i found it!

A couple of times in the past couple of years, the subject of censorship, or political correctness vs some "ism" has arisen, and I have mentioned this comic. Whenever I mention this comic, I always say I'm going to dig it out some day and post it. This is the one, Jed.

That's probably one of the more cryptic explanations I've ever written in this blog that has a reputation for being incomprehensible. I'll explain more in the comments if called for, but right now I'd just like to sit back and see what kind of reaction this thing gets (if any).


Jed said...

What I gather is you're sort of taking all the creamy aspects of mainstream gay culture and putting them into an absurd context, but that context converges with bestiality, and I could see how that could piss somebody off. It's a touchy subject, and I'm sure somebody could easily infer the whole equating homosexuality with bestiality thing.

Here's a fun excerpt from an interview with Former senator Rick Santorum and an Associated Press reporter:

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be."

At this point, (Associated Press Reporter) Jordan commented, "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out"

If the connection were totally unprecedented, that would be one thing, but Mr. Santorum is not alone in this belief.

I don't think it's yours, or anybody's responsibility to go out of their way to be sensitive to every idiot notion, especially something like this which is completely crazy town.

The institutions of mainstream gay culture can indeed be extraordinarily creamy, and in some ways, oddly conservative in their own way. I have a friend who likes dudes in a biblical way, and dudes exclusively, and is nothing if not open about this fact, but won't refer to himself as "gay" because of these institutions, and because there's often only one accepted version of gayness in that culture. You are either straight, gay or gay. nothing in between or south of gay, and nothing east or west of straight, and always, "straight acting". But we don't talk about that.

Then there are the pink triangles and the rainbows and all of that stuff. If that's not fair game, what is?

So is this "offensive"? It's too bizarre to be malicious. It's "illville" from what I gather, because everybody looks funky, not because everybody is perverted or something. I really couldn't say. It doesn't bother me, I actually found it kind of funny, but I'm positive it'll piss SOMEone off. How worried are you about that? It sounds like SOMEONE was worried.

Johnny Ryan has made a career (such as it is. A "career" in small press comics is overstating things) out of pissing EVERYONE off. There's that whole "equal oportunity offender" Don Rickles sort of deal that never really appealed to me. What's the point? If EVERYBODY is truly fair game, then there's no satire because everything is a target, and if everything's a target nothing is.

But I doubt that's where you're coming from.

So what's your take on it? What were your intentions? What was the big reaction?

HemlockMan said...


That took brass balls!

By the way...do you pick the codes we have to type in? Mine says: "etopigz".

Jed said...

You're not going to weigh in on this at all Mark? After all the build-up?

Mark Martin said...

I'll catch up with this and the %#@#%#@ Rove thing asap

Mark Martin said...

This was the first of several Illville comics I was working on for Runaway Comic. It's the only one that was ever finished. Two 8-pagers are half-finished, and a couple more are sloppily half-assed sketched out. I finished this one to be the back cover of Runaway #1. When I showed it to Fantagraphics Gary and Kim thought it was some kind of hate comic against gay marriage, which I gotta tell ya really surprised me. Since I wrote it and the thought never entered my mind. Kim was the most adamant about not publishing it, but after much discussion finally very reluctantly agreed to let it be published under protest. So I said I didn't want to be an antagonist, so let's put it on the back burner and print it later after some other Illville comics had been printed and hopefully, if seen in context, angry homosexuals would not burn down Fantagraphics when my awful comic saw the light of day. Of course the rest is history, or absence of it.

I always thought, and still do, that for the publishers of "Trucker Fags in Denial" and re-packagers of "When the God Damn Niggers Take Over The World" to shush me is goofy. But they say that the level of satire achieved by such things transcends my efforts (Not their exact words, I'm paraphrasing). Which is horseshit, since my comic is PRO-RAINBOW! DUH!

I could go on and on about all the wacky ironies of this little episode, but it's all water under the bridge. I still like Fantagraphics, Gary and Kim. I'm not trying to stir up a hornet's nest. I was just curious to see what kind of reaction this thing would get from my tens of readers. Actually, back when we were arguing, Kim suggested that I post it on the FG chat board and see what happened, sort of a trial by fire. But I did not want it to be "published" that way at the time. I drew it for my COMIC BOOK, damn it. Not to post on that stupid chat board!

Mark Martin said...

