Tom Tomorrow Wins Herblock Prize!

[Octafish]

Congrats to a great guy and a top journalist, Dan Perkins!

From TT:

Tom Tomorrow:
Herblock prize

I’m immensely honored to announce that This Modern World has won the 2013 Herblock Prize.

WASHINGTON, DC, February 25, 2013 – Dan Perkins, pen name Tom Tomorrow, was named the winner of the 2013 Herblock Prize for editorial cartooning.

Perkins is the creator of the weekly political cartoon, This Modern World, which appears in approximately 80 papers, mostly altweeklies. He is the editor of the comics section he created in April 2011 on Daily Kos. His cartoons have been featured in The New York Times, The New Yorker, U.S. News & World Report and The Economist. He lives outside of New Haven, Connecticut with his wife and their son.

The prize is awarded annually by The Herb Block Foundation for “distinguished examples of editorial cartooning that exemplify the courageous independent standard set by Herblock.” The winner receives a $15,000 after-tax cash prize and a sterling silver Tiffany trophy. Perkins will receive the prize April 25th in a ceremony held at the Library of Congress.

CONTINUED...

http://thismodernworld.com/archives/7734#more-7734

[zappaman]

1. Great cartoonist and deserves it immensely. n/t

[Octafish]

3. The guy knows his BFEE.

Unlike you.

[Octafish]

27. I have good reason for my concern about the BFEE. Why you feel it's a waste of time is your concern.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2257713

[zappaman]

28. Has the BFEE tried to shut you down?

Surprised they haven't tried!
After all, you've shown they can do just about anything!
Hmmm...I wonder why they don't bother you...

[Octafish]

33. If we can’t prosecute banksters, war criminals & traitors, they don’t need to go after me.

Stop answering your automated reply email notification and think.



If We the People can no longer prosecute traitors who lied America into war, nor the guilty banksters who destroyed the economy, enabled by the people's representatives and the mafia for whom they stand; nor the too-big-to-fail banks and corporations that own and operate them; nor the tax-dodging, money laundering, drug dealing, terrorist financing, mass murdering, war profiteering, warmongering eugenicists and NAZIs, as well the traitors whose names we know and crimes are documented in the public record; they walk free. So, what am I to them? Nothing.

Here's a link.

[apocalypsehow]

67. zappaman's Post #10 shouldn't have been hidden; it's spot-on. The DU jury wasn't aware of the

context of your frequent claims over the years that LHO was "set-up" and a "patsy" and, yes, somewhat heroic in your view.

[Octafish]

68. Thanks for your opinion. That's not what I said, however.

Show me where I wrote the alleged assassin was "somewhat heroic." For that matter, show me where I have written something false about the assassination of President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, the crimes of the national security state or the BFEE?

To help you with your GOOGLE search, know that I wrote We the People do not know all there is to know about Oswald and those around him because the Congress, CIA, FBI and who knows who else are still withholding relevant documents. I also wrote that the FBI destroyed evidence in the case, a note Oswald left at the Dallas FBI office in which he is alleged to have threatened to blow up the FBI offices if Special Agent James P. Hosty did not leave Marina Oswald alone. Gee. If someone who was being followed by CIA and FBI left a note like that, he or she should have been picked up for questioning. One thing's for certain, the FBI should've told the Secret Service about him, but didn't.

And while you're searching, see if you can come up that bibliography you promised, but never delivered. You know, the one about all the books your library contains stating JFK would have kept the United States in Vietnam. Whether you read any of said invisible books or not is open to question.

[apocalypsehow]

69. It's not an "opinion" it's a FACT: you *precisely* implied LHO was heroic here:

"As for Oswald, I don't know if he was a hero in all this or not. He did say he was a "patsy" accused of a crime he did not commit, but then he was shot dead while in police custody. So, likely we will never hear his side of the story.

