Template of George W Bush speeches leaked

Tiassa

10-26-06, 12:59 AM

No, that just isn't funny. it's not even clever. Well I suppose it's mildly - very mildly - funny. Like when you get those microwave ready meals and it says it's for 2 people, when it's a poor meal for just one. yeah, it's about that funny. You know what I'm talking about

Mildly funny, as in worth a wry smile. And that's the point. People tend to think "comics" are supposed to be "funny". But let's stop and think about it for a few moments.

Let's start with funny people: Rita Rudner told ... one? ... good joke in her career? Yet she went on for years and years and years. Drake Sather? Anyone remember him? He was great as a standup, but too esoteric in many cases. Of course, he went on to a stunning writing career that included credits with The Larry Sanders Show, The Dennis Miller Show, and Zoolander; he died a couple years ago, took his own life in despair over his marriage. Comics can't be funny all the time, see.

Expecting "funny" may be symptomatic of the "endearing" excuse to not be funny. Charles M. Schulz's Peanuts had two basic modes, funny and endearing. If the strip wasn't funny, it aimed for endearing, or else crashed and burned. From that formula, though, we've been treated to endless years of Garfield, while trying not to wonder how bad Calvin and Hobbes could have gotten if Watterson had chosen the route of the eternally fat bastard cat.

Which brings to mind ... well, Doonesbury.

It's the best daily comic strip ever. And it has survived over three decades on a curious theory that includes deliberately failing to be funny. For example, see May 24, 1990 (http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/retro/timeline/90s/strips/db900524.gif). That strip changed much for many people. A story that local parents hushed was when one of my favorite teachers died. The story told was cancer. The story hushed was AIDS. Thus it came about that with that strip, a few days shy of my sixteenth birthday, I was among the many who suddenly "knew someone who died of AIDS." A tenuous connection, yes, but also a comic strip failing to be funny while setting a new standard in the relationship between artist and audience. Consider this priceless moment from February 10, 1976 (http://images.ucomics.com/images/doonesbury/strip/retro/timeline/70s/strips/db760210.gif), as the audience is still getting to know Andy Lipincott. Okay, yeah, that one's funny. But the power of a comic to be stimulating in other ways is as potent as other still visual media. My favorite classic painting? Durer's "Man of Sorrows (http://www.artofeurope.com/durer/dur9.htm)". Hardly beautiful, and I'm not even Christian. I just find very interesting the expression on Jesus' face. It communicates more to me about Christ than the Bible is capable of.

And this is the power of art. (What? Serrano's "Piss Christ (http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502bg.jpg)" is beautiful if we don't stop to think of what we're actually looking at. And, for some, it's still beautiful knowing what it is they're seeing. Because of what it is they're seeing.)

Now, this isn't all just huff and holler for my ego's sake: there is a flip-side to consider. How often do we complain, or hear others complain, that "people are stupid"? Attention spans, hyperactivity, obsessions, neuroses, psychoses, depression, liberal/conservative (circle one, I guess), how many behavioral quirks and conditions lead us to think of other people as stupid? Christians, environmentalists, Marxists, anarchists, evolutionists, ye gads. We look across at other people and exclaim, "How can they think this! How can they believe it!"

How many people, though, pause to think over what it would mean if "people" really were "that stupid"?

Frightening. Really. But how stupid are they? Really?

Voters who bought the Bush line in 2004 failed at least two idiot-simple counts:

(1) Swift Vets: These folks lied. Clearly. Demonstrably. It was pretty much nailed shut by Newsweek, who put together all the narratives, tracked down all the medals, and stated the case that should have discredited these guys. But ... nobody seemed to care. The question persisted.

(2) "Spitballs": Anyone who did any simple research after the GOP convention in 2004 would have found that Sen. Zell Miller's (D-GA) speech to the gathered Republican delegates provided a fine example of how low a Democrat must go to satisfy the other party. Miller's carefully-honed speech attacked Senator Kerry's votes against omnibus spending bills, and cast them as votes against specific defense programs. Specifically, Kerry voted against a full-blown spending bill, and not any one or several programs. Strangely, the same list of programs Kerry is accused of voting against does turn up in the Congressional Record. During his days as Secretary of Defense, our current Vice President sat before the House Armed Services Committee, and read a list of programs that should be cancelled in forthcoming budgets. It is virtually the same list. Actually looking into the accusation was too much to ask of the Bush-inclined voter. Of course, it was also too much to ask of the Democratic National Committee, but this only reinforces the issue.

So, the question remains: How "stupid" are "they"?

Considering Spuriousmonkey's advice, "The truth is never funny", we start to get some sense of the answer.

After all, the comic is, in this case, simply not funny. It's maybe worth a wry smile, but as you point out, JNT, "it's not even clever".

And while I disagree with Spurious inasmuch as I think truth can be funny, I don't see how that should be a functional problem. The cartoon asserts a simple version of the truth; this is a version that many people accept, and most of those would argue it's self-evident. The assertion of truth is so simplistic that it seems almost insulting.

And here's the scary thing: the assertion of truth is too complicated for the people it's intended to actually communicate with. For many, it's just an affirmation, and perhaps that twinge of solidarity is what brings the wry smile, but there are people out there who can't understand, or can't appreciate that simple scheme. Think of the clueless flaks who help push the line. How many advanced degrees, and yet what makes any one of them think they can actually get away without anyone noticing? And how is it that the masses would pretend (at best) to not notice?

Now that the winds are less predictable, it seems pretty obvious that Bush is locked in Bush mode. I had ignored the Stephanopoulos thing until I happened to hear a radio spot on NPR containing the assertion that "we've never been for 'stay the course'." The correspondent, of course, proceeded to beat the dead horse to its second death. I laughed when I heard the quote. I honestly thought, "Who the (expletive)'s gonna believe that?"

And yet ....

Not only do some people seem to not realize the simple, unpleasant truth, there are plenty who simply need reminding because they, like the DNC, don't seem to realize the power of the things they're ignoring.

'Tis indeed a poor meal for one, JNT. No, I don't mean to lecture or anything like that. Rather, I thank you for the springboard.

Cartoon art does not have to be funny. Comics don't need to be comedic. In some cases, like the old Doonesbury frames, the art becomes complex. In other instances, such as The Modern World above, it becomes very, very basic. And if we assert that this cartoon is justifiable and even a welcome reminder instead of a boorish slap to the intelligence, well, frankly, that's pretty scary: "they" are "pretty damn stupid".

Art as a measure of society? Rough figures, indeed. But ... well, y'know. Whatever. An' all that.

:cool: