Here's the latest article by Seymour Hersh on the prison scandal. No matter what your view is of it all, Hersh is at the center of this story so you might as well see what he has to say.

To all who've volunteered to tape the show tomorrow for Sergio, my thanks. I have someone recording it.

Longtime artist and editor Gill Fox died this morning after several months of illness. Fox was born November 29, 1919 and started his professional career with a brief stint at the Max Fleischer cartoon studio. Labor unrest drove him away from that industry and into the then-new field of comic books where he drew for the earliest DC books and for the Harry "A" Chesler shop. In 1940, he became an editor and frequent cover artist for Quality Comics. His covers for Plastic Man are sometimes presumed to be the work of Jack Cole and his covers for Torchy (like the one at left) are often credited to that strip's main artist, Bill Ward. He eventually moved on from comic books to advertising cartooning with the Johnstone and Cushing Agency. One of his best friends there was an artist named Dik Browne and he eventually helped Browne when he began drawing the Hi and Lois newspaper strip.

Fox himself later segued into newspaper work and was intensely proud of his late work as a political cartoonist. His friend Jim Amash did the definitive interview with Fox and Alter Ego magazine and you can read part of it here. The man was a respected artist, extremely well-liked by his peers and pals, and a lot of cartoonists are in mourning today.

I'm watching On the Record With Bob Costas and they're doing a segment on the anniversary of the movie, Airplane. Co-director Jim Abrahams just mentioned that David Letterman screen-tested for the role of Ted Stryker, the hero ultimately played by Robert Hays. Does anyone think the movie would have worked with him in that role? I sure don't.

Speaking of Mr. Letterman: I enjoyed his show last night…the one taped at 4 AM. But he has to be really disappointed at the ratings this morning which were no higher than usual and maybe even lower. I also enjoyed an interview he did earlier in the week with John McCain. Dave is a better interviewer of political figures than many folks who do it full-time.

Robert Spina writes…

I couldn't help but notice you expressed no opinion of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of how Lichtenstein made his living. Or if "right" and "wrong" even apply here. It has always bothered me that Lichtenstein seemingly made his greatest fortune on the backs of some of the most talented, yet underpaid and under-represented artists in the field we hold so dear.

It bothers me, too. I should have made that clear. There was some degree of plagiarism in there in the sense of passing off someone else's work as your own. Lichtenstein did have the idea of enlarging comic book panels that way, and he worked out a way to replicate the dot patterns via (I believe) some sort of template. But otherwise what he was selling was the artistry of Mssrs. Romita, Heath, Colan, etc. He was hardly the only one to crib their work and his exploitation doesn't bother me as much as some of what their immediate employers did. But yeah, I thought it was wrong. I also thought that if you'd paid John Romita to do a comic book panel that size, you'd have gotten a much better painting for about a tenth the money.

Beginning in the late fifties, Roy Lichtenstein became famous for what some later called "pop art" paintings, many of which were enlarged comic book panels. Over at this site, a gent named David Barsalou displays some of the results of a long-term research project, which was to find the original source material for Lichtenstein's paintings. Most of them appear to me to be panels by John Romita, Russ Heath, Mike Sekowsky and Jerry Grandenetti. Needless to say, Mr. Lichtenstein made a lot more money off his versions than the real artists did from creating the originals.

As far as I know, there is no record of Roy Lichtenstein actually drawing comic books even though he was traipsing about New York from around 1951 to 1957 looking for commercial art jobs. Jack Kirby claimed that Lichtenstein applied for work at the Simon-Kirby studio during this period but that his samples weren't good enough. I'm not sure I believe that but it's at least possible.

This is really just for folks in or around San Francisco. My partner, master cartoonist Sergio Aragonés will be interviewed on the local TV series, Latin Eyes, this coming Sunday, May 16. The show airs on KRON, Channel 4, twice that day…at 10 AM and again at Midnight. It's all themed to Latin American viewers but the telecast is in English. If anyone up there is willing to record it for Sergio, please let me know.