Oh yeah, one more thing. Full disclosure -

When they objected so strongly to this comic I showed it to one of my gay friends, and she thought it was offensive. But I explained it to her, and she said oh yeah, OK, I see where you're coming from - but it did offend her. But then she could see it from my perspective, but I did have to EXPLAIN my perspective...

Sheesh. Everybody is so TOUCHY these days.

Jed said...

You still haven't explained where you DO happen to be coming from with this. What WERE your intentions and how did you explain it to your friend?

Mark Martin said...

It's a humor comic. You either get it or you don't. I mean, it's either funny to you, or it isn't. So in that respect, I can't explain it.

As for it being "gay-bashing" I don't think I HAVE TO explain it. I mean, I SHOULDn't have to explain it to Fantagraphics, publishers of sophisticated satire about "fags" and "niggers".

To my friend I said this: Look at who the villain is, narrow-minded Mrs Bucaca. Who does your heart go out to? The insulted father, who is clearly a loving parent and husband. The rainbow connection and the pork pride triangle - I think those kinds of "look at me I'm progressive" symbols are goofy and funny, and if I want to throw them into a humor comic I don't want someone who has a "HEY, HETERO!" flyer posted outside her cubicle to tell me I can't do that.

Really, I can't see how anyone could possibly think that pig is anything less than the hero of the story in my eyes.

Jed said...

Well, you know, what I said. Despite your intentions, the whole Bestiality is = to homosexuality thing is an unavoidable association in America in 2008 in a culture with a vocal, active, and powerful fundamentalist population who believes in same. What are ya' gonna do? I don't think your intentions are necessarily obvious, and my assumptions about your intentions are partly based on what I already know about you. I'm not sure that Johnny Ryan's are always necessarily obvious either. Or Crumb's.

As for the strips you mention-I don't know about the first one (Jim Blanchard?), but the Crumb strip could very well be interpreted other than intended, and from what I vaguely remember, was at one time adopted and reprinted by one group of bigots or another without the intended irony. For the record, he also did a strip titled "When the Jews take over America" with the same litany of stereotypes and the same basic intention in the same issue of Weirdo. It's true, the Jew thing tends to be a less touchy subject than the race thing, but I think the second strip further reinforced the intent of the first--the stereotypes were extreme and over the top and obviously (at least to me) with satirical intent. But I can see how it might not be so obvious to others.

And yes you're poking a bit of fun at Gay cultural institutions, and I have no problem with this, and
I think that parallel, look at me, I'm conservative symbols are equally silly. For example: WWJD is just as silly and just as earnest. Because of the earnestness of the sentiment, it's both absurd, and kind of sweet, like the rainbow thing in gay culture. There's no malice or aggression in it, and I think it can stand a little poke.

I do agree that It's strangely contradictory that a publisher that publishes ANYTHING by Johnny Ryan would have a problem with this strip, and in the end, it sounds like, with reservations, they WERE willing to publish it. We have no way of knowing how often something similar happens with Johnny Ryan or other cartoonists they publish when the end result is the same. (aside from Crumb who unfairly has carte blanche in this regard, but we've already discussed that at length, haven't we?).

And I'm not even sure what "Hey, Hetero!" even means. If it's an insult it's about as potent as "cracker" is in black culture. Maybe even less so. There is no equivalent insult in white culture for "nigger", just as their is no equivalent insult in hetero culture for "fag". If a black guy had a "hey cracker" sticker on his cubicle, it might be inappropriate for the work place, but it's such an impotent epithet that it's questionable whether it could be intended to be genuinely malicious. But I would have to say that a "hey hetero!" sticker is likewise not constructive workplace decor.

And of course you don't HAVE to explain it. I asked you to. You didn't HAVE to answer, but I was curious, and yes, you satisfied my curiosity, and I appreciate this. If you published this strip, again, I don't think you'd HAVE to explain it or write a disclaimer or something, but it's probably something worth discussing if the subject came up in a letter's page. It bugs the shit out of me when guys like Clowes and Tomine print letters, but never respond to them, and I appreciate that you DO respond (or at least, have responded) to letters and e-mails and comments on your blog.

Clowes, Seth, Tomine and others have the annoying habit of letting people hang themselves publicly by printing the most painfully odd and embarrassing of the lot. I think this practice is unkind, and even if this type of letter represents the majority of the mail they get, it would be a little more generous to spare these poor people (the majority of whom are probably very young, and will likely regret what they wrote later) the humiliation. And these guys could respond every once in a while. Isn't that the basic purpose of a letter? To engage in discourse with the recipient, and not for the recipient to display the letter as a freakish curiosity?

