Given how many hours of how many cable channels are given over to rerunning old TV cartoons (about half of them, Scooby Doo), it's interesting how many good-to-great shows of the past are unavailable. One, which is almost forgotten, is the 1966 Lone Ranger cartoon series produced for CBS by Herb Klynn's Format Films. Format produced a number of shows in the sixties before being shoved aside by the Hanna-Barbera juggernaut. The Lone Ranger probably hastened their fall. It was not considered a success, a fact the industry attributed to its unique graphics. The artwork, done mainly by artists who'd worked on cartoonier cartoons, was very stylized and simple. The major sources of design inspiration were Roy Crane, who did the Captain Easy and Buz Sawyer newspaper strips, and Jesse Marsh, who drew the Tarzan comic books. Both of those men illustrated adventure tales in broad, simple terms that some found stunningly effective but others dismissed as childish. The artists at Format Films simplified the Crane/Marsh approach further for animation and also tried something else that was then largely unprecedented in TV animation: Large black areas.

As I said, the show failed. A good argument can be made that it would have failed no matter how it had been drawn. It had a bad time slot and the Lone Ranger was never particularly popular with kids of that generation. Moreover, by 1966, westerns on TV were on their way out and there was never any interest in animated cowboys, before or since. (A 1980 Lone Ranger show animated by Filmation didn't click, either.) Still, somehow, the graphics "took the fall" on the '66 show and thereafter, anyone attempting an animated adventure show went for a less cartoony style and often removed black from the palette used by the cel painters. The 1992 Batman: The Animated Series may have been the first show to reverse the trend. In light of its success, it might be time to haul the '66 Lone Ranger cartoons out of some vault.

For more info on the Lone Ranger's history in animation, check out Jackson King's overview over at Jim Hill Media. It's what got me thinking about the show again and prompted me to write this.

I think the redesign of this site is completed. But I've been wrong before.

Michael Kinsley poses some hypothetical questions.

This staying up 'til all hours writing has got to stop.

You'll need Adobe Reader to read it, but you might want to read this. It's a two-page chart prepared by Congressman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL). For those who don't have Adobe Reader, here's the concept: Page one is a list of proposed spending in the effort to rebuild Iraq. Page two is a list of cuts that are being made in America spending on itself. For instance, we're cutting $1,500,000,000 in housing for American military personnel while spending the same amount to repair "electricity transmission" in Iraq. There are even more egregious examples but basically, that's what it's all about.

John Dean discusses the laws against government officials leaking the kinds of things that it looks like someone in the White House leaked.

I was spectacularly unimpressed with Howard Dean last night on Mr. Leno's program. Politicians go on a show like that, well aware that they need to be glib and funny and human, and I suppose he did that part okay. But they also need to be able to get a tad serious there for a time and slip in one or two genuine points about what's wrong with our nation and how they have a real plan on how to rectify it. And I'm afraid Dr. Dean didn't make that leap. Even when he tried to get to issues, he sounded lightweight and (worse) generic. Years ago, I wrote a piece about political humor that said a presidential candidate couldn't be considered a serious contender unless political cartoonists like Paul Conrad could draw the guy. Now, the benchmark may be that you have to be able to imagine Saturday Night Live finding a cast member who can "do" him. If not, the person may be too nondescript and lacking in charisma to get elected, and that's been my view of Howard Dean, so far.

Meanwhile, Joshua Micah Marshall has conducted this interesting interview with General Wesley Clark. I don't know yet if he's the man but if he can sound this informed and interesting in front of an audience, maybe. Just maybe.

Since I'm recommending books by liberals today, I also wanted to mention the new collection of Paul Krugman essays, The Great Unraveling. If you don't want to spring for it, I can basically summarize it with the words, "Just about everything the Bush administration is doing is going to bite us all on the ass." Naturally, Mr. Krugman goes into a little more detail than that, as befits a professor of Economics at Princeton. I ordinarily have little patience with predictions that the sky is falling but I find Krugman usually has pretty sound logic behind his doom 'n' gloom forecasts and he manages to avoid most of the personal crap. He will either come to be viewed as the sagest prophet of our time or this book will be ruthlessly mocked for its needless hysteria. Either way, I'm glad I have a copy and if you want to have one, here's our Amazon link. (Full disclosure: My copy was sent to me, free and unsolicited, by someone who works for its publisher and follows this site. But I would still be recommending it even if I'd paid good money for it.)

