Everyone knows the mainstream press is beyond reprehensible, and for that reason I try to avoid it as much as possible. But while at the grocery store the other day with the Cute Little Red-Headed Girlfriend, I couldn't help but notice the cover of Newsweek magazine. On it, Abraham Lincoln stands back to back with Charles Darwin, under the headline, "Lincoln versus Darwin: Who Matters More?"

This ridiculous question was displayed under a banner labeling the issue "The (Mostly) Big Thoughts Edition." Astounded by this boneheaded display, I opened the magazine to see if there was more. Indeed, on the Contents page, a teaser for the "Lincoln versus Darwin" article boldly declared, "What You Need to Know." I wondered how they would deliver on this promise. Perhaps a chart of Lincoln's and Darwin's major achievements, with each entry judged "hot" or "not"?

I don't know who writes the cover or contents copy at Newsweek, but I assume that they and the editors who approved this copy all went to accredited institutions of higher learning. May those institutions revoke your degrees, you shameless, condescending asshats. Is this really how members of the "responsible" press (not bloggers) inform the public about the legacies of Lincoln and Darwin? With debasing questions, cutesy comparisons and flip editorial judgements?

The Cute Little Red-Headed Girlfriend and I went to see Wall-E over the July 4th weekend. I recommend staying for the closing credits, which shows the history of Western art in 2D animation, with robots. Beginning with cave paintings of robots, the history passes through ancient forms such as mosaics to wall frescos to impressionist works and right down to present day pixel art. Wall-E is a demonstration of the state of the art of CGI animation, but the ending is a sweet reminder of the pleasures of 2D. After you've seen the credits, stay for the movie's final frame for an extra joke right at the very end.