So, you know. I appreciate your sharing, bubbula.

And it's disingenuous or naive to express that you can't possibly see how someone could interpret the strip in any way other than how you intended it, and I don't think you're naive.

I understand that you feel indignant about the way the strip was received, but I don't think you're by default entitled to be indignant. I don't think Crumb is entitled to be indignant about the reception to "When the Nigger's Take Over America" either. It should be an expected consequence of this kind of satire, and if you can't handle it, don't share it with the world.

Mark Martin said...

Well, you'll just have to take my word for it, or not. Beastiality = homosexuality, or is the ultimate result of gay marriage etc, never EVER entered my mind while creating this comic. Never. That's what Kim and Gary thought my "statement" was.

And sorry, I don't buy that canard that says cracker can't as offensive as nigger. So I find a "Hey Hetero" poster just as offensive as a "Hey Homo!" poster. Which is to say, it's in your face, but so what? I'm not going to go hide in the bathroom and cry. So don't get all bent if a "Pork Pride" logo offends you. Lighten up. (I'm talking to "you" the Illville comic reader, not "you" Jed, and not "you" my gay friend).

Here's what "hey hetero" means:


No big deal. I predict you'll have a lot to say about the power of "Hey Homo" to hurt, more than "Hey Hetero", and you're probably right. I just think everybody oughta lighten up.

And I know that my Illville cartoon should not be dragged into the whole thing because it was not a political statement. It's just a goofy comic.

Jed said...

"Cracker"? "Cracker"? Don't tell me the last time you heard that wasn't in Disco Avenging Godfather. If it had any power at all you'd think maybe people would still use it. At this point it's just goofy anachronism. There's no way whatsoever you can equate the word with "nigger", with it's historical association with slavery. "Honky" doesn't cut it, either. That aint no canard, sir, that's the practical truth. For the fact that it is a race-related epithet, I could see how it could be used in an aggressive way, but with nowhere near the impact.

And "Hey Hetero" might have more impact if most of the people who read it had any idea what it meant. I'm still not sure what it means exactly, and since most of us don't, I don't think it's doing what they intended it to do. You might have a point though: the only reason it's not effective is because of its ineptness and not its intent, and perhaps its intent is less than constructive.

And at no point did I say I was offended by your strip in any manner. And at no point did I say that I thought your ultimate goal was to associate bestiality with homosexuality. Did Thompson and Groth? Or did they think that that's how it would be interpreted?

As for beastiality =homosexuality--to be clear: from what I understand, the implication by those who hold this view isn't so much that one has anything to do with the other beyond their being morally equivalent. You may not have been aware of Mr. Santorum's view (and to be fair, Santorum seemed to be suggesting that homosexuality wasn't QUITE as bad as man on dog, or man on child or whatever else was going on in Santorum's head that he felt necessary to mention in the same sentence), but it's still a culturally relevant concept. Some people on the religious right believe this. You're not responsible for every interpretation of your art, and you can get indignant all you want at the idea that someone would suggest such a thing, but I don't think that this interpretation--or misinterpretation--isn't one you couldn't expect. maybe it didn't strike you when you made it, but it's by no means a stretch.

When you use political symbols, someone is going to interpret the thing in a political way. It's unavoidable. They're going to think you MEAN something by it. I didn't get the impression that you were trying to make some great statement, but I can see why the guys at Fantagraphics were wary.

But hey, I'd love it if people would lighten up, and not get irate about something that's intended to be innocuous. I don't think people SHOULD be reactionary. That was never my argument. I don't think it's your obligation to cater to their reactionary nature. I don't see any reason why the thing shouldn't see print, either.

But whether you like it or not, the strip IS political satire because you are making a comment on the an aspect of gay culture and that's an unavoidably political subject which people tend to be touchy about. Would people be as touchy if you made fun of WWJD? Some people would. If you did a satire about that, and someone reacted in the same way, maybe you would be just as pissed, I don't know.

As a satirist, you have to own this stuff. Use touchy political symbols, expect a touchy reaction. Assume it, accept it, and if you're going to get indignant about the inevitable reaction, that's your problem. Defend it by all means, and your right to say it, but as much as you own what you say, you don't own people's reaction to it. That's their problem. So aren't you being just as touchy as they are in your own way?

And I would hope that at this point you understand that I, personally, as the person that read the strip, had no problem with the strip. And still don't. And never did.