Have you ever done anything heroic, zappaman? Be honest."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2232672

And have done much the same over your long history of buying-into CT'er bullshit over the years on both DU2 and DU3 - though you have at least the sense to stay out of Creative Speculation now that the batshit-craziness allowed in DU2's "9-11 forum" has gone by the boards.

[Octafish]

75. Show me where I wrote something that was not true.

Otherwise, know that your constant efforts to label me are in vain.

[apocalypsehow]

76. Show me where I wrote something that was not true.

Otherwise, know that you constant efforts to label me are in vain.

[Octafish]

79. For starters, you said you read books that don't exist.

Then you accuse me of something I never wrote. Then, you take up where your locked off this thread buddy left off. I could go on, but you'll just repeat myself.

[apocalypsehow]

82. (1) Baloney. (2) You wrote every speck of it, as proven. (3) More baloney. n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

70. As for the "bibliography" nonsense, I refer all DU'ers here:

Links to to two old DU posts of yours & one of mine does not a refutation of what I wrote above make

instead of attempting to change the subject, address the historical evidence put to you in the reply above.

"I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography,'"

I am going to deal with this phony issue in depth once and only once in my interactions with you on DU, Octafish, and from here on out whenever you attempt to change the subject from whatever facts I've presented that you cannot refute by bringing up this old diversionary chestnut, I'm simply going to post a link back to this reply.

A "bibliography" is nothing more than a list of books compiled and/or collected for a specific purpose, among other things that word can refer to. Here's a helpful definition for you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bibliography

It is, indeed, true that I have a large number of books in my personal library that address the life, times, personal and political career of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - everything from general biographies of his life to topic-specific volumes regarding actions of his administration on everything from the Cuban Missile Crises to its dealings with South America. I also have in my collection a sizable body of conspiracy theory works, everything from Jim Marrs "Conspiracy: the Plot that killed Kennedy" to a compilation of conspiracy-related articles compiled and edited by James Fetzer titled "Murder in Dealey Plaza."

But that is not this issue. This is:

1. When people post a reply to you containing any number of facts that refute a position you hold, Octafish, the proper way to reply to them is not to refer to some old post of theirs that is irrelevant to the post at hand, but to address those facts.

2. You, I, and every one else are well aware that my sarcastic reply to you in that singular post was, indeed, a rhetorical reference to the fact that I am not only much better read than you are on this subject, but, also, the content of what I have read is largely from legitimate, credible sources, as opposed to conspiracy-theory rubbish peddled by con-men (in many instances) and/or the genuinely misinformed (in many others). This means that not only the quantity of what I've read is much greater than yours, but the quality is infinitely more intellectually honest and imbued with scholarly rigor.

3. This repeated returning to "I'm still waiting for your bibliography" routine is simply a way to avoid dealing with facts as presented to you, and a pretense, in any event: were you genuinely interested in having me painstakingly put aside an afternoon and compile a list of books I have read, many of which are in my personal library, you would have long ago messaged me privately and said, "you know, apocalypsehow, I know you were being sarcastic in that post about the bibliography, but in all sincerity I would appreciate seeing a list of books you've read and/or recommend on the subject. I would genuinely appreciate it if you would do this for me, thanks!" But that's not what you're interested in: you are interested in scoring some kind of public "debate" points by pretending I have failed to deliver on some "promise" you think I have made and you are due. Of this, you are well aware, but you persist in returning to this tactic anyway because it is much, much, much easier than attempting to refute my solid facts and evidence.

4. Further, you and I both know that if I, indeed, did put aside 5-6 hours of my time, and compile in writing such a list and then forward it on to you via private message or publicly, the result would not be that Octafish would drop his keyboard, run right out to the local library or bookstore and start prowling the stacks looking for reading material: no, the result would be an immediate counter-reply dismissing the works as part of the "cover-up"; an accompanying questioning if not outright smearing of the reputations of the authors of those books in an attempt to discredit them; or a reply simply ignoring the entire thing in lieu of posting an eye-numbing number of links - most of them to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, or your own previous posts - supposedly "proving" that it doesn't matter how many actual scholarly works are written that do not square with your view of the events of Nov. 22, 1963, you have on your side of the "debate"....an eye-numbing number of links to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, and your own previous posts.