You remember him: The guy who drew the comic panel, The Far Side. Here's what he's been doing. And here's where you can order the upcoming two-volume set, The Complete Far Side, which features every damned one of his cartoons. It's almost a hundred bucks for 1,250 pages. Someone else will have to figure out what that works out to per cow joke.

They're saying Gray Davis can't be saved and Arnold can't be stopped. That's not how I'm voting but I don't care enough about Davis or Bustamante to get worked up over it. I cannot understand anyone's enthusiasm for Schwarzenegger, especially that of folks who have moralized in the past against so many things that he represents. Seems to me all he stands for is a G.O.P. victory, so his backers have managed to kid themselves into thinking he's even vaguely qualified. If I were an extreme Republican, I'd be pissed at him for beating Tom McClintock and if I were a moderate Republican, I'd be mad that he sandbagged Richard Riordan out of the race. Both of them have experience, an understanding of the issues and a set of core beliefs more compatible with their party.

But hey, Arnold looks like he's going to win. And that's all that matters, isn't it?

So far, my biggest disappointment about this whole election is that Larry Flynt hasn't made any trouble. I was looking forward to him giving interviews and trying to crash the debates. I don't even understand why he threw his hat in the ring if he wasn't going to unleash sex scandals and throw mud.

Ah, well. This recall will be over soon and we can all turn our attention to the next one.

I was wrong. More "fixes" need to be performed on the design here. I found out it reads fine in about 90% of all browsers but does weird things in, for example, the one Marv Wolfman has. So I'll be experimenting the next day or three to find the template format that pleases the most people. I'll let you know when I either solve the problem or give up. Anyway, forgive any odd things you see turning up on this site for the next few days.

William Saletan on the ban on "Partial-Birth Abortions," and what it means.

This is a dangerous thing to say…but I think I've finished installing the new "look" for this site and gotten out all visible bugs. If you see something that looks like it's not supposed to be the way it is, please drop me a note.

Also over at The New York Times is this article which explains that Joe Simon has settled his lawsuit with Marvel Comics over the ownership of Captain America. (Here's the same article via Google News for those of you who fear registration.)

This is not a surprising development to anyone who's been following the case. Most lawsuits of this type are settled out of court and even most of those that do have genuine verdicts are appealed and reversed and re-appealed until they're settled and both sides have something they can spin as a victory. Simon lost the first battle, won the second and now they've written him a check that I presume makes him happy, while Marvel gets to keep Cap in their stable.

This was always the way this one was destined to end. Still, it's been fascinating to see how it's been debated in the message boards and newsgroups of the Internet. Joe has alternately been cheered-on and condemned, the latter sentiment coming from fans who openly trembled at the notion that Joe might establish ownership of Captain America and wrest the character out of the Marvel Universe. I can't find one of his messages at the moment but about a year ago, there was one fellow posting and e-mailing me to express his horror at the notion that the intricate mythos of Marvel might be ruptured. I think he even went so far as to suggest that out of respect for the 9/11 victims, Simon should drop his suit because not only does the world need Captain America more than ever, they need him in The Avengers. I don't think the guy was kidding, nor were others who were less hysterical but still felt that their precious continuity was more important than creators' rights.

One message really hit a tender spot with me when it suggested Simon was being "greedy." This is one of the greater loads of dung that is frequently dumped on creative talents; that it's somehow undignified or ignoble for a writer or artist or even actor to fight for money. It's fine for a publisher or studio to finagle every possible nickel out of every situation. After all, they're businessmen. But creative folks, we're told by many (among them, those who want to keep all the money for themselves) are supposed to have a less altruistic raison d'être. They're supposed to put everything ahead of the paycheck. Having seen a lot of creators royally screwed by that argument — and even getting reamed myself a few times because of it — I was glad to see Joe Simon not retreat from a battle. Neither, of course, does Captain America.