing my mellow. But the weather is so nice. Why not just sit back, look at cartoons tonight, and then go out and enjoy life among the living throughout the weekend? Click the pictures to enlarge.

By Ben Sargent

By Dan Wasserman

By Nick Anderson

By Ann Telnaes

By Chip Bok

Not a good time to be a Republican

2005-09-29T22:14:00.000-07:00

Delay indicted?

Frist investigation upgraded by the SEC?

My oh my oh my. Seems like TOP REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY UNDER THE GUN.

Here's the latest on Frist from WaPost:

"WASHINGTON -- While insiders at Hospital Corp. of America Inc. were selling millions of dollars of their own stock this year, they were also painting a sunny picture of the company's outlook for investors."

"Federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating the sale of HCA stock by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., whose family founded the company. HCA is the nation's largest for-profit health care chain."

"On June 14, the day after Frist ordered his shares sold, HCA officers at a Goldman Sachs health care conference in Laguna Niguel, Calif., spoke optimistically about the company's prospects."

(snip)

"In the month before the speech, Campbell sold about $12 million worth of stock. It was part of a massive insider sell-off at HCA that totaled some $112 million between January and June 2005."

"Those sales were disclosed publicly through filings with the SEC."

"HCA shares peaked about a week later, closing at $58.40 on June 22. On July 13, they tumbled 9 percent following the company's announcement that it would not meet earnings expectations."

A situation like this was good enough to send Martha Stewart to prison. What about ol' Billy?

(In case you missed it, these are two of the three top GOP posts in Congress.)

I guess two out of three ain't bad.

Judge says all Abu Ghraib photos must be released

2005-09-29T22:12:00.000-07:00

The Pentagon's choke-hold on the foulest of the Abu Ghraib torture photos may soon come to an end. A judge has ordered them to be released.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, has argued that the photos will give our enemies further reason to hate us and blow us up, so the imagery needs to be tightly guarded from public view.

But U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein said terrorists have proven they "do not need pretexts for their barbarism."

He's right, to a point, though I think these images do help fuel the other side's hatred of us. But it's not just the photos that enrage our enemies -- it's the actual acts taking place. Let's not make the mistake of getting caught up in the photos; it's what's in the photos that is so horrific and terrible.

Our government needs to be held accountable for whatever measures it has not taken to ensure that the United States maintains a clear moral foothold during this war by not abusing and humiliating prisoners while we claim to be the benevolent liberators of that particular region. This means the people need to see what Donald Rumsfeld and his ilk have been ignoring, hiding, and scoffing at for years now.

As more and more credible sources step forward and tell of these systemic abuses, the Pentagon will no longer be able to marginalize the issue and blame these abuses on certain "bad apples." It looks like the bunch is spoiled -- it's time to clean up from the top down.

This is an issue that all Americans should unite over -- Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, atheist, agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, everyone. Torture is wrong and our country should not be in the business of it.

Say WHAT?!?

2005-09-28T22:16:00.001-07:00

Rep. Stacey Campfield, the Republican freshman representative from Knoxville who has created quite a stir on the Hill with his blog in the past, has called the Tennessee Black Legislative Caucus more racist than the Ku Klux Klan.

Huh? Here's what all-around good guy Matt Gouras from the AP reports:

"'My understanding is that the KKK doesn't even ban members by race," Rep. Stacey Campfield, a freshman lawmaker from Knoxville, told The Associated Press, adding that the KKK "has less racist bylaws" than the black lawmakers' group."

In case you don't know, here's the original story.

I admire Stacey for his forthrightness on other issues and the fact that he has the guts to blog about the Hill from his, ahem, unvarnished perspective. I almost must say that, in my brief time working on the Hill, my conversations with Stacey were often a highlight of my day. He is an interesting conversationalist and a good guy, party affiliations aside.