And my time would have truly and completely been wasted.

5. Taken together, everything I have laid out in points 1-4 lay the groundwork for my reply to you regarding this constant diversionary "request" you continue to make every time I definitively refute an assertion you have made in a post on this forum. That reply is as follows:

(a) As to the repeated public, i.e., in a post/reply on DU, business about "I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography'," you can stop waiting: I am not going to burn even ten seconds of my time working up such a list for you, period. Normally, this alone would be sufficient to see the matter dropped, and never brought up again as some kind of "debate" point in future interactions between us. But that's about the only card you got to play in our occasional discussions back and forth regarding this matter on DU, since all the actual, verifiable, credible facts are on my side, not yours. Thus, the card will always be played, because it is human nature to grasp at even weak cards if it is perceived that it keeps us at the table and in the game.

(b) But even that card is now going to either have to be played or flushed, because I'm calling your bluff. This is my offer: if you compose a polite, respectful private message to me, Octafish, and in that message you nicely ask me to go ahead and work up that Bibliography for you, even though we both know the original "offer" was an off-the-cuff instance of internet obiter dictum, I'll be delighted to block off an evening to do so, and get it right to you. You can then do with it what you want: follow its recommendations, ignore it, post an OP here ridiculing or praising it, whatever you want.

And then the (phony to begin with) issue will have been laid to rest, and you can get on with the business of refuting my facts, as opposed to dredging up old posts with no relevance to those said facts.

Which is why my PM box will remain empty, I reckon: you don't want to discuss the facts. You want to discuss everything but.

In any event, you have my (final) word on this diversionary matter you continue to bring to our attention. Any further references to it will simply find a link posted in reply for those interested to follow back to this post, and the explanation contained therein above.

Issue resolved.

Note to DU'ers: this is cross-posted from DU2.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=292552&mesg_id=308814



DU3 Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=206982

[apocalypsehow]

71. Thanks for *once again* allowing me to expose your credibility with that "bibliography" nonsense,

Octafish: it is duly appreciated, if somewhat self-defeating on your part.

[Octafish]

73. It is to make clear where you are coming from.

Same place as zappaman.

[apocalypsehow]

84. Where I am "coming from" is the verifiable historical record, as shown.

Where you are coming from, on the other hand, has equally been shown. Repeatedly.

[Octafish]

72. Truly, a great read.

Got anything to add on Tom Tomorrow?

If not, quit acting like zappaman's Doppelgaenger.

You do know what a Doppelgaenger is, right, zappaman? Er, apocalypsehow?

[apocalypsehow]

74. It is indeed a "great read," as it deals with so much silliness in one fell swoop.

As for the accusation of sock-puppetry, if you really believe that I urge you to take it up with the Admins. Serious! Make your case. It could be yet another conspiracy!

Fun stuff.

[Octafish]

77. More accusations.

Next thing I know, you'll be saying you read a book stating JFK wanted a war in Vietnam.

I'd settle for the title, from you or your buddies.

[apocalypsehow]

78. JFK wanted to wage the Cold War - and he sent the first 20,000 combat troops to Vietnam.

That is irrefutable historical fact.

Further historical fact: two months before he was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Texas, President Kennedy told Walter Cronkite on national television that he thought to withdraw from Vietnam would be - and we're quoting here - "a great mistake...a great mistake."

So....what were you saying?

[Octafish]

80. What book was that in? What's your source?

Certainly, the facts are JFK followed what the Pentagon recommended for advisors. The escalation plan was prepared under Eisenhower. What you must not have read is that JFK vowed he would never send combat troops, draftees to Vietnam, to fight another country's civil war.

John Newman, JFK and Vietnam

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1366764&mesg_id=1382580

You know who else uses emoticons a lot?

