1.) Anybody who treats their friend like a fashion accessory is probably not worth hanging around with, regardless of what title we bestow on them.

2.) That doesn't mean that you can throw out your gay allies just because the times, they have a-changed.

3.) Considering the offensive title, the X over Debra Messer's face, and the generally condescending tone that this article adopts, I'd say it's probably for the best that you are over fag hags. I sure sure as shit hope the fag hags in your life are over you. Or really any friends, considering that you believe they can outlive their "use."

4.) Fortunately, you don't speak for all gay men. Anybody with a brain in their head is aware that the big battles of the rights movement are yet to come, and we need all the help we can get, gay and straight. And an article like this just sets us back.

Well said.

The question tells us more about ourselves than it does about Michael Vick. People have sadly come to believe that their opinion is what counts in this world, that the world exists for us to judge it. (Safely, and from the remove of an internet connection and monitor.)

May I suggest that what counts is actually the welfare of the animals he abused, and the ones he might have? Maybe he has made amends for that, and maybe he hasn't. Either way, my opinion on this matter is not important, except that it might have, however obliquely, contributed to the above-mentioned.

Man, you're on the hit parade! Palin: she's very dumb.

Other nuggets of unfortifying liberal truth: Bush is dumb. The polar icecaps are melting. Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot. None of these statements bring me to any higher understanding of the world around me. They just keep us, the readers, chasing our tails. And now we can pat ourselves on our own backs because of how we are none of those people.

If this were the Apollo Theater I'd throw a shoe at you.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.