First of all, as has been mentioned several times already, it makes more sense to show the whole sketch. Why? Because the whole sketch, whether of not you find it funny (and I did), had a point, and by showing the cropped version you make it seem like a simple case of horrible taste.

The reality is that this sketch has been finished for days before the kentucky crash and the emmy people probably weren't aware of the severity of the crash by air time. And even if they were...how many people were killed in auto accidents yesterday in this fair country of ours? Based on past statistics, the number probably was about 120, 3 times the amount of fatalities in Kentucky. Does that mean we shouldn't show any car crashes? Oh, and several people were victims of pedophiles too, but I haven't heard anyone criticizing the "To Catch A Predator" part of Conan's routine. Come to think of it, maybe they should have withdrawn the Emmy nominations for 'Flight 93' because that might offend any of the bereaved?

The reality is that this is an internet meme, powered by internet columnists who then fuel traditional media who then called up the tv station. If I had been a relative of the Kentucky victims, would I have been offended? No, I would have been too busy vomiting through my tears at the loss of a loved one to even comprehend it. Those who are offended on behalf of others seem to really relish their horror, even as they breathlessly link to the 'most offensive' parts of the sketch. I think that alone shows how bogus this whole 'controversy' is.

Puking through my tears

No one should be offended

Comedy must end.

Haiku is tricky

Matsuo Munefusa

Would poop on my verse.

I also think that this is an unfortunate choice of words, at best. Van Gogh was an offensive and provocative character, that's for sure, but he didn't get himself killed, unless you also think that Salman Rushdie 'got himself targeted for execution'.

I am well aware that some African-Americans are of the opinion that Barack Obama is not 'one of them' - as if 'they' were a monolithic group that didn't have it's own myriad categories and sub categories and flavors.

This kind of 'one of us/not one of us' thinking is illuminating, and a little troubling. Whenever anyone professes to know the answer to 'who is black/white/latino/jewish', it makes me nervous. There were famous schisms, for example, in the Ku Klux Klan, when certain chapters were opposed to admitting folks of Polish or Irish extaction. The person who makes the claim (and contrary to some comments, I believe Dickerson does so with a straight face) sets themselves up as the arbiter of what is authentic or not. It's a very slippery slope that takes us to the hair tests that were done in Apartheid-era South Africa to determine whether or not a person was authentically white, or the infamous 'paper bag test', which means that light-skinned African Americans aren't really black.

I believe that Barack Obama should be judged on his merits and his actions, not his race - whatever anyone deems it to be, or not to be.

Man, I thought I was the only one! I was also raised in a mixed-race family that didn't insist on my race being a central cornerstone of my identity. But sometimes I have felt pigeon-holded as someone who is 'dodging the truth' about his race. But for me, there's no truth to dodge. Genetically, I'm an Irish-Scottish-French-Indian. That's real, and that's fine. But as T.R. Knight recently said, I hope that's not the most important thing about me.

I love this essay, and I applaud the care and courage it took to write.

I also agree with this article. Someone (apart from Mikal Gilmore of Rolling Stone) in the media finally gets it!

In truth, LOST has answered many mysteries already - the origin of Locke's paralysis, the nature of Kate's crime, exactly why Sawyer is so messed up - but in doing so, it keeps adding compelling new ones. In addition, the key to this program is not the Island mythology but the character flashbacks, which make the characters three dimensional and complex. The people who criticize LOST for not giving them all the answers remind me of the old Hindu proverb - "When the boy cut open his drum to see what made it work, it worked no more."

'In the Evening' was the opening song on Led Zepplein's 'In through the out door' album.

Rather, each episode of "The War" begins with the disclaimer that it is NOT that, only a record of America's involvement, specifcally seen through the lens of four separate towns.

Ken Burns has no obligation to make a global history of WWII. That was already done by the BBc in 1974, with "The World At War" which was pretty good but kind of stuffy.

It is pretty clear that without the Russian sacrifice we would have a very different world today. I have seen many good films and documentaries on Kursk and Stalingrad.

That's not what this film is about. To criticise it for not being something which it never claimed to be is a little unfair. It would be like me critiquing a Russian documentary about that countries involvement in WWII for not mentioning the Americans enough.

Every country invlved in WWII should produce a history of what it was like. That is what Ken Burns has done, and he should be applauded.