Mark Martin said...

You sure do love to argue.

Jed said...

You're just saying that because I nailed you.

Mark Martin said...

No, I'm saying that because I can't go on and on and on about this. I gotta finish this huge job and earn The World's Greatest Cook a trip to Wales!

eeTeeD said...

jed looked at mark martin’s one page comic that blended outrageous imagery, bestiality, and homosexuality, and then posted several comments on the work.

included in the comments he made was, “... I, personally, as the person that read the strip, had no problem with the strip. And still don't. And never did...”

he further made the comment, “... But hey, I'd love it if people would lighten up, and not get irate about something that's intended to be innocuous. I don't think people SHOULD be reactionary ...”

and yet he took two WORD BALLOONS out of a SEVEN PAGE comic book i made, and used them as a basis of a long rant about how horrible and racist and unacceptable the comic book was.

jed is a liar, a deceiver, and a sycophant, with a double set of standards for people who have made it in the comics biz which he wants to be a part of (like mark martin and robert crumb), and for people like me who aren’t a part of that biz.

jed has said that he feels conversations come to a halt when he comments here, and he’s also said that things are “lonely” over at his blog site. maybe he would have better luck interacting with people if he didn’t behave like such a jerk.

Mark Martin said...

Whoa! What th? Who th??? Has the whole world gone insane? Outrageous imagery YES! Beastiality and homosexuality NO! This is getting ridiculous.

In a cartoon world where pigs talk and wear neckties you have to assume they have souls and can vote and smoke cigars and be CEOs of financial institutions. You simply cannot go around calling productive citizens "beasts"!

And that pig is a male pig, married top a female human. Where is the homosexuality???

On another note, lumping me in with Robert Crumb is like lumping Carrot Top in with Steve Martin. But thanks for the comp-liment (I think) (?)

Mark Martin said...

"TO" a female human! There's that damn "P" again!!!

eeTeeD said...


the comic has:

the pig married to a human woman (bestiality)
a triangle symbol and rainbow symbol (gay icons)

i did not mean to imply that your comic depicts homosexual acts.

the reason i “lump” you together with robert crumb is because robert crumb is an artist whose work, like yours, jed adores. robert crumb has also created some cartoons which many people find incredibly offensive.

Mark Martin said...

But - but - see, the pig talks! And wears a necktie!

It's so SIMPLE!!!

Jed said...


Well Eeteed, I'm not going to address the insults, because I'm sure you don't really mean them. They seem to be very personal, and we really don't know one another that well.

As for Crumb, Mark and I have discussed Crumb and racism before, with my own conclusion that he gets an unfair free pass, and I alluded to that above.

I'll admit my rant about your seven page comic was in fact a rant, and perhaps a little unfair. If you want to discuss that with me you're welcome to do so. My main problem with that comic, the one to which I over reacted, was the way you chose to frame it, the little clause in the indicia, but again, a mountain out of a mole hill, and I apologize. I had a bee in my bonnet that day, and I'm sorry you bore the brunt of it.

As you recall I had pretty positive things to say about your first effort, whether or not you happened to be "in the biz", and it's not as if I've never been critical of Mark's opinions or work, but I'm probably more generous to him than I am to you, which is also unfair.

We've argued about a lot of stuff on here and frustrated the hell out of each other and maybe our attitudes towards one another over time have become increasingly less generous. And maybe that's not the best way to be, and I'm probably much more guilty of it than you are. It's much easier to be nasty on here than it would ever be in person, and I'm positive neither one of us would speak to one another the way we do here if we were ever to meet.

Unfortunately, the internet has a way of recording forever thoughts expressed in the heat of the moment. Sometimes we don't always use great judgement in the heat of the moment.

What you write here is bound to be inconsistent, impulsive, and poorly edited. We're bound to change our minds. It's the nature of the medium. It makes hypocrites out of us all.

Anyway Eeteed, you certainly have a right to be upset, and it did occur to me during this whole discussion that there was an inconsistency in the way I was talking about Marks strip vs. yours, but it seemed a little too late to back track.

We seem very good at pushing one another's buttons Eeteed, and I hereby pledge to tread more gently on those buttons. It's gets easier and easier to be discourteous once you've set out on that path, and there's really no reason to be so unkind.

You contribute a lot to Mark's blog, especially your store house of knowledge about cartooning and animation--I really do admire what you know about that stuff, whether or not I agree with you about EC Segar.