But man, what are you thinking? His impossibly stupid comments putting the KKK above the Black Caucus is the kind of schtick that makes a man unelectable for the rest of his life. Then again, he IS from Knoxville...

Case closed?

2005-09-28T22:16:00.000-07:00

Well, that was quick. The U.S. Army's brief inquiry into the now-infamous porn/dead Iraqi site has "failed to determine whether U.S. soldiers provided grisly photos of people killed in the Iraq war to a porn Web site in exchange for free access to it."

The Army Criminal Investigation Command in Iraq conducted the preliminary inquiry within the past week but closed it after concluding no felony crime had been committed and failing to determine whether U.S. soldiers were responsible for the photos and whether they showed actual war dead, Army officials said.

Col. Joe Curtin, an Army spokesman at the Pentagon, said there currently was no formal investigation into the matter.

"We're not blowing this off," Curtin said. "If the Army thinks it's in its interest to investigate something, we will. There are multiple challenges here. One is the anonymity of the sources, dates, times, locations, units, anything that is reasonably identifiable that we can work off of."

You don't have to be a left-wing crazy like me to be disturbed by how flippantly this issue is being tossed aside. It's not just about pure human compassion for the suffering of others; it's about the danger of soldiers carelessly -- if inadvertantly -- expediting erosion of support for their mission. If the troops want support for their mission, which is, we're told, all about liberating an oppressed population of fellow humans, they've got to get their act together and stop mistreating, abusing, and desecrating those they are fighting -- living or dead. It is imperative that the U.S. take the moral high road and be serious and diligent about it, or else we are no better than the depraved factions we battle against.

Doesn't it seem odd that the military can't figure out how to ID the soldiers and places in the photos in question? You're going to tell me that the RIAA can track down 12-year-olds sharing music files but the military can't track down soliders uploading photos to the web from Iraq, where, let's face it, not everyone has a laptop?

Curtin said the military was examining policies, procedures and legal implications of how soldiers transmit photos from the battlefield, and could consider limiting troops' use of their own personal computers or cameras in a combat zone.

"The military must be very careful in not violating an individual's First Amendment rights," Curtin said, referring to the constitutional right of free expression.

"Soldiers encounter the horrors of war, and they are able to record it," Curtin said. "You mix it with the porn site, now you muddy the waters."

I won't pretend to know much about soldiers' First Amendment rights (I'm sure they remain intact to a point, and there are probably unwritten but understood rules against heavy public criticism of your mission and the President, for example), but it's safe to say that soldiers are strongly discouraged from actions that would jeopardize the safety of themselves, their peers, and their country. Why is posting degrading, offensive photos of dead people for ridicule not considered highly dangerous to the mission? Does the Military really think that actions like this by their soldiers are less harmful to the public perception of the war than the day-in, day-out explosion reporting going on now?

The best part? These images are only truly offensive because they're on a porn site. Sure, it's sick and twisted. But shouldn't the outrage lie in the gory photos and the disrespectful way they are displayed -- NOT just that the photos share a URL with some porn? That sort of says it all about the people running the Pentagon, doesn't it?

One dim, dim ray of hope from the story:

Curtin said the Army was not ruling out the possibility of opening a formal criminal investigation. "Any time new information becomes available that's credible, yes, they potentially could reopen the case," he said.

...

Officials said that while the Army's preliminary inquiry had determined no felony act had taken place, soldiers potentially could be punished for conduct unbecoming a soldier, which generally brings administrative sanctions.

Without confirming the authenticity of the photos or who took them, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said, "This does not represent the values of the United States military, and doesn't represent the vast majority of the actions and behavior of our men and women in uniform. It is a despicable practice. It's unacceptable. And the department is going to address it."

So yes, if some new information comes to light, they can pursue it. You know, if they feel like it. And maybe a few soliders will be reprimanded for unbecoming behavior. But the damage will have already been done.

And God said unto them, 'Whoops'

2005-09-28T22:15:00.000-07:00

One of the best things about being from Tennessee is not being from Alabama.

