2002-02-13 - 1:19 a.m.

I just watched an episode of King of the Hill. It�s been on for maybe seven or eight years now, and I still haven�t made up my mind about the show.

King of the Hill followed up Beavis and Butthead�s run, and got sandwiched between The Simpsons and The X Files. My Sundays used to revolve around the Patriots and those two shows�I never watched all that much TV�Sunday was TV day.

I always gave Beavis and Butthead a little more credit than did most others. Yeah, the show was really, really stupid� but that was the point. I was never a fan, per se, but when the show was on, I�d watch it, and I�d always get at least one laugh for my effort, which is more than I could say from say watching 12 straight hours of Frasier*. The foppish hippie schoolteacher was dead-on. Some of the music-video commentary was brilliant and had to be said. The slapstick violence for shock-value�s sake was oh so postmodern (I hate that word). I really don�t see why people hated it so much. It was a grotesque and near-blameless reflection on American pop-culture (and culture at large), and those who criticized it either never watched an episode or were just jealous because they weren�t in on the joke.

And then came King of the Hill, which I watched only by virtue of it being sandwiched between two excellent shows in their prime. And I couldn�t make up my mind.

The characters are mired in this suburban and southern hell. And they don�t seem to mind. In fact, in one episode, they roast a Bostonian because he wanted to visit Texas and see Texas things. Yeah, like Texans come here for reasons other than to see Faneuil Hall and complain about how confusing the subway is. The show�s characters keep making massive deals out of petty and trashy issues, and fight for the old fashioned, conservative way. And the jokes are terrible (they beat that �Propane and propane accessories� joke to death and then exhumed it just so they could beat it some more). What annoys me most about the show is that the characters have somewhat linear and evolving lives (unlike the Simpsons, where the characters start virtually every show anew). If you�re going to follow a linear arc, you can�t make every episode a showcase of a wacky issue, where a character undergoes a once-in-a-lifetime kind of experience. That is, if you want your viewer to actually kinda believe that the character is actually going through that experience.

But then, here�s this good �ol boy, Hank Hill, who always stands up for what he believes in. Sometimes, he�s very, very wrong. Other times, he has a good point here or there. Wrongheaded as he is, he�s kind of a hero. He�s impotent, and his kid is obviously gay, which is a credit to the show.

On one hand, the show is kind of silly because every goddamn episode has to be so goddamn relevant, but in a stupid way. They stupidify the issues.

But on the other hand, stupid people are people too. The show throws the dolts out there some bones, and then educates them in a small way. Darwin�s creation theory should be taught. Sometimes some religious people try to use tactics that are less than moral to push across personal agendas. My personal favorite�Walmart kills local jobs. These things are obvious to me and mine, but not to all.

I think that the hardcore viewers of King of the Hill will inexplicably remain Bush and Regan apologists forever and ever, but I can only hope that the show does help things a little.

So yes, the show is stupid. But yes, the show has its purpose. And it�s a good one.

But I still haven�t made up my mind.

*Not that I ever have or would.