I'm on Dan McCauley's side on this one. As a parent who used to regularly take my 6-year-old son to Taste of Heaven (truly the best deserts in Chicago!), I feel it is my responsibility (and mine alone) to ensure that my child behaves appropriately when in a public place. I love Taste of Heaven for it's relaxed, inviting atmosphere and I would certainly NOT welcome other peoples' kids misbehaving or shrieking while I was there enjoying a desert.

I have never allowed my son to run around and scream in other people's restaurants. He has been taught to respect other people's right to peace and quiet. And being a parent sometimes means sacrifice; more than once his behavior necessitated our leaving immediately and taking him (screaming all the way) home, but that was how he learned to behave.

I think every establishment has the right to determine the tone of their own place. Not every restaurant is Chuck E. Cheese, and parents of unruly kids should either leave them at home or teach them to behave.

I recently read the entire "Chronincles" to my nine-year-old son with a wary eye to any heavy-handed Christian symbolism I might encounter. What I found instead was a lovely, magical, and yes, spiritual work of fantasy with a healthy message about love and God. I understand the premise that Aslan represents Jesus, but nowhere is there any suggestion that Aslan died for our sins or that we should repent for our "fallen" state.

Indeed, while there is indeed a veneer of Christian mysticism coursing through the "Chronicles," at its core the message is pretty much the same as that running through every other religious and spiritual path: fight evil with good and hatred with love...and remain humble while doing so.

I see nothing in there that should offend any anyone. Even the most resolute non-believer can simply enjoy the work as a fantasy, much as (I assume) atheists enjoyed "Star Wars" and allowed dramatic license for The Force.

It's a mark of Stephanie Zacharek's talent as a critic that I seldom find anything to disagree with in her reviews -- even when I disagree with her conclusion. She pretty much sums up "Narnia" as a class act: restrained, clean narrative, sensitive, and not so dependent on CG that it sacrifices its story to the visual effects. Unfortunately, what she missed (in my opinion) is the absolutely pedestrian direction and soggy pace.

The film takes a long time to get going, and it moves rather "deliberately" when it does. Also, surprising for a reviewer so enamored with the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, Zacharek seemes to totally miss the outright copying of shots and sequences from Peter Jackson. From the battle scenes to the long "beauty" shots, whole chunks of "Narnia" seem lifted from second-rate "LOTR" outtakes.

I think "Narnia" is a winner for younger kids (although some sequences would be too scary for younger or more sensitive children), but it's hardly the triumph people seem to think it is. I guess it deserves points for not "going Hollywood," but it still seems to me an opportunity wasted.

I think you're overreacting. Turning the horrific into comedy is as old as human civilization. The most heinous of the shirts are also, frankly, the funniest. The tastelessness is the source of their power.

On the other hand, I have no trouble acknowledging that only an asshole would actually WEAR most of those. But they did make me laugh.

Yeah, yeah. Other than perhaps illuminating a vaguely queer undercurrent to R2D2 and C3P0's relationship, this parody adds nothing new to a mundane genre. "Shining" was the seminal masterpiece, but these other parodies are one-note wonders which try to coast on their single conceptual joke.

Only an academic could come up with such a toxic ideology. Backward notions of revenge have gotten us into two bloody wars in last five years. And it is no coincidence that those parts of the world in which this philosophy is most strongly embraced are the very ones which have bred the worst and most dangerous violence and the least tolerance and diversity.

Professor Miller's beloved "eye for an eye" philosophy debases the humanity of those who wrong us. When the Dalai Lama was asked why he wasn't angry at China for taking over his country, he replied, "Why should I give them my mind as well?" Far from being an "attack" on the Chinese, the Dalai Lama's forgiveness has been a cornerstone in his path to emotional and spiritual health and maturity.

Militarism breeds militarism. The U.S. president should to be a leader in the worldwide move away from a war paradigm.

Perhaps we can require instead that anyone running for president has a degree in peace studies?

I applaud Hoffman her concern, but I think it's misplaced. Young people understand and embrace irony; it's the way they deal with the surrealism and naked hypocrisy of the adult world around them. To assume that a young teenager with a "Bitchy is my middle name" T-shirt is somehow being harmed by her own sense of humor is extremely patronizing.

What's worse, fear of post-modern humor apparently crushes the sense of humor and taste of adults. I can't imagine a young person wanting to wear an "I believe in me" T-shirt, except at the behest of their dorky parents.

What's with this clip? I agree that Cruise is a major oddball, but in this particular clip he seems genuinely gracious and grateful. There's nothing in here to indict him for weirdness; why is it featured on Video Dog?