I got another comment on the Youtube video I did, making fun of The Half-Hour News Hour. I'll quote.

Wow, how incredibly poor. Maybe these right-wingers just aren't smart enough to produce actual comedy. Not to be inflammatory or anything.

Here's another:

It seems to me that 'Liberals' can't do talk radio and 'Conservatives' can't do comedy.

It used to make me mad when I saw things like that on the web, but now it just makes me laugh. At Joel Surnow and the idiots who put out that show. And at the misguided people who defended it. I was a hundred percent right, not just when I said the show stank, but also when I said it would confirm the canard that conservatives aren't funny. The show has gotten even worse since it started--I predicted it would not improve, due to NIH issues--and Fox is pulling it off the air because it's an embarrassment. Now, who is going to apologize or at least admit I was right? How about Michael Medved? I'm still waiting for him to send me an email saying, "Wow, you called it." Here's what he had to say when I first issued my dead-on-target appraisal of the show:

You've probably heard about the new comedy show on Fox News that appeals directly to conservatives and you've also probably heard some of the negative buzz in the blogosphere. Some bloggers have even called on Fox's big boss Roger Ailes to kill the program outright before its premiere since it's allegedy an embarrassment to the conservative cause. One commentator known as "Hog On Ice" (who had watched only a few minutes of the new show) even argued that "sometimes a late term abortion is not a bad thing."

That sort of plea is inappropriate and overstated, since the network has already invested considerable money and cache' in the project and the intense publicity all-but-guarantees a solid audience (in Cable TV's modest terms).

Incidentally, I have no idea why the network's boneheaded investment is relevant to the discussion. If Roger Ailes wants to do something stupid, let him fail. Why, exactly, am I obligated to bite my tongue and refrain from pointing out that the ship is sinking? What do I owe Roger Ailes? He's a conservative capitalist, isn't he? Are we socialists now? Are we supposed to subsidize inept, amateurish humor with charity reviews? Explain the logic. I am all ears. If I put up an unfunny humor website called "Kill the Towelheads" (look for Ann Coulter to steal this idea and defend it on Hardball), should I expect Roger Ailes to refrain from criticizing because I'm conservative and I've invested money in hosting fees? If conservatives are supposed to be giving each other giant, embarrassing handouts at the cost of their integrity, all I can say is, I never got mine.

And what the hell does Medved mean by "inappropriate"? "Inappropriate," in a context like this, generally means tasteless or offensive. Like going to a funeral and asking the widow to pull your finger. What's inappropriate about criticizing a bad TV show? Were all of the negative reviews Medved delivered during his career as a film critic inappropriate? I think it was inappropriate for him, as a critic who is supposed to have integrity, to plead with people to support an awful, plagiarizing, obnoxious comedy show. It was a breach of ethics. He didn't plead for people to support bad movies did he? I don't remember him trying to save Ishtar.

As for "overstated," I'll cop to that, as a general rule. Overstated is my shtick. Although it would be very hard to overstate the badness of this abscess on the buttocks of American entertainment. I haven't managed it yet.

Medved seems to think the show's existence is justified if it has a big audience. That's insane. That only means it does more harm. Would you say, "I got drunk and molested a goat, but thank God it happened on a crowded Subway platform at rush hour"?

The Fox bigwigs should never have released this tripe. They knew it was bad from pre-screenings, unless they're exceedingly obtuse. Fox blew it. I didn't. I did exactly what I should have done. I told the truth. And Medved shot the messenger.

The show should have been--and easily could have been--brilliant. It could have left Stewart and Colbert quaking in their jammies, or at least not wetting themselves with the wrong kind of laughter. It would have been the work of half a day to round up enough talented writers and performers to make the show a tour de force. But no, they decided to keep it in the family and turn the show over to hacks.

The show's ill effects will probably last for years, the same way Nixon's idiocy left the GOP with a bad smell that has lasted three decades. Imagine how hard it would be right now to sell a right-leaning comedy show. It was virtually impossible before .5HNH came along. Now it would probably be easier to sell a sitcom set in a busy abortion clinic.

That's horrible, especially when you think about the huge, salivating audience that is still out there, dying for conservative entertainment. The big ratings .5HNH got at first, in spite of its badness, prove that a quality right-leaning or centrist show would be an instant success. But network pinheads will never go for it, because Fox just "proved" conservatives can't be funny.

Hey, at least Surnow and Ned Rice and Sandy Franks and Manny Coto got paid. That makes it all worth it.

Speaking of shows that got panned, I saw the first episode of Cavemen online the other night. I know you'll think I'm full of it, but I actually enjoyed it. I thought Nick Kroll was brilliant, and the other actors gave good performances, and there were a lot of funny lines. But I can see why people aren't excited about it. It had an unfinished feel to it. Probably because ABC pulled the original pilot and shot a new one from scratch. They had to move the show from Atlanta to LA and get rid of a lot of the racial overtones, so it's only natural that the product is a little half-baked.

I think the show is a goner, and that it was killed by two things: political correctness and a thin concept. It's really hard sustaining caveman humor over a long period, as I learned after agreeing to write a book about them. And it's also extremely difficult to take inspired material and toss it and replace it with a politically correct substitute. The best humor flows from inspiration, usually, and editorial meddling is to humor what vapor lock is to a car's fuel system.

I wish I could have seen the original pilot. I'll bet it was much better.

Unlike .5HNH, Cavemen wasn't a hack effort. Joe Lawson, the guy behind the gecko and caveman commercials, was behind it. Unlike the unfunny journeyman humorists who gave us .5HNH (the way Derek Jeter gave Jessica Alba herpes), this guy has solid credentials. But talent isn't magic. It can only be pushed so far.

I think the smarter move would have been a caveman movie. Two hours would be easier to write than a whole season of TV. But it's too late now.

Maybe they'll turn it around. I think I can pretty much count on not getting the publicity wave that was supposed to sell my book, but if these guys are good enough, they may be able to pull the show out of the fire and into the panini press.

Finally, I was very sorry to learn that Cox & Forkum are hanging it up. But I don't blame them. Regardless of your political persuasion, political cartooning is virtually impossible to break into. Back when I was trying to sell my comic strip, I read in a trade magazine that there were something like 400 qualified people for every political cartooning job. And for conservatives, the situation is probably much, much worse. Because they're conservative.

Cox & Forkum did top-flight work, with beautiful art. They never needed a humor subsidy or a pleading column from Michael Medved. They are the real thing. I am very sad to see them go.

Conservatives not funny? If so, good luck explaining these guys away.