Hoo ha! I love me some state-based ad hominems. I'm joking, of course. The people from Alabama are, by and large, as fine a people as you will ever meet. But they elect some doofuses.

Sen. Hank Erwin, R-Montevallo, jumped on the "blame the dirty sinners" bandwagon today. Apparently, he sent out a column in which he lamented the abundance of decadent sin on the gulf coast, and blamed widespread sin for Katrina.

"New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness," Erwin wrote this week in a column he distributes to news outlets. "It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God."

...

"Warnings year after year by godly evangelists and preachers went unheeded. So why were we surprised when finally the hand of judgment fell?" Erwin wrote. "Sadly, innocents suffered along with the guilty. Sin always brings suffering to good people as well as the bad."

Erwin is a former conservative talk-radio host with a fairly decorated military history. He seems like a nice, upstanding citizen who loves his country ... except for the depraved sinners it plays host to.

The best part of the whole story is this:

Katrina caused flooding of the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, and Erwin said the Baptists knew they had put themselves on the front lines ministering in a sinful place that could be targeted. He said he didn't think the hard-hit residents of the low-income lower 9th Ward were singled out for especially harsh punishment but were merely in the way, as were the shrimpers in the struggling fishing town of Bayou La Batre on the Alabama coast. (Emphasis mine)

Yes, those stupid Baptists plunked their church down right in the middle of a sinful place -- what were they thinking trying to minister directly to sinners instead of through the safety of television screens or shrill newspaper columns like the one Erwin wrote? And those idiotic poor people -- always in the way! Under overpasses, outside homeless shelters. Why can't they stay out of the way of God's random wrath?

The country, obviously, is moving away from God and God's pissed about it. Erwin says so. Porn is everywhere, grandmothers are gambling in riverboat casinos with a gusto you can't imagine, freakish babies are talking and demanding sub sandwiches. It's chaos! We should move back to the values of the early 20th century, when there were no hurricanes. Er, well ... okay, so thousands died from 1900 to 1950 in "the most intense and the deadliest hurricanes in U.S. history". Plus, there was all that segregation and race/sex discrimination to deal with. I mean, that's better than porn.

So what about the time from the 1950s to, say, the 1990s? Post-war America sure was full of godly values. But ... hurricanes still smacked us around like rag dolls.

Erwin, what say ye?

The al-Qaida in Iraq group hailed the hurricane deaths in America as the "wrath of God," and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan suggested the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina was divine punishment for the violence America had inflicted on Iraq.

Televangelist Pat Robertson said Katrina might be linked to God's judgment concerning legalized abortion, and some rabbis suggested Katrina was a retribution for supporting the Israeli pullout from Gaza.

Oh no, the confusion. Which egregious errors are we really being punished for? Which crazy religious faction truly gets to claim they know what God was thinking this time? This sounds like poor communication on God's part. Maybe he really does work for the Bush administration.

Crunching — and trying to squash — the numbers

2005-09-26T22:17:00.000-07:00

One of the more pathetic whimperings coming out of some conservative bloggers (here and here, for starters) lately is that Saturday's anti-war rally in D.C. didn't attract the 100,000 it was projected to. Andrew Sullivan, at first, scoffed at the paltry 2,000 count he read about, until he realized the 2,000 number came from a side rally and retracted his original skepticism at the rally's official size.

But Sullivan — who isn't even a rabid war supporter — was only one of many to so quickly attempt to dismiss the rally's importance based on questionable attendance estimates.

I guess the pro-war factions are more than a little afraid of the public's growing disillusionment with the war — why else would they quibble with the size of a war protest if they didn't feel like it was essential for them to swoop in and marginalize the event and its participants or else risk losing support and credibility? If their only issue is the number of attendees vs. the number the press reported, well, I understand that. The press needs to relay an accurate number to tell a true story — that's a no-brainer and I would feel disrespected if I found out that there really were only 20,000 people there when the cops had told the AP and the AP told its readers that the 100,000 mark had been hit.