And Mark: the emphasis is that he's a pig, and she's outraged that he's a pig. It takes it out of the Porky Pig with a tie context and puts it into the realm of actual pigs. But this is getting silly isn't it? Disecting a three panel strip to this extent, as Eeteed pointed out, is pretty crazy.

Jed said...

And it's true, I do like and appreciate Mark's work, but adore is a little strong. I'm not even sure I adore Crumb's work. Or at least "adore" isn't quite the word I'd use. "Adore" suggests a level of ardor that I reserve for people I'm on more intimate terms with.

eeTeeD said...

jed said "...the emphasis is that he's a pig, and she's outraged that he's a pig. It takes it out of the Porky Pig with a tie context and puts it into the realm of actual pigs..."

i agree 100%

more later. i have to go check out serious problems at work.

Jed said...

Whatever our differences, I think it can be said for certain that Eeteed and I are obsessive maniacs on a clearly equal scale.

Benny said...

Pumpie is exactly right. The pig wears a necktie. He's a male pig. This is a fantasy world.

When I first saw the thing, I laughed my ass off, but caught no homosexual overtones. And bestiality? Fergawdsakes, no! I may be a Southern guy, but despite ideas to the contrary, we do NOT have sex with animals. Oh, all right, maybe a sheep or two when we're lonely, but NO PIGS!

The gist of the whole thing was, and still is, to show how ridiculous it is for people to get their (various styled) panties in a wad over everything that everybody says about their "ilk," whatever it may be.

You must remember that Pumpie is surrounded by the most ultra-liberal and ultra-touchy people in the U.S., and that he came from Leeds, Alabama, where people took things for what they were and went about their business. No wadded panties in Leeds, I'll say!

And if you have to be concerned or interested in what people do behind closed doors (wink, wink), then the problem lies with you, you fantasizing PERVERT!

Jed said...

I'm not so much concerned, but certainly pervy enough to be interested. The many facets of human behavior can be very compelling, and what I've googled to be zoosexuality is more common than you'd think:


The fundys are more obsessed about this stuff than anyone, ironically more so than the rest of us, but you can't say it isn't fascinating.

I think a connection can be made that the implication of the strip is that by gosh this whole homo thing could just lead to the next extreme. However absurd the suggestion, it can be inferred, despite the intention. Otherwise, what's the offense? The suggestion that political symbols are being messed with is all about context, and the symbols are being appropriated by a character who isn't gay. What is he then if not gay, and how are these symbols being appropriated? She's got DNA evidence that he's a pig, for heaven's sake! The implication is that he is clearly and literally a pig.

Pigs Porky and Piglet are much less pig-like in that their pigness isn't usually an issue, while the whole punchline of this strip is very much dependent upon the pig being a pig.

Now I'm only saying that this is the only reason that I can think of that someone might explain why they find the strip offensive, not that this interpretation is necessary or obvious. My own interpretation is more of the pig with a tie, porky pig variety, and yes, gay symbols are still being sent up, but in a more harmless way.

When people feel like something meaningful to them is being messed with, they DO tend to go to the most extreme view of what that might mean. If you use the symbol of Jesus in a light-hearted way, people will cry blasphemy, even though no blasphemy is intended. When the issue is sexuality, the more extreme inference will often be that someone just might be suggesting that what they do is unhealthy and horrible, and that's how bestiality is considered, and fundamentalists have and do make the connection.

People are certainly reactionary, but people also think about this stuff, and they need some justification for their outrage. How else to explain it? Don't mess with my symbols doesn't seem quite strong enough. It might be the first reaction, but if asked to manufacture a reason, I bet nine times out of ten you'll get the bestiality story.

By god I like to argue.

Jed said...

If you need evidence, ask Mark if the subject of bestiality didn't come up in his discussions with the folks at Fantagraphics.

eeTeeD said...

i want to offer my sincere apology to jed for my caustic and malicious remarks. there is no excuse for such behavior.

i would like to explain why i lashed out in such volatile and hurtful way, but i am a bit too raw and emotional at the moment to do so (in part because of the situation, and in part because of a million dollar disaster that happened at work yesterday).

i wish jed well, and hope he will heal quickly from the poisonous barbs i slung.

Janet said...

Ha! Yer right Benny, we Leedsonians(?) don't like our panties wadded!
(actually I'm just trying to help push Marks' comment number up towards a record 30!)

Jed said...


