it's all jed's fault

from blogger's "known issues" help center:

If a blog has comment moderation enabled and receives multiple comments in the same minute to different posts, some of those comments will not appear in the comment moderation list, though they will be counted on the Dashboard as needing moderation. These comments will also not appear on the blog.

The comments have not been lost, and we will be fixing this in the near term to prevent it from happening again. At that time we will also recover the past missing comments so that they can be moderated.

Just as I suspected. So many people are trying to tell Jed he's Harvey Kurtzman's buttboy, they are clogging up the system.

Speaking of Jed, THANKS, JED, for persevering and e-mailing me your latest comment that won't post. Here it is: (Dear jabberous readers: If you can't stand to wade through illogical nonsense about Abby Hoffman and the Patriot Act, please scroll on down to the beautiful Brigham artwork that I posted last night. Thank you.)

Here's my post in response to Greg on the "Rambl'in Man" thread that won't post:

From the low brow Mad and Thomas Nast, to the high brow Thurber, satire crosses all brows, Greg. I know you didn't say that satire had a brow, but you did choose to juxtapose browness with just plain silly, and I agree that that's been the aim of SNL all along. However, for some reason, culturally the show's been associated with "edginess" ie subversiveness, which I argue, it's never been, so we still have yet to disagree.

A certain cache comes with this "edgy" title, and I think this gives the false impression that these shows, SNL, David Letterman, Conan O'Brian, and the Simpsons, largely driven by the Harvard Lampoon/National Lampoon fraternity and their boyfriends (Harold Ramis, Al Franken, Buck Henry, Second City), are throwing something other than softballs at "the man". It just aint so.

This doesn't make these shows bad or not funny. It does, however, make them less relevant than they could be if it were truly so important that they hone their "edge". This is what I mean by middle class passivity. When this is what passes for subversive in our culture, few real subversives will actually emerge. Where are the Abby Hoffmans of the post Baby Boomer generation? This is why stuff like the Patriot Act is kicking us in the balls.

No it's not the Simpsons fault, and it's not the Simpsons responsibility to be satirical. At this point I'm no longer having a Simpsons argument--that's Eeteed territory now--I'm just ellaborating on the subject of the importance of satire, based on the premise that these shows aren't.

Yes this is a completely different argument and subject. I get to do that if I want.

Also, I agree, Mark, that Carbon Credits are a ludicrous concept. If we want to sustain our environment We just plain gotta consume less. Note: OUR environment, not THE environment--OUR meaning a place that's comfortable for us to live. THE environment has survived worse than us. We're not saving the world because the world doesn't need saving, but biodiversity makes the world a whole lot more interesting and comfortable and survivable.

Geez Mark, with this Middle East book, and now the Carbon Credits thing, your starting to sound like a real Commie Liberal Pinko!

Speaking of cartoons, here's a super cool psychedelic Mickey Mouse cartoon.

Jed's right about one thing - "our" planet vs "the" planet. The planet will survive without us.

I'd add that, whatever the problem is (I'm not convinced anyone can accurately measure the scope of it), it is everybody's problem. Not the USA's problem. And if I could somehow magically become King of the Cause, I'd make everyone focus on overpopulation more than carbon emissions. I think cutting down atmosphere-cleansing rain forests so more farting cattle can graze is not helping matters much. As one example. But I don't want to spin off into Activism here, I just want you to BUY RUNAWAY COMIC #3!

9 comments:

Marky Mark said...

THIS IS FROM JED!

He could not post. I guess I'll have to put out a fatwah and tell everybody to stop commenting about how wrong Jed is. I'll get right on that! (and he's right about the Right just being fed up with the Environmental Movement's twisted I'Know-Better-Than-You etc)

Anyway, here's Jed:

I take issue with "illogical nonsense". I would rather
call it an "Inarticulate ramble". At 2:00 in the
morning all of this made perfect sense, I assure you,
but yeah, now I can see that I was getting a little
ahead of myself here. Sometimes when I'm typing and
I'm trying to keep up with racing thoughts, the
thoughts win, thus, the resulting train wreck you see
here.

But check out that great Mickey cartoon. It's a
winner!