But even in the Washington Times's story about the pro-war counter protest, they use the 100,000 D.C. Police estimate. So perhaps it's not the AP and Reuters fudging the numbers to make the anti-war faction look good. Maybe that's the actual estimate. Gee whiz.

Oh, and the pro-war rally tally? Four hundred. Says so in the Washington Times, too.

Even if you don't buy the estimates of 100,000 (I think it might be a close-but-no-cigar number, but I wasn't there and I'm not arrogant enough to assert that I know for sure based on photos), this is still a lot of people.

Here's another shot of the marchers coming down the street (see if you can spot Jesse Jackson):

From DKos diary of RenaRF.

One of the more interesting themes that seems to run through much of the conservative blogosphere's observations about the anti-war rally is their adolescent "Ew! Look at the weirdos!" take on the people of the anti-war movement. Michelle Malkin gets in a dig about a "stylish member of Code Pink." Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds draws a not-so-subtle contrast between a trio of smiling, buxom pro-war ladies and their bohemian skirt-wearing, makeup-less counterparts at the anti-war rally here.

For more "rally babes," you can click here and take a scrolling tour.

Yes, if the face of the pro-war set is hott, how can the war be wrong?

The best disgusting display of self-righteousness I've seen is from Global Cop from D.C. Here's the entry, photo and caption in its entirety:

This anti-war protester actually seemed to respond when one of our contingent mentioned that she wouldn't be very welcome in most Islamic societies. She lowered her sign, her head and walked away quietly.

You can usually count on a conservative know-it-all to shame you into submission and make you walk away with your head down like a good little girl, if he's doing his job right. You should thank him for enlightening you, young lady.

You know, they keep saying we're not fighting a war against Islam, but what is one to make of this quote outside of such a context? It's not like we're trying to secure equality for gays and lesbians in Iraq's Constitution. Hell, we haven't even gotten to equality for women yet! Essentially, this quote is saying: You disgust us, and you disgust them, but only here in America do we have the restraint to not stone you to death in the street for your disgusting abominations. So you should thank us for not making you a target, because you wouldn't be afforded that same liberty elsewhere.

Despicable and completely beside the point of the rally or counter-rally.

Farrakhan, you're not helping the healing

2005-09-24T22:18:00.000-07:00

I like conspiracy theories as much as the next pathetic schlep. What can I say? It's often easier to wish the world's troubles were caused by alien -- not human -- mischief. And it's always tempting to blame everything bad that happens in the world on Bush's dubious Freemason heritage, or his secret identity as a reptilian.

But Louis Farrakhan is really pushing it with the crazy theories. He made headlines last week when he alleged that a levee in New Orleans was destroyed by the government so that the black part of the city would be eradicated and replaced by more wealthy white homeowners.

"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry," Farrakhan said in Charlotte, N.C.

Groan. Shouldn't Farrakhan be a little more skeptical about these off-the-wall claims with little to no proof other than conjecture and speculation? Because, you know, that's sort of a sore spot for a lot of people these days, what with being involved in a war based on flimsy assumptions and impotent evidence and all.

Farrakhan brought his message to Memphis last night, though it was couched in a rally of support for the upcoming Millions More Movement, an event at the Washington National Mall to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Million Man March.

At a press conference, the subject quickly turned from the MMM to Katrina.

Farrakhan suggested some of the levee breeches in New Orleans may have happened on purpose. He said divers have found evidence of explosives under the levees.

"These explosives are from the government side," he said.

Farrakhan said an investigation is necessary, either to prove that it's either a rumor, "or it is a fact and somebody is guilty, then not only of mass destruction of property, but of mass murder."

Wow, that's a pretty bold claim. Divers have found evidence of explosives? I can't imagine why the local and national press wouldn't jump all over that if there was sufficient evidence. Especially if the media is as liberal as some prickly pundits claim ad nauseum.

