If you’ve been following Tennessee politics the past few days, you’ve probably heard about the supposed “scandal” involving alleged “pantless” photos of Julia Hurley, seeking the Republican nomination for the state house from Tennessee’s 32nd district. The story caught my attention as I live in the 32nd district.

Hurley, it should be mentioned, is a model by profession.

Blogger extraordinaire David Oatney has obtained the the photos in question, requests for which I’m sure have been burning search engines that last couple days. I won’t post them here because I’m not sure about copyright issues, but if you want to see them, head over to David’s blog. But I have to tell you, you’ll probably be disappointed. They’re completely work safe.

David Oatney sums up my views on the matter:

I’m sorry, but these pictures just aren’t scandalous, especially considering Ms. Hurley’s line of work. Neither of them show Hurley naked, despite the efforts by some people to pass them off as nude photographs-they are not, and it is a disservice both to Julia Hurley and to the voters to pass them off as such. It can certainly be argued that the pictures are “suggestive,” as some might say, but they are modelling pictures. Any man or woman who has ever seen a copy of the Victoria’s Secret catalogue has seen pictures that are far more suggestive than this.

Apparently it was a slow news day at the Roane County News, which ran a really over-the-top article about the matter. Hurley’s primary opponent offered this response to the photos: “I’m speechless right now… I’m surprised,” indicating he’s never seen a PG-13 movie before or spent very little time looking at photos on Facebook.

At the end of the day, I doubt this whole brouhaha will have much impact on the primary, other than perhaps discouraging good people from seeking elective office, lest some otherwise innocent photo be portrayed as evil by the media and her opponents. It’s a shame that campaigns (and newspapers) can’t focus on issues instead of tabloid-worthy non-stories.

Those of us from Roane County, TN are likely familiar with Tiger Haven, a sanctuary for big cats located near Kingston. Over the past 19 years, the sanctuary has rescued hundreds of lions, tigers, jaguars, panthers and other large cats from abuse and abandonment. During their entire existence, the facility has been inspected an average of five times every year by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency and has passed inspection every time. Also, no cat has ever escaped from the sanctuary, and no member of the public has ever been injured or killed.

The work that Tiger Haven does is wonderful. It rescues animals, many of whom have been mistreated, and gives them a good life. The people who run it are doing amazing work, for which they deserve our applause.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case when someone tries to do something good, others are fighting tooth and nail against it. A few years ago, some local NIMBY-types tried to shut down Tiger Haven in spite of it’s perfect record in terms of safety. Today, some of these folks are at it again. One says Tiger Haven should be located on a “10,000 acre farm somewhere where there’s no houses” (I wonder if he’s willing to pay for it). Another claims animal wastes are getting into his well. Several studies from state agencies last year indicate otherwise.

In reality, Tiger Haven is less dangerous to local residents than the highways that run through the area. Tiger Haven is a wonderful place that deserves our support. Hopefully they will weather this storm just as they have in the past. If you’re interested in helping, you can find additional information on their website.

Michael Silence has a roundup of news and reaction to the NCAA’s probe into UT’s use of ‘Hostesses’–hot co-eds–to lure prospective football players. The New York Times broke the story yesterday. The gist of the alleged violation appears to be this:

In one case, hostesses traveled nearly 200 miles to attend a high school game in South Carolina in which at least three Tennessee recruits were playing.

Not to necessarily exonerate UT here (we don’t have enough information yet to make any judgments), but this rule baffles me. It’s long been an accepted practice by universities to use pretty girls to encourage athletes to sign with their programs. Virtually every major university does this. The NCAA has no problem with it, so long as it’s done on campus. If done off campus, it’s a recruitment violation.

So that begs the question: why is it acceptable for universities to use attractive co-eds as bait for recruits in any situation? The true scandal is that universities are allowed to do it in the first place.

The political scandal that just won’t end.

The Knoxville News-Sentinel favors barring county employees from serving on the county commission. Michael Silence, the Sentinel’s blogger, disagrees with his paper:

I’m not comfortable telling a group of people they can’t run for an elected office.

Michael also points out that this law would prohibit teachers from serving on county commission. I have to agree with Michael here - county employees should be free to run for county commission. They are no less citizens than anyone else. The voters can then decide if they are comfortable with them serving on a case-by-case basis.