At least we're on the same page with this "Save the
earth" mishigas. Its like our mitochondria talking
about saving our metabolisms. I find the language of
the environmental movement often seriously irritating
and alienating. I think it's this kind of sloppy
thinking that's responsible, in part, for the right
wanting nothing to do with the environmental movement.

Colin Tedford said...

I'm going to go out on a limb (especially for a crazed hippie) and say I think carbon credits can be an OK tool, as long as the total level of carbons allowed is set low. Even so, they're not the be-all & end-all.

greg said...

None of the Simpsons have eyebrows, much less highbrows.

eeTeeD said...

i agree that overpopulation is the biggest problem on the planet. wars, pollution, crime result from too many people fighting over too few resources.

Benny said...

It's true. We should all be concentrating on Bigram's artwork, which becomes more fascinating every time I see it.
Being a total Seuss and Woodring nut, I'm all over this stuff.
He wears his influences like a beautiful fur vest (synthetic).

Can the young lad cook, too?

BonzoGal said...

Tomorrow is Dr. Seuss' birthday.

eeTeeD said...

jed said, “...The Simpsons is a writer driven show...”

dead on.

mark martin’s reply was, “...The Simpsons is loaded with fantastic visually-driven gags...”

jed and i must be watching a different simpsons series. maybe they send m m the deluxe version.

some of this i’ve said in earlier posts, but i’ll repeat them to make my points.

the simpsons started like this. some tv executives had the idea to use some hip edgy cartoons as filler for the tracy uhlman show. the executives decided to make a series of animated cartoons based on the popular hip edgy work of matt groening.

the problem with this is that m. g.’s work is not well suited for animation. his drawing style is simplistic and lifeless. often his humor is derived from a LONG series of panels drawn exactly the same with a MINOR variation in the final panel.

m. g. wanted to have an animated series based on his bongo character, but the producers wanted the rights to the character. so while waiting for a meeting m. g. took a piece of paper and quickly doodled a drawing of a family. this hasty sketch was the foundation for what became the simpsons.

this hastily conceived foundation would cause later problems. there was really no thought nor care on m. g.’s part on the creation of the simpsons. all the producers were really getting was the right to use m. g.’s name and tap into his fame and fan base.

a group of talented writers and animators were put together and somehow managed to build a very important animation series based on a simple little sketch.

the simpsons broke ground, with irreverent humor never before seen in television animation.

once the simpsons team created a hit the executives marched in and promptly destroyed it. they took away quirky klasky csupo animation studio and replaced it with film roman, world leader in crap-imation. they then took the simpsons most popular character, bart, and castrated him. bart can’t say hell. bart can’t do bad things that children might imitate. he’s a bad influence. etc.

as years passed, further problems developed. one major problem was that someone had the ludicrous idea to split the episodes in half. an episode might start out with homer trying to build the world’s biggest kite. after commercial break the story would suddenly shift to marge finding a rare donut recipe. then after another commercial break things would be sloppily brought together in the cartoon’s final “tag”.
a series that relies so heavily on strong writing can’t tolerate this kind of lazy sloppy writing.

the simpson was a ground breaking series. was. it opened the door for irreverent humor in television animation, but what has it done AFTER opening that door? nothing (other than make matt groening and the shows producers rich).
if someone hides in a closet and jumps out and yells BOO you would be surprised. if they do the same thing once a week for 20 years the surprise wears off. this is the problem with the simpsons. once a week for 20 years they hit you with the same irreverent humor (or rather a mass produced castrated imitation of the irreverent humor they originally created), and the surprise has worn off.

in those 20 years many animated series have come along and used that “door” the simpsons opened to go further, and open OTHER doors. in their own way series like south park, ren and stimpy, samarai jack, venture brothers, and many others have taken have taken us further. sadly, the simpsons have stood still.

if you really want to look at something wild and irreverent in the field of animation, go check out FLCL. while the simpsons was irreverent in its writing, FLCL was wild irreverent and groundbreaking in its writing, animation, character design, layouts/composition, music etc. it is the complete package, while the simpsons is a one trick pony that should have been put to pasture years ago.

Marky Mark said...

WOW!

Don't panic - I'll call 9-1-1.

Everybody just back away. Don't make any sudden moves...

greg said...

I want to party with that guy!