As I mentioned, I've been pretty hard on you. No explanation necessary. It's pretty clear why you were angry and you had a right to be. And I didn't really take what you said as serious character assassination, so much as "I'd like you to know that I'm really upset".

You have strong opinions, Eeteed, which is maybe why it's been such a challenge to argue with you. But there's a difference between constructive argument and just plain mean spiritedness, and lets just say that at times I've been less than constructive. It's not the way I want to treat people.

And those comic books you made were very personal, and obviously you only gave them to a very few people, and you were generous to give one to me. In accepting that comic I was a guest in your parlor, Eeteed, and I didn't act like a very good guest. Any criticism I had to offer should have been considerate and genuinely intended for your benefit.

And whether or not you're "in the biz" your artwork is professional by any standard. The coloring could use a little work, but that's pretty minor. (and if I didn't mention the coloring, you probably wouldn't think I was being completely sincere). The stories may not be my cup of tea, but I think you're successful in what you're attempting to achieve with them. Your work is well informed by your inspirations.

So for the time being, I'm going to bow out of further discussion--unless you have something specific you'd like to discuss with me Eeteed. I've been posting kind of compulsively, and I really need to stop for a while.

Please Mark help me in my resolve. I declare you the victor. Both of us need to get some work done. Please save me from my graphomania.

Mark Martin said...

Cripes, where to begin? I can't possibly cover it all! I'll just hit the high points.

JED: The victor? How can I save you from your debate-o-holism if you keep saying crazy stuff like that?

Seriously, I do have to correct you and eeTeeD. It's okay to have wacky opinions, but you are flat wrong about something I have to set the record straight.

"She's outraged that he's a pig" is pure and simple an inaccurate statement. Read it again. She don't give a flying fuck if he's a pig, she is outraged because her baby lost the ugly baby contest to a creature that she inaccurately accused of not being a baby. Christ, if I hafta 'splain it one more time I'll smack ya!

Next: I cannot help but notice that you dragged the "fundys" into this mess TWICE - but who was it that wanted to censor my comic? Progressive liberals.

There's more, but as you say - we got work to do! I'm not going to make a career out of explaining this perfectly charming comic. ENJOY IT, DAMN YOU!!!

Hi Janet! Thank you for helping me break 30! And Benny! YAY!!!

Jed said...

I interpret "Gah!" and her baby flying out of her arms as, if not outrage, some form of deep disturbance. But yeah, the argument that she's outraged because the pig is by proof of DNA a pig and not eligible for the ugly baby contest, ok, I buy. But she seems at least creeped out by the conclusion of the strip by the whole mixed pig/human family concept.

If you meant her not to be so much creeped out as gobsmacked, I suggest the universal cartoon symbol for being gobsmacked--falling off panel with feet in the air--for future efforts. "Gah!" doesn't say it nearly as succinctly.

And it's in reference to an association put forth by the fundys that is by inference being read into your strip by hippy liberals. The hippy liberals didn't come up with the notion all by themselves, just the inference. Didn't I go into all this already?

And isn't Thompson some kind of conservative? If it's not him, it's whoever translates the French stuff.

What you're doing here, Mark, is called enabling. If you keep this up, you may find yourself called upon later to participate in an intervention by my loved ones. You don't want it to come to that do you?

Please accept your victory with something resembling grace, Mark.

Mark Martin said...

I'm not sure exactly what Kim calls himself but I'm pretty sure it ain't conservative. And he's the guy who translates French. Maybe his capitalism or some such streak has earned him a "conservative" rep among disgruntled cartoonists or something? I don't know.

The thing is, I'm just speaking Truth ta Powuh, not trying to slay anybody. But if you declare me the victor I accept with something resembling grace.

As for fundys channeling hippys channeling fundys infinity and everybody acting accordingly based on what "they" do, I say "GAH!!!"

Jed said...

And you're no Carrot Top, Mark. You're more of a Dave Allen (that guy who plays the Naked Trucker), or an Andy Dick or a Ben Stein, to Crumb's Bill Murray. Dan Clowes is more of a Steve Martin. At least the early Dan Clowes. And George Herriman has got to be either Lenny Bruce or Jack Benny. It's a tough call.

Hey, this reminds me of the Elliot Gould challenge!

Steve Guttenburg is the Elliot Gould of the 80s

Elliot Gould is the Elliot Gould of the 70s.

Fred McMurry is the Elliot Gould of the 50s.

And you know, like that. I gotta go do something useful with my life now...