In this enlightened age, I think it's wrong to give preferential treatment to duos like Ernie and Bert because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, who taught us that men sleeping together, (in separate beds) is acceptable; or Graham and McCain simply because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, that eat dinner at 4:30; or Oates and Hall because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, that can charm us with melodies about rich girls and man-eaters; or Hardy and Laurel because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, whose clumsy charm entertained generations of geriatrics like Graham and McCain; or Hutch and Starsky because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, with a sensible, yet reckless law enforcement style that defined public perceptions about cops during the decadent decade of disco; or Pepa n Salt because they are fuzzy, ambiguously platonic life mates, who infected our brains with spicy talk about sex; or Engels and Marx because of their festering manifestos, spicy talk about sex,* and of course their fuzzy, ambiguously platonic relationship. * (Their spicy sex talks were strictly an inner circle thing.)

Don't get me wrong, I fully respect all of their contributions to society. They did for civilization, what the duo of BJ and the Bear did for man/chimpanzee relations; while providing evident proof of Darwin's theory of idiots evolving into apes. (I'll forego pointing out their obvious fuzzy, ambiguously platonic relationship.)

I'm just appealing for equal considerations of duos that lack all of the "accepted" dimensions. Thank you. ... Calvin and Hobbes, represented. Peace out.