But that's the issue -- the evidence. I suspect there's a real lack of it, but there's plenty of hearsay to go around. For Farrakhan to spread this nonsense without offering any convincing information to back it up is irresponsible and will only create a further divide between the people in this country -- the people who now, more than ever, need to pull together to help each other out.

It's already going to be a monumental challenge to convince those neglected by the government's bungled response that their state's and nation's leaders actually care enough about them to not let them needlessly languish and die. Why complicate things by making the racially charged claim that the poor black neighborhoods were purposely flooded to make way for rich white folks if you're not going to make the effort to prove it?

"America is in need of a healing," Farrakhan told an audience of about 1,000 people during his speech. "Our society is sick."

You said it, Mr. Farrakhan. Let's start by healing whatever broken synapses are in your brain that allow you to spread such silly, damaging information with nothing but rumors to back you up.

"The crucifixion of Kate"

2005-09-24T22:17:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know it's not local. And no, it's not national, either. It's not even political, really. But it's interesting...

UK's Independent runs a fascinating detailing of the days following the The Daily Mirror's disclosure of a photo and accompanying testimony of supermodel Kate Moss using cocaine.

Gasp! Supermodels sniffing coke? Well, I never...

Anyway, since then she has been dropped by several employers, slated for investigation by British authorities, chided by Jennifer Love Hewitt and even caught the eye of the the official Chinese news agency (an interesting read).

The Independent's article chronicles the priorities of the Daily Mirror's top brass, lookiing to catch Moss in a slip-up, a moment of weakness (or perhaps one of many moments).

There's the setup:
"For the Daily Mirror investigative reporter Stephen Moyes, it had been an infuriating process. Ingratiating himself with the seedy, drug-addled crew around Babyshambles' frontman Pete Doherty was easy. A bit of flattery and an expense account for drinks and cigarettes did that. But just hanging around for night after night with the shambling set of rock wannabes was squalid. He needed them to reward his investment with evidence that Doherty's girlfriend, the global supermodel Kate Moss, is the cocaine-fixated libertine they all claimed to know.

Time and again his informants failed to deliver and demanded more time or money. Moyes was beginning to think he had invested in fools. So he buzzed with excitement when one of his "snouts" approached him with photographic proof. Only his editor, Richard Wallace, was more delighted."

Vendetta rumours:
"The conspiracy version is that the Mirror was determined to get Moss after she won a libel case against its sister paper. In January the Sunday Mirror reported that she had collapsed in a "cocaine coma" at a 2001 charity show in Barcelona. This summer it admitted its story was untrue. Moss accepted undisclosed libel damages. Then, say rivals, the Mirror editor Richard Wallace demanded proof that Moss uses drugs.

"Mirror insiders deny that. One explains: "This was about getting a big scoop."

And, of course, subsequent fained puritanism:
"The results were catastrophic. The Swedish fashion giant H&M reacted to the Mirror's lurid reports by dropping her from its autumn campaign."

"That decision, reached during crisis meetings between executives summoned to H&M's headquarters in Stockholm, provoked a domino effect in an industry known for its herd mentality. H&M's accountants justified abandoning the face of heroin-chic on the grounds that the firm has a history of fighting drug abuse. It was a surprising excuse as the company must have been aware of rumours about the model's reputation for adventure with sex and stimulants."

Go read the whole story.

I write about this because it displays both the misplaced priorities of the media (everyone, including the BBC, jumped on the bandwagon) and our worship of/war against celebrities and people of public prominence.

We have a tendency to build up our heroes, then work just as hard to destroy them. Michael Jackson (before "those" allegations), Princess Diana, Britney Spears, Gary Hart, whichever Olsen twin had an eating disorder - the list goes on and on.

