I'd be interested in hearing more about Salon's policies vis-a-vis free loot. I know people who work in media and they get an astounding amount of swag. Do Salon writers get stuff? Do you know of anyone who gets so much they feel compelled to report it on their taxes?

I see a lot of intelligent, talented women make hideously self-destructive choices, especially where men are concerned. High value is placed on being married and having children, without much regard for whether the spouse is suitable or even whether marriage and children are feasible in the context of one's work/life situation.

Most women will marry anyone they are dating. Some will marry just about anyone who asks (I had a friend in high school who was stalked by this creepy guy who said he wanted to marry her - without ever going on a date with him, she actually seriously considered his offer!). I think part of this stems from something similar to narcissism. It's an inability to consider the potential mate as a separate human being and accurately evaluate his qualities; instead he's just a husband-shaped object. It's the flip side of a man's objectification of women.

I think the only answer is for people to get smarter about their major decisions and stop sleepwalking through life. Think through career and mating choices, make contingency plans, save your money, believe in something higher and more important than yourself. Unhappiness is often very simply the result of reality colliding with the fantasy.

Don't go running to anyone's boss. Instead, confront the vendor. Say, "I found this offensive. In the future, please do not forward this type of material to me." Then let it go. If she sends something like this to you again, then you can report it to whoever you need to report it, because it has become harassment.

This isn't about punishment, right? Or loudly demonstrating your own moral superiority? If you really are interested in changing a heart and mind, icy disapproval is the best way. She sent you this joke (unfunny as it was) in an effort to establish some kind of rapport. When she discovers it backfired, it will give her pause. People are very social animals and most try not to repeat behavior that lowers their standing in another's eyes. If instead you tattle, it will probably just feed the sense of grievance that likely gave rise to the views you find objectionable. Racism is bad, but being a member of the Stasi is no better.

When I found out a few years ago that Rose Wilder Lane (a) pretty much wrote the books and (b) was a hard-core libertarian (read her pamphlet "Give Me Liberty" to get a view of something seldom seen today - consistently living one's principles), it made perfect sense. The books are suffused with libertarian messages. It's not that Pa and Ma (who as noted take advantage of government programs) are pure anti-statists like Rose. It's more the way hardship and tragedy are presented - not as pathos, not as a call to action, and not romanticized either, but as having the potential to be ennobling, to show who has the right stuff, which is evidenced by handling whatever comes one's way with firm purpose and in the morally correct manner. The struggle depicted is not against socioeconomic and political oppressors, but rather against nature (blizzards, locusts, etc.), and illness (scarlet fever). The lack of an obvious political agenda *is* the agenda - the liberals on this site don't recognize that because they can't hear the libertarian dog whistle. Trust me, it's there. I hear it every time people in these books overcome their problems when they pull together, not under the organization of some bureaucrat, but voluntarily. For example, in the Long Winter, a greedy merchant seeking to exploit the starving town's need for wheat is brought into line not by statutes or courts, but by a few simple words from respected members of the community. Greed is a temporary moral failing, not a feature of capitalism, and best addressed on a personal level, whereupon everyone forgives the merchant and moves on.

The books are all about striking a balance between the necessary, life-preserving love of a tight-knit family (and the community it finds itself in) and the need to remain fiercely independent and true to oneself, not just because it feels right but as a survival mechanism. This constant conflict creates the dramatic tension in the books, just as in all our lives. We need each other to survive, but our relationships must be constantly renegotiated in order to maintain our integrity and personhood. Libertarianism is about preserving the personal freedom required to do that. It's about individualism giving rise to the ability to be selfless and care for others - in fact, being the only thing that permits that in a harsh natural environment.

From the standpoint of conservatives, it doesn't hurt that the books also contain loving depictions of protestant Christianity, guns and hunting, and the division of labor along gender roles. The readers who object that the books have been coopted by the right are missing the point. They claim, for instance, that the books are really feminist. If you are a feminist, then seeing the self-sufficiency of the women in this book may resonate with some of your views, but does that make the book itself, or its author(s), feminist? Only if you have a straw-man view of conservatism in which women are invariably seen as weak and unable to take care of themselves. This reductive approach is why left-leaning people have such a hard time seeing the nuances of the various strains of conservative thought. The argument runs, "I like it, therefore it can't be right-wing." I can love the work of Dickens while acknowledging that he is far to the left of me politically.