[apocalypsehow]

81. Certainly the facts are JFK sent the first 20,000 combat troops to Vietnam, period.

The day he took office, there were less than 600 "advisors" (Sic) in Vietnam - the day he died in Dallas, at Lee Harvey Oswald's reprehensible hands, there were 20,000 American combat troops - each and every one sent there under his orders.

"the facts are JFK followed what the Pentagon recommended"

Then your argument is not that JFK started the combat phase of the Vietnam War - which historical facts irrefutably say he did - but that he was a weak, incompetent president who allowed the Pentagon to push him around? Is that really the line you want to take here?



Of course, the facts are not on your side when it comes to about any of this - if not all - so it's natural you'd want to deflect and obfuscate and scurry away from the issues at hand. It's a pity that in the so-doing you just accused President Kennedy of being a weak, ineffective leader. Most of us at DU don't feel that way about him - sorry you do.

[apocalypsehow]

83. Octafish = busted on the historical facts. Once again. Fun stuff.

[Octafish]

86. Seeing how you can't supply a link or a source, you are just wasting time and disrupting.

Like zappaman was.

[apocalypsehow]

87. Seeing how my "source" is common American history - accepted by every credible scholar from

Amherst to Yale - I'd say one of us is "just wasting time and disrupting" - but I don't think it's either myself or zappaman.

But you keep on trying.

[apocalypsehow]

85. Too many to name - and none you've ever read. Your link to your own post to a CT'er baloney blog

constitutes nothing more than desperation, and willful ignorance. Per usual.

[Octafish]

88. So the unknown book you reference is from your memory.

That explains it: No bibliography. No sources. No links. Nothing to back up your emoticon.

When you get a chance, try reading what Robert McNamara, David Kaiser, Arthur Schlessinger, and Gareth Porter have published on the subject.

Who knows? You might gain a new perspective.

[malthaussen]

2. Bravo! Good choice n/t

[Octafish]

6. Absolutely. Tom Tomorrow pegs this age, as Herblock chronicled his times through his work...

[G_j]

4. Yay!

The best!

[Octafish]

9. Apart from the cash, the professional recognition is well-deserved...

...because the journalist tells the truth.

[G_j]

11. right on

as usual... and funny!

[Octafish]

48. When Gen. Petraeus was under control in Afghanistan, all was well for him...

?w=600

[G_j]

64. It's been shown that wolves are GOOD for the ecosystem.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/29/opinion/the-world-needs-wolves.html

<snip>

Many Americans, even as they view the extermination of a species as morally anathema, struggle to grasp the tangible effects of the loss of wolves. It turns out that, far from being freeloaders on the top of the food chain, wolves have a powerful effect on the well-being of the ecosystems around them — from the survival of trees and riverbank vegetation to, perhaps surprisingly, the health of the populations of their prey.

An example of this can be found in Wyoming’s Yellowstone National Park, where wolves were virtually wiped out in the 1920s and reintroduced in the ’90s. Since the wolves have come back, scientists have noted an unexpected improvement in many of the park’s degraded stream areas.

Stands of aspen and other native vegetation, once decimated by overgrazing, are now growing up along the banks. This may have something to do with changing fire patterns, but it is also probably because elk and other browsing animals behave differently when wolves are around. Instead of eating greenery down to the soil, they take a bite or two, look up to check for threats, and keep moving. The greenery can grow tall enough to reproduce.

Beavers, despite being on the wolf’s menu, also benefit when their predators are around. The healthy vegetation encouraged by the presence of wolves provides food and shelter to beavers. Beavers in turn go on to create dams that help keep rivers clean and lessen the effects of drought. Beaver activity also spreads a welcome mat for thronging biodiversity. Bugs, amphibians, fish, birds and small mammals find the water around dams to be an ideal habitat.