We expect extrahuman behavior out of people who we have built up to believe that they are idols. Thanks to our wallets, they have the money to buy at least a boatload or two of whatever narcotic they desire. Thanks to our continued support, they have all the free time in the world to get into whatever their heart desires. What would you do?

Are you strong enough to say that, given the circumstances and the lifestyle (thin is always in), that you wouldn't have been caught in a Moss-esque moment of weakness? Are we really in the position to make such a presumptive claim?

And why is the first option for a known drug user to attempt to destroy their lives? Because this is such a productive option. Instead of (1) leaving her alone or (2) actively helping her seek treatment, these big fashion and fragrance companies look to cut her loose like a waifish bluegill. They forget the dollars they have raked in using her image and move on to the next thing because she did not live up to standards that much of the industry cannot meet.

And why is one's personal life out of the spotlight such a big deal anyway? Certainly news organizations have more pressing matters to address.

What are your thoughts on the direction of news? Should Kate Moss taking a line be world news? Do editors and reporters have misplaced priorities or are they just giving us what we want? What do you think?

Don't like TennCare cuts? Do something about it

2005-09-01T22:20:00.000-07:00

I share this with you because as New Orleans, Mississippi and Alabama look to clean up and take care of their own, we still have our own people at home in desperate need. Please read and consider.

Reprinted from The Macon County Chronicle:

We sure are lucky to live in such a low-tax state.

It may not seem so when you see nearly 10 percent tacked onto every purchase you make, but the statistics don’t lie – and for once, Tennessee’s presence near the bottom of a state ranking list is a good thing.

Tennessee ranks 47th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia in the taxation rate – not bad.

What this also means is that Tennessee has less money to spend than other states, which many consider a good thing – that is, until one of the country’s largest state-sponsored health care programs has to cut loose hundreds of thousands of patients because we simply cannot afford it anymore.

Gov. Phil Bredesen has gotten heat from the usual suspects (including myself at times) on the left and the right, which has done a remarkable public relations job of transforming from cut-TennCare advocates to champions of the poor.

Funny – I thought Republicans were the ones who hated free medical care for those who can’t afford it. But I digress.

Nevertheless, right-wing bomb thrower John Stossel wrote what was admittedly an excellent piece on how we as citizens no longer feel the obligation of our ancestors to help those in need because of the perception that government will do it for them:

"Mutual aid societies paid for doctors, built orphanages and cooked for the poor. Neighbors knew best what neighbors needed. They were better at making judgments about who needs a handout and who needed a kick in the rear. They helped the helpless, but administered tough love to the rest. They taught self-sufficiency…

" Private charity develops a sense of personal responsibility for recipients, and it does something similar for donors, too…
"When you rely on the government to help those who need it, you don't practice benevolence yourself."

And this is perhaps part of the problem: When we see the TennCare cuts happening, our first instinct is to petition the government and protest, protest, protest. Don’t get me wrong - I feel immensely for those cut from TennCare (I have relatives among them, and certainly everybody knows somebody).

But I can’t help but wonder what could have happened if, instead of demanding that the government reinstate a full version of a program that it couldn’t afford in the first place, if that money spent on the protest, the lost wages from time the protestors took off work – and for that matter, the very paper the notices were printed on – were put to use in social programs that are trying to help those disenrolled.

Like it or not, we have chosen to be a low-tax, low-services state. So when our fellow man needs us, the government is not necessarily going to be there to help them out as we have come to expect.

There are low-cost nonprofit health clinics out there that want to help the affected TennCare enrollees and everyone else who needs medical attention but cannot afford to pay typical doctor or hospital prices.

Seek them out and help them out – unlike government agencies, they have bottom-line reasons to manage their donations well. Unlike public health agencies, they are able to turn away drug abusers and others who would seek to manipulate the system.

And unlike government handouts, many of the patients at these clinics feel an obligation to pay the provider, even though they don’t necessarily have to.

Instead of finding someone to blame, let’s find a way to make this work.