Why did the Washington Post not publish Boondocks this week?

I think possibly (talking heads on TV and I wasn't paying attention) there may have been a controversy about something he did on Condoleeza Rice and her being sexually deprived....

What is offensive about the Boondocks series?
The only thing I find offensive about the week's comics that the Post declined to publish was the same old idea that so many men have that all that's necessary to straighten out a woman is to give her a good ****.

BBB

Check Oct 14 and after.

Well, someone at the post strongly agrees!

Speaking of ****, I hope the assembled Clinton watchers have had a chance to look at Larry McMurtry's review of Hamilton's book on Clinton in the NYRB. If only he'd said "****"....

I dunno, I think there is a high irony content. In this strip,

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2003/10/15/

the main Boondocks guy says, while looking disgusted, "and what I really like about the idea is that it isn't the least bit sexist or chauvinistic..."

I think he's using the other characters to send up those notions rather than supporting them.

Yeah, I think you're right Sozobe. So this is PC run amok?-- or something more sinester?

Re: Why did the Washington Post not publish Boondocks this w

I think the real question is: why does any paper publish Boondocks at all? Cripes, it's a comic strip -- shouldn't someone tell the cartoonist that it's supposed to be funny?