So the beavers keep the rivers from drying up while, at the same time, healthy vegetation keeps the rivers from flooding, and all this biological interaction helps maintain rich soil that better sequesters carbon — that stuff we want to get out of the atmosphere and back into the ground. In other words, by helping to maintain a healthy ecosystem, wolves are connected to climate change: without them, these landscapes would be more vulnerable to the effects of those big weather events we will increasingly experience as the planet warms.

Scientists call this sequence of impacts down the food chain a “trophic cascade.” The wolf is connected to the elk is connected to the aspen is connected to the beaver. Keeping these connections going ensures healthy, functioning ecosystems, which in turn support human life.

<snip>

[Canuckistanian]

34. "The B.S. approach"

[Octafish]

61. B.S. puts the 'Con' into Investor Confidence

[hay rick]

36. They're so sensible!

LOL. Love Tom Tomorrow. K&R.

[Octafish]

49. Very sensible and proud of their sensibility above all else.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. Massive K&R! Love me some Tom Tomorrow!

[Octafish]

12. Me too. His goodbye to Smirko, Sneer & Co. was a tasteful C ya...

[Fire Walk With Me]

25. I hadn't seen that, thanks! :)

[secondvariety]

29. Damn.

That's funny.

[trusty elf]

47. :-D

[IMG][/IMG]

[wakemewhenitsover]

66. The horshoe! lol!

[Paladin]

7. Outstanding! K&R. (nt)

[Octafish]

14. It IS great news...

[zeemike]

18. I just loved his invisible hand superhero.

The man is brilliant and deserves every award he is given...
I can only compare him to Al Capp and Lil Abner...but that is a weak comparison.

[myrna minx]

8. Congratulations Dan!

You're a national treasure. :

[Octafish]

15. Longtime living national treasure...from when his stuff was in Black & White...

[valerief]

13. K&R

[Octafish]

16. Historic.

[Hissyspit]

17. Excellent.

Is a big deal.

[Octafish]

22. Is. And he's taken a bit of grief over the decades for telling the truth about the turds...

[Solly Mack]

19. Excellent

[Octafish]

23. Truth...about Economics, GOP Style....

[Skittles]

20. I LOVES ME SOME TOM TOMORROW!!!

[Octafish]

24. Me 2. Remember James R Bath?

[klook]

21. Great news!! I've followed his work for close to 30 years, starting with the "Processed World" days.

I discovered an issue of Processed World at a newsstand and, as a disgruntled office drone, was instantly absorbed. The articles and artwork were funny, subversive, fascinating, and sometimes poignant. There was even fiction and poetry, as well as a regular column called "Tales Of Toil." (One I remember in particular was written by somebody who worked in the returns department of the Del Monte fruit co. They'd get these opened cans mailed from unhappy customers to the home office in plastic bags, filled with rotting malodorous fruit. The poor slobs who handled these returns would send apologetic form letters to the customers, with coupons entitling them to discounts on future purchases, gagging as they handled and disposed of the damaged goods.)

Great news for those who haven't seen PW before -- the entire run is available online at the Internet Archive!

For example, in issue #16 (April 1986), there are several early Tom Tomorrow gems. Sometimes they're labeled as "This Modern World," and sometimes just untitled panels. The style is familiar -- corny enthusiastic workers, hilariously serious authority figures, plenty of references to improved medical technology to keep workers productive and docile -- all bitingly lampooned as only TT can. Well worth a look.

Here's his cover art for issues 17 (August 1986) and 22 (July 1988):


Over the years, I've been thrilled to see him move into the more overtly political arena, and am very happy he now has so many fans.

Hats off to Dan Perkins, a real American treasure!

[Octafish]

26. Thank you for the heads-up and links!

Not only has Tom Tomorrow chronicled our age, the guy has made these interesting times more tolerable. The only thing that bothers me about his work is that it is so spot-on, it hurts. Mr. Perkins' art for a piece on Project Censored:



In Detroit, I've followed his work going back about 22 years now. First saw This Modern World in the local alternative weekly, Metro Times. I found other sources after they dropped TMW in a cost-cutting move around the time the Web was new.