Whatever you do, if you value your sanity, do not click on this link.

As you may know, comic strips are drawn well in advance of publication and the Sunday sections are drawn even farther ahead of the dailies. The Sunday sections are also usually printed well in advance. As a result, on Sunday, May 23, Doonesbury is in the unfortunate situation of having a strip that involves a severed head…done well before the Nick Berg incident. One suspects folks who don't know about lead times will be attacking Mr. Trudeau for exploiting the murder for his own purposes.

[UPDATE at 4:12 PM: Corrected the date of the Doonesbury strip in question. So sorry.]

I'm going to try to write one post about the Abu Ghraib/Nick Berg comparison, then put it all out of my mind for the rest of the day. I think whether you are for this war or against it, you have to put up with having things shoved in your face that seem to prove the incorrectness of your position. There are plenty for both sides, which is why the jury is still out, as far as I'm concerned, on whether it was a good idea to invade Iraq in the first place. The overriding answer for me — not that anyone's waiting breathlessly for me to decide — will have to do with the ultimate cost and what becomes of Iraq. Will it actually become a real democracy? Will life be better for Iraqis than if we'd left their nation alone? And what will the total price tag be for us in terms of lives ended or damaged, as well as dollars? I don't know how anyone can say we definitely should or should not have invaded without allowing that the final cost/gain ratio may contradict what they believed at the outset.

But whichever way you've made up your mind so far, there have been developments in the news that tell you it's wrong. The Abu Ghraib pix have cost us a large chunk of the moral ground on which we as a nation like to believe we always stand. The Berg video reminds us that there are people out there — and "people" is being charitable — who achieve orgasm at the thought of dead Americans. Both visuals exist and one does not cancel out the other.

If you believed in this war at the outset, you had some wonderful moments of triumph and vindication early on but lately, your faith has been battered. We were not "greeted with flowers," at least to the extent that some predicted, and the cost to us in lives and dollars is soaring well above what any pro-invasion voices predicted. There's also the little matter of Weapons of Mass Destruction that were absolutely, positively right where our intelligence forces claimed, ready to destroy America at any moment. You may not agree that invading Iraq was a mistake — or even that it was a noble cause that has been poorly handled — but it shouldn't surprise you that an increasing number of Americans think it wasn't worth it. Gallup says 54% feel that way against only 44% who feel it is worthwhile. (To me, the most surprising and suspicious aspect of this poll is that only 2% appear to be undecided.) At the same time, the Pew folks (same link) say 51% of Americans think the decision to use military force in Iraq was correct versus 42% who feel it was a mistake. Both polls could be correct and if so, they show that there are a lot of frustrated Americans out there.

What the Abu Ghraib and Nick Berg visuals do have in common is not just that they upset our worldviews and stomachs but that someone committed them to digital imagery. Prison tortures do occur and Americans are savagely murdered but in these particular cases, someone said, "Wait…let me get my camera!" The Berg murder was done for mass distribution on the Internet. It was intended to sicken. The Abu Ghraib photos (and apparently, forthcoming videos) were presumably not, though you have to wonder why they were taken at all. Did the person or persons holding the Nikon think, "Oh, Grandma back home will be so thrilled to get these"? I frankly don't understand why anyone, even if following orders, would apply electrodes to someone's genitals and I really, really don't understand why anyone would feel the moment needed to be recorded for posterity.

Whatever the purpose, we have those images and I'm not suggesting they're all equally bad. But they are equally here, to be joined soon by more disturbing imagery, I am sure. No matter how the politically-motivated folks try to spin such images to appeal to us as Democrats or Republicans, the first level on which we ought to process them is as human beings. And I'm sure going to try to not move beyond that…because anyone who clings to the notion that the war is 100% right or 100% wrong is going to have their precious percentage shattered by a lot more sickening imagery.

