Much as I hate to agree with the misogynists who so religiously read this column only to angrily disagree with it, you really don't have to know much about art history, Western or otherwise, to know about the long (no pun intended) traditions of disembodied penises in various traditions, from temples of Dionysus to countless pieces of Hindu art and so on (and that's not even counting the incredible amount of blatantly phallic art that doesn't actually attempt to reproduce a biological penis--the Washington Monument, anyone?). And, generally speaking, haven't feminist artists actually made a point of countering such with vaginal art (even if, like Georgia O'Keefe, they deny it)? Don't get me wrong--the male hand--also disembodied--and the verse do make this particular piece offensive (not to mention juvenile and stupid), but the fact that it involves a disembodied female part really shouldn't be the issue.

Certainly "highly focused school-based efforts to raise minority achievement levels are still critical" and these will involve a lot more money for schools for higher teacher salaries, more teachers, etc. along with broader initiatives to confront inequality. The big question, though, is how "achievement levels" are measured. The biggest problem with No Child Left Behind is that it is, ultimately, the pinnacle of a long and ugly trend toward reliance on standardized tests to measure achievement. These tests demand a Gradgrindian, rote-based kind of learning which discourages originality, creativity and complex thinking in general. If you don't believe me, look at the interpretive questions on any reading tests. You will find that there are usually a couple of answers that could be "correct," but that the one that counts is the one that requires the least amount of thought. Students who use their imaginations, or simply stretch their minds a bit, will get these questions wrong. Can it possibly be a coincidence that politicians like George W. Bush push a curriculum that discourages thought?

Super-Fun-Pak Comix is always Bolling at his best, but I really, really love the classic painting captions.

One minor complaint, though...what's up with Dinkle making prank phone calls? He can do a lot worse than that, can't he? Aren't there any cartoon children for him to molest?

Ah, Yellow Submarine...I can remember watching it over and over in the early morning hours, wide eyed, intoning "wow...I AM the Nowhere Man..." and thinking "my life's never gonna be the same now that I've realized all of this..."

It's also cool when you're a kid, and have no idea about anything implied by the above paragraph.

While he's been good at times, I've generally expected mean-spiritedness from Murphy ever since the visceral homophobia of his mid-80's HBO specials (even if, truth be told, I found them funny as an adolescent).

Glenn, m'man, I generally agree with you and would never think of being "mindless and reactionary" enough to tell you to "get off your high horse" but, let's face it...if you ever write a column that isn't appallingly self-righteous, I'll assume you hired a ghost writer...

oooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhh, Berke Breathed...............

you were inspired once...................

you had everything.........

where is it now?

Ummm...I realize this point has been made...probably by at least half of the 215 posters currently up...but why...oh why on earth...despite the FISA thing, which McCain supported wholeheartedly, and the various apparent moves toward the right that still place Obama significantly to the left of McCain...would any sane person WANT to save the candidacy of John McCain?

The main emphasis here should really be on driving less, when public transportation is available. Obviously, in many places, it simply isn't, but here on the west side of the Philadelphia metropolitan area, thousands upon thousands of people spend three or four perfectly miserable hours a day on the Schuylkill and Vine Street expressways to get into the city, when they could take the train. For that matter, driving into or around Philly is a crawling nightmare from any direction and almost always faster, less hassle, and cheaper by public transportation or bicycle. Thus, here at least, the choice is not one of lowering one's quality of life by forsaking the car--it's quite the opposite, in fact. Americans are simply too addicted to their cars to realize that.

If "we" means people who were actually in the hall, or socially conscious Bernie Mac fans who didn't know he could be sexist, the answer is yes, "we" should be outraged. If, on the other hand, "we" means the rest of us, who would have been unaware of this so called "incident" were it not for the blogosphere desperate to turn anything into a massive scandal, the answer is obviously no. For that matter, I shouldn't have read the article and certainly shouldn't be writing this comment on it. Alright, I'll stop now

Not to wallow in critical theory, but somehow I'd have thought that the editors of the New Yorker would have had a slightly more complex idea of the effect that the larger socio-political context has on meaning. Obviously, there's the largely urban, educated, and liberal context of most New Yorker readers, but there's also the larger context of a nation in which the top radio personality is Rush Limbaugh (followed by, I believe, Hannity and Savage) and Fox dominates cable news. In that context, it's simply ludicrous to expect this cover to be seen as anything other than the liberal New Yorker confirming the lies of the hate-mongers.

Without barely hidden Republican support, this kind of thing wouldn't even have the laughable amount of traction that it does. If this stuff is even going to be reported, there needs to be an acknowledgment of just how far away it is from the Democratic mainstream, as well as the quite open efforts of Republicans like Rush Limbaugh and others to interfere with the Democratic nomination process.