In light of the success of garfield minus garfield, I am proud to present

Dilbert Minus All The Characters in Dilbert

Ha, ha, ha. Yes, I see. Very droll.

I realize that the complaint I am about to share is not original. I realize that many, many, people have said this before me. An episode of Seinfeld was even devoted to it. But I'm going to go ahead and throw this thought into the universe yet again. Because I can. And because evil must be pointed out over and over again if we hope to ever defeat it.

The New Yorker cartoons (often) make no sense, are not funny, and are designed to drive you INSANE.

Those bastards suck you in with their fantastic articles, and then give you this:



I always expect that some day they will reveal that their cartoon selection is a cruel sociological experiment designed to shortcircuit pretentious minds, but it seems that they actually choose them based on some sort of legitimate criteria that doesn't include their ability to send me into a fit of rage.

I heard an interview with the cartoon editor Robert Mankoff. Apparently this is his criteria:

1) He wants cartoons that communicate some idea through the medium of humour
2) He wants them to make a point
3) He wants them to have an enduring nature
4) He wants them to strike a chord
5) He wants them to have a distinctive voice

Those are noble goals! I can see why they get such satisfying results.

I shall never forget the meaning of that.

beaton

Does someone want to get me the Kate Beaton Book? Okay she is still in the process of making them, but keep it in mind. In the mean time I would still be interested in other swag. Maybe i will visit the Maritime Museum of BC in honor of Beaton instead.

lipstick

by Monica Gallagher http://www.eatyourlipstick.com/index.htm

http://www.bust.com/