If anyone would like to know how far apart the Writers Guild is from a deal with the Producers, here's a chart that shows the current offers on the table.

A number of folks have called my attention to this posting over on one of my favorite Internet stops, Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. It may remind you a lot of…well, of the previous post on my site here.

One reader of this site recommended I read James S. Robbins on "Comparative Barbarism." I don't know that we need someone to explain to us that beheading Nick Berg is a more savage act than humiliating prisoners but it doesn't hurt to make that point. Robbins is wrong though that "No one has sought to justify these actions [the prison tortures], not even those who committed them." Take Senator James Inhofe, for instance.

I don't think most of America will buy the argument that some seem to be making that the Nick Berg video somehow minimizes or erases the torture pix. The lesser of two evils is still evil. If there really is a strategic justification for the torture practices, I'd love to hear it. At the moment, it seems like both a moral failing and a foolish thing to do in a land where we wanted to be "greeted as liberators." The fact that there are maniacs out there capable of worse doesn't change that. (As Jon Stewart notes, we can't possibly "out-psychopath Al-Qaida.")

Thanks to all of you who wrote about this issue. Unfortunately, I am so swamped with e-mail that wishes to engage me in one-on-one political debate that I can't answer much (if any) of it. I'm not quite in Deadline Hell at the moment but it is getting a little warm…

Here's part of an e-mail I got this morning. I won't give the gent's name…

Question: What do www.newsfromme.com blog entries and radical islamo-fascist newspapers have in common?

Answer: A large number (10 seperate entries at last count) of articles on the abuse of muslim criminals at Abu Ghraib prison by relatively few US Army Soldiers. No mention of the murder of American Citizen Nick Berg by militant islamo-fascists.

You use terms like "ghastly", "horrifying imagery", and "horrible stuff" when describing Abu Ghraib. What descriptors do you have about the decapitation of Nick Berg? Your blog demonstrates where your priorities are.

Actually, I was working on a post about Nick Berg but hadn't come up with anything to say about it beyond the obvious. In the case of the torture stuff, you have some prominent folks out there trying to spin that all as a bunch of fraternity pranks and/or something that was commendable so I wanted to weigh in. In the matter of Berg, I think we're all pretty much on the same page, aren't we? There's no controversy there insofar as evaluating how horrible the act was. It's awful when anyone dies and particularly nauseating when it's done for show.

I think sometimes people don't get the way a weblog (and certainly this one) works. You don't comment on anything unless you think you have something noteworthy to say about it. Often when a celebrity dies, I get an e-mail from someone saying, "Well, since you didn't post an obit on So-and-so, obviously you hated him." Well, no. Maybe I just didn't think I had anything to say about him that was worth reading. It's also sometimes the case that we get busy and can't put aside paying work or personal obligations to post on the no-pay, no-deadline weblog…or at least to post something deep and thoughtful.

The piece I started to write about the murder of Mr. Berg was about the effects of the video being available for general viewing…but then I stopped because I hadn't viewed it and didn't really want to. I finally had a moment of curiosity since I was writing about it. I went over to a site where I'd noticed it had been posted and nervously clicked the viewing link. After about five seconds of Berg sitting there identifying himself, my screen froze up and I decided that if my computer didn't want to see it, I didn't either. (You'll note I'm not providing a direct link to the video. If anyone wants to see it, they can surely find it but I don't even feel comfortable linking to it.) Anyway, sight unseen, I agree it's what we all know it is…and I don't see that it makes the torture photos any easier to take. As others have noted, we expect more decent behavior of our soldiers than we do of "militant islamo-fascists." Our expressed outrage about the former might also cause such actions to be stopped, whereas the islamo-fascists aren't about to bow to American public pressure.

My above-quoted correspondent goes on to make some insulting remarks and to say that he used to enjoy my comic book and TV writing but apparently won't anymore. I think it's silly to link those things to this, too.

