Whether ethnic humor is acceptable or not really depends on the intended effect - on whether it's intended to include or exclude the object of the joke. It's a subtle call and sometimes it's impossible to agree upon the joker's intentions, so the "insiders only" rule is sensible enough. But sometimes breaking that rule is a wonderful thing. Apu rocks, because he's an accepted part of the Springfield community, although it's a pity that Hank Azaria's version of an "Indian accent" (which is nothing like any real Indian accent, unlike Peter Sellers' performance in THE PARTY) has come to represent how Indians speak English.

Being of Indian origin myself, I enjoy occasionally breaking into an Indian accent or telling a desi joke with a straight face in the classroom. My students, who are mostly non-Indian, become very nervous, giving each other "Uh, should we laugh?" looks and laughing only when they see the Indian students start to giggle. That, of course, is exactly the right response.

Why is this preening wanker whining about how he can't get laid, if all these women are falling over each other to have sex with him? Very strange.

The US is probably the only democracy in the world in which presidential elections are routinely influenced by assessments of whether a candidate would make "a good commander in chief." It is as if a permanent state of war, or at least a permanent expectation of war, is a natural state of affairs in a country without powerful or threatening neighbors.

Other than that, the military fetish that Astore describes is not peculiarly American - it exists in several contemporary states, such as India, Israel and Turkey. The reasons are not identical, but they all involve a measure of popular disgust with the institutions of civilian society, especially the world of politics and government, which are perceived as corrupt, self-serving and fragmented. In contrast, the military seems idealistic and heroic, its corruptions, incompetencies and brutalities veiled by the cult of "national security."

Also, perhaps obviously, populist militarism tends to thrive in countries that have not been recently devastated by war. In these societies, war can be promoted as entertaining without the impediment of national guilt and memories of shattered cities: trauma on the scale of Dresden and Hiroshima, not Pearl Harbor and the World Trade Center, and guilt on the scale of the Holocaust and Nanjing, not Abu Ghraib or Haditha or even My Lai. I would speculate that until America undergoes something that destroys the credibility of militarist entertainment, "war hero" presidential candidates will continue to sing "Bomb, bomb Iran" to audiences of simpering reporters.

The US is the only democracy in the world (with the possible exception of Israel, but I'm not sure about that) in which a candidate's potential as "commander in chief" routinely becomes an election issue even in peacetime. It reflects a mindset in which there is no such thing as peacetime, and war is the normal state of affairs. It is a sickness in our political system that has enabled the massive usurpation of power by the 'national security' state. It is also a sickness in our wider culture, which implicitly acknowledges that its privileges (like SUVs and cheap gas, and golf courses in the desert) can be sustained only through permanent aggression and aggrandizement.

Well done, Gary. I assume you like feathers with your tar.

Does the TSA confiscate dry ice? I hear flushing dry ice down an airplane toilet can almost bring down a DC-8.

Obama needs to flagellate himself further for Wright's "one-sided statements" about Israel? I bet Ms. Walsh wouldn't have thought so if Wright had made his "one-sided statement" in SUPPORT of Israel. After all, American politicians, journalists and religious leaders do that all the time, without shame or apology. And Ms. Walsh has neglected to scold Obama for Wright's "one-sided" criticism of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Perhaps she can point that out in her next post.

Incidentally, Obama HAS addressed Wright's criticism of Israel. The only significant pander in his otherwise admirable response to Wright-gate has been to the Israel lobby - both (implicitly) in his speech and (explicitly) in the email that went out to his campaign contributors.

On the other hand, HRC can get away with appealing openly for female votes: there's a link on her campaign website inviting "Women for Hillary" to click on it. If Obama openly sought the support of "People of Color for Obama," or even identified himself with them, he would immediately be pilloried or marginalized.

Many Volvo-made long-distance buses come equipped with a leg-rest that's a bit hard to describe. On the lower part of the seat-back in front of you is a cushioned panel that folds out towards you and connects with the edge of your seat, to form the leg-rest. It is, quite possibly, the most comfortable and clever modification of an economy-size seat that I have ever experienced, and it would be terrific on airplanes.

Yes, it's the flexibility thing for me too. And the fact that a one-way fare on Southwest is exactly half of the round-trip ticket. And the fact that cabin crew, while not of Singapore Girl caliber, are still reasonably friendly. And the fact that their snack-boxes are actually better than the food on almost any other domestic airline. The only domestic carrier I would rate higher is JetBlue, and that's for the legroom.

The Finkelstein affair is one more reason to boycott Israeli universities and scholars. That would, obviously, also hurt Israeli scholars who are critical of their government's policies, but sometimes that can't be helped. The boycott of apartheid South Africa is the best precedent in this area.

As a resident of Brooklyn's Park Slope neighborhood, rightly notorious for its ubiquitous gangs of stroller-driving parents, I enthusiastically support any scheme for the banning of young children AND their parents from public life. Airplanes would be a perfectly good place to start.