"We are red-blooded heterosexuals. And we are not doing it."

What upsets me is not that you said it, it's that it needs to be said. And, I'm sorry to say, but do you know who is the worst at working against male/female friendships? Girlfriends. It's a crying shame. How are we ever going to get parity if women are dead set in favor of separate but equal? You can't have equality if you never mix with the other gender, except for when you're making babies or coupling. That's not going to work.

It's tragic. I've had male friends ever since I was a little kid, and from the beginning people have told me that it wasn't possible or appropriate or whatever. I have never understood it. How can you NOT have male friends? We need each other, in order to understand each other and be lifted by our respective points of view.

So I stopped reading your column because I came to the opinion that your advice was bunk. And you know what? Today's column proves it. Where was the advice? Yeah, good point. Family relations are fraught with tension. Maybe you should look into it.

????

Can I get a job at Salon doling out noncommital blandishments? Because I can do that too, and I need a job.

I kept waiting for the punchline to this article. What was said in 2 pages could have been said in 3 paragraphs: Apatow has had success, but ultimately his powers of creation may be on the wane.

Well, American audiences are notoriously fickle. But honestly I never thought Apatow was that talented. Mediocre comedy for mediocre times.

Not sure this article was value-added. Mostly it just recounted his career.

Well, I doubt I'm the only person to say this. But you shouldn't get down in the gutter with Limbaugh. Dude is a trainwreck. People believe what they want to believe, and I doubt that his audience is going to be swayed one way or another by any rational person says.

Think about it. During the elections you had roughly half your audience decrying your opinions about Obama. You weren't swayed, not even a little bit, no matter how many people voiced their opinions, and no matter what they said. The more we are pushed the more we hunker down and refuse change.

As a hardcore Prairie fan -- not hardcore enough to read beyond the books, but I did read each one repeatedly as a child -- I'm not surprised that the reader reaction has been one of hostility. Those are my books, lady. Back off!

Ha. Just teasing. But seriously. They drew the reader into a unique world. It's no wonder that every single commenter has seen exactly what they wanted to see in the books. No more, no less.

Personally, I think the characters of the Ingalls books showed grit, honor, and determination. I always thought the books were about the spirit of the frontier, and the virtue of hard work and self-sacrifice. Sure, they could have been seen as a work of feminism. Or perhaps it's about the values of white, christian society. Or agrarianism. You could slice it several different ways, and none of the ideas need conflict with each other.

Anyhow, thanks for this bit of information on a beloved literary and historical figure. Even if she did ghostwrite the books, I'm still appreciative of them. The images they provided still live with me today. I'll never forget the long winter, or the house in the big woods.

I have not read the article yet, but I certainly will, and I want to thank you for addressing this very important issue. Generally speaking, people are reluctant to say that Tasers kill. But the facts are these: Hundreds of people have been alive before being tased, and dead within hours (or sometimes minutes) afterward. The correlation is too strong to ignore.

Thanks for subbing for Greenwald. I hope the readers weren't too hard on you. We are an ornery bunch here.

I'm not saying that the opposition doesn't deserve a good swirlie. I'm not saying that it's not awfully tempting to want to want to mock them. But, like the Michael Lind article suggests, it's dangerous to do so. We should be attacking their ideas, and not them personally.

That's funny. I always thought that Pete was almost autistic. There's that scene in the episode where his father dies in the plane crash. He doesn't know how to react, and he even runs to Don to ask him, How do I react? What is the appropriate response? Legitimately you could say that he was in shock. But I always thought that moment told us so much about Pete. He doesn't have a direct line to his own emotions. I also think that's what some of his interactions with Peg are about. He thinks he has to feed her a line in order to bed her. And she loves him, but she's a lot smarter and more capable of complexity than he is. That's why the 2nd season finale is SUCH a diss against him. He could analyze that situation (Peg's confrontation) and never really get it. And for the audience it was just so incredibly cathartic. And elegantly arranged, by both the actors and the writers and editors.

I was a big Angel fan, and I loved Kartheiser as Connor. But I was even more delighted to see him take on this role. Thanks for the interview!

I can hear about how Farmer Ted anywhere in the media, how they don't know what's good for them, etc. etc. etc. etc. I don't need you to tell me they're idiots making unfortunate decisions. I can tell myself that. Glenn covers things nobody else covers, and his replacements have been great up until this moment. This is disappointing.