* Andrew Dansby presents to Houston Chronicle subscribers several artists influenced by Charles Schulz. It's an article that connects to the movie. I know a lot of people are upset by the movie because it doesn't look special in the same way that the strip itself or seem to achieve a significant and undeniable level of quality the way some of the core adaptations have managed to over the years. I seem to automatically these kind of second-medium adaptations -- including comics books -- as more of a licensing program than a series of creative projects. That's probably super-insulting. I apologize to the creators involved.
* not comics: I encourage everyone to subscribe to this for some fine Internet Era One pop-culture writing. I won't come along to ruin things for about three years.
* Daily Cartoonistruns a piece about a college paper running a cartoon and then having it come under fire -- the twist is that it's a syndicated cartoon as opposed to some limits-stretching effort by the local superstar. That just seems to me a spectacularly lame cartoon, one that shouldn't have been picked up by an editor for syndication nor by an editor for use on their page. I don't think it's censorship in even the most passive way that might be defined to demand a cartoon that has a potentially controversial message provide clarity as to what's being communicated and some sort of worthwhile-to-explore perspective.
* Johanna Draper Carlson on 