The other day, John Kerry got what must be the worst news he's had in a while: Pollster John Zogby is predicting that Kerry will win the presidency in November. Why is this bad news? Well, have you followed Zogby's track record? This is the man who in the New York Senate race of 2000 said it was too close to call and predicted "I think we're looking at a one point race." He said this the day before the election and the next day, Hillary Clinton beat her opponent 56%-44%. You and I could have just picked numbers out of a hat and been more accurate.

So if Zogby was that far wrong the day before an election, why should anyone listen to him a month before it, let alone six? I dunno. The bigger question to me is why he is climbing out on this limb now. At the moment, every poll shows Kerry and Bush pretty much tied, given the margin of error. If I were a nationally-known pollster who earned his income on the basis of accurate projections, I don't think I'd be calling it for a guy who doesn't have a lead — or even a running mate — no matter what my numbers indicated.

Zogby qualifies his forecast noting that "anything can still happen" and that Kerry could blow it. Obviously, this is so. We can all imagine dozens of things that could happen in the next six months including another terrorist attack, the capture of Osama Whatzisname, more revelations like the Abu Ghraib ones, Halliburton-related scandals…and of course, every candidate will say a couple of really, really stupid things that their opposition will successfully exploit. But doesn't the fact that "anything can still happen" only point up the futility of a prediction this far in advance? Especially during a volatile year for this country? I still think that when we look back at the election of November, 2004, we'll say it hinged on events that occurred in the few months before the vote.

Speaking of premature predictions: Some time ago here, I predicted that John Kerry's running mate would be Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico. I hereby withdraw this prediction. Since then, Republicans have hammered Kerry on being a pro-choice Catholic. I don't think that's a serious charge but I think it is a distraction Kerry doesn't need…and he therefore doesn't need another pro-choice Catholic on the ticket with him. My guess now would be Dick Gephardt who's a boring speaker but who could be of use in winning Ohio, Missouri and Iowa. If Kerry can win those states, he'll probably win the Oval Office. Personally, I'd rather see John Edwards because I think he's a more interesting speaker.

On this site, we have articles devoted to some of the great animation voice thespians, including Daws Butler, Mel Blanc and June Foray. Once a week or so, someone writes to ask, "When you are going to put up something about Paul Frees?" He was certainly in that category. In his day, he did as many cartoons as any man alive, and was darn near ubiquitous in commercials, narration and even the redubbing of other actors in movies. So he certainly deserves attention but, as I write the folks who ask why I haven't done an article on him, I never really met Paul Frees (only once on the phone) and have never felt I knew enough about him to write anything worth reading.

Fortunately, someone else does and has. I'm just enjoying Welcome, Foolish Mortals… which is subtitled, "The Life and Times of Paul Frees," a much-needed book by Ben Ohmart. It has an intro by June Foray, who played Natasha when Paul played Boris Badenov. It has an outro by Keith Scott, an amazing Australian voice talent who has since assumed some of Paul's roles. And in between, Ben tells us who Paul was, how he worked, how he lived…everything. Much of this book is a recitation of parts that Frees played, and you'll find yourself saying, "I didn't know that was Paul Frees."

(Here's one Ben missed: Near the beginning of the movie Gigi, there's a scene where Louis Jordan has a scene with several men who have been skillfully redubbed by Guess Who.) If this kind of thing interests you, you need this book. The title, by the way, refers to the job many people identify with Paul: The host at Disneyland's Haunted Mansion.

You can purchase this new book from Amazon at this link or directly from the author's company at this link. Ordering from the second of these may cost you a buck or two more (and will not pay me my Amazon kickback) but personally, I always like to see as much of the money as possible going to the author. And while you're at it, also order Scenes For Actors and Voices, a collection of scripts written by the great Daws Butler and compiled into a book by Joe Bevilacqua and Ben. Here's the link for Amazon and here's the link for the publisher. Lots of good stuff at the latter site.