Here's a video from a YearlyKos convention:

http://fora.tv/2006/06/08/Tom_Tomorrow

The search for truth is inspirational and democratic.

[a2liberal]

30. K&R for a cartoonist who speaks the truth

even though some here don't like it

[Octafish]

35. The guy's the drone's pajamas.

Some people can handle the truth. They're called participants in a democracy, the People.

[DeSwiss]

45. And assisting Perfesser Droney.....

...make his point, is Secret Memo and the Kill List:

[Octafish]

53. The issue got the guy so mad he didn't give the toon the TT Treatment.

For some reason, Old Timers can't take a hint.

[Canuckistanian]

31. He deserves any award he gets

His social and political observations are usually spot on, delivered with a masterful satirical bent.

[Octafish]

37. Even for stuff in the future...

I'm sure they'll name some variety of Soylent after him...Penguin.

[Canuckistanian]

39. Never saw that one

And if he accurately follows the current curve of society, this will be the new reality

[WillyT]

32. HUGE K & R !!!

[Octafish]

38. Pruneface the Truth

[Zorra]

40. Excellent choice, Tom Tomorrow is awesome. nt

[Octafish]

51. The Guy chronicles the Age.

[tavalon]

57. I like it that Tom Tomorrow didn't step away from his bully pulpit when Obama took office

Too many did. I voted for the man twice and have no problem holding his feet to the fire.

[caseymoz]

41. Personal Favorite: Attack of the Invisible Hand

Excuse the size. It seems Tomorrow's archives aren't working, and I had to find it on tumblr.

[Octafish]

52. Thank you, caseymoz, for an outstanding, in not outsized, Hand.

And thanks to Managed Democracy™, it's Big Enough for a capital handout without end.

[Jim Lane]

42. Thanks for posting! I've added this award to his Wikipedia bio

Tom Tomorrow on Wikipedia.

[tavalon]

44. Damn, I never think about that

Wikipedia has become my go to encyclopedia but I tend to forget that unlike the encyclopedias of yesteryear, Wikipedia is a living, breathing, ever changing entity.

[Octafish]

56. You are most welcome! The guy is a national treasure.

[tavalon]

43. That's very, very deserved

Hope he doesn't share it with the sensible woodchuck.

[Octafish]

50. Sensible. Liberal. Gratitude.

[DeSwiss]

46. K&R n/t

[Octafish]

58. Are YOU a Left Wing Wacko?

From before the 9/11.

[Buns_of_Fire]

54. Can "The Sparky Show" be far behind?

After all, look at what a Christmas special did for Charles Schulz and a round-headed kid who couldn't figure out that the solution to his football-kicking problem was to just kick Lucy instead. (BTW, Charles Schulz's nickname was "Sparky". Coincidence?)

My congratulations to Mr. Perkins. (Knowing that my congratulations and a dime will only leave him $3.90 short of a cup of coffee. )

[Octafish]

59. TV show'd be the way to get him off-topic.

Wish more people, let alone the TPTB, had listened to him way back when.

[Buns_of_Fire]

62. Definitely. He's much too valuable where he is, doing what he's doing. nt

[MotherPetrie]

55. K&R No one deserves it more, he is brilliant

[Octafish]

60. True. True. Plus, Tom Tomorrow's work stands the Test of Time™.

[chervilant]

63. Thanks ever so much for this OP!

AND, thanks to all who posted additional "This Modern World" cartoons!

I stopped reading the Houston weekly when they stopped carrying Tom Tomorrow. They alleged they no longer had room for him.

Well, I replied that I no longer had any interest in their miserable rag.

[Octafish]

65. You are most welcome, chervilant!

In Detroit, our once-beloved altweekly Metro Times dropped yon cartoonist's craftsmanship as a cost-savings measure, ca. 1993 or so.



We were not amused.