A number of readers have written in and expressed dismay that Cary doesn't seem to answer the LW questions succinctly and directly. They feel that perhaps Cary should provide “advice” or counseling to the LW.

One LW said: “Is that he doesn't really see this as an "advice column," but rather a forum where people write in asking for advice, but in which he declines to provide it, instead using the letter-writer's dilemma as a jumping-off point for his pontifications and musings.”

My response is that Cary is doing exactly what he should. Cary’s responses are less like the sort of advice that Ann Landers would provide, and more like advice that you’d get from a slightly damaged literature professor. Personally, I think this is the right approach. In most cases, the straightforward advice is obvious and LW probably already knows the answer. Cary’s answers are insightful because they often avoid the direct, obvious route.

Personally, I like Cary’s answer to this letter. He is right to focus on the LW. She can’t change anyone but herself.

When a rural dirt road that climbs through the mountains is easily accessible from a main highway, one might expect that non-locals are going to try it without the proper vehicle or equipment. At least two different parties in different winter seasons have done so. One ended in tragedy and the other could have easily ended the same way. How many more people have to die before someone learns to keep that damn gate closed? Mr. Kim's father is right to be angry.

Here I sit in a coffee shop, reading your column in Salon.com on my laptop. Be careful what you ask for!

What a great response! It makes me wish that communism had succeeded (but without the mass murders and soul crushing oppression).

If you wonder why workers in France are ready to fight to the death when anyone suggests changing their benefits or work hours, this is why. The dog-eat-dog mentality of work in the USA turns us against each other. The phrase, “its just business” is unique to America.

How would your life change if you couldn’t be fired? What if you could earn tenure at almost any job?

Some practical advice to the LW: If you are going to jump ship, you owe it to yourself to do a thorough job search and take the very best offer. Take your time. Changing jobs is one of those few decisions in life when your choice really counts. Beware working for friends.

First of all, congrats to Salon.com for publishing this essay. You certainly knew from the start that it was going to cause you trouble and you went ahead and posted it anyway. Furthermore, its written with a voice and viewpoint not heard from much in mainstream publishing today.

However, I must take issue with Ms. Dickerson’s contention that the reason why whites have expressed interest in Obama is because he seems “safe.” The inherent assumption in that idea is that all whites are racist. In your view, perhaps they are not cross-burning klan members, but they are scared by most blacks.

In my opinion, this idea is misinformed. Whites who are, at their core, scared of blacks would never vote for Obama. Most whites know nothing about black history beyond the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s. They don’t realize that he is not “black” by your definition. Those that subliminally fear blacks will judge him by his skin color, not his ancestry.

Instead, I argue that the whites that support Obama do so because his message is one of hope. Also, unlike Hillary, he is blessedly free of the political baggage of the past 20 years. (Are we really going to have to hear about travelgate again?) He’s also been opposed to the war since the beginning. Finally, the man is a gifted public speaker. (Recently, I heard someone refer to him as a reincarnation of JFK.)

In regards to racism, I agree that the USA certainly has a long way to go. However, I really do think that in the case of Obama, he is gaining white support because they feel he deserves it. He is credible candidate and he’s being judged on his merits.

Who ever said that the purpose of the Sundance Film Festival (or any film festival) is to create hits out of independent films? Certainly one purpose of Sundance is to give small films wider exposure, but that's no guarantee of economic success.

In fact, one could argue that the sorts of films that earn prizes at Sundance are too original to ever get the studio deal or be popular (or even understood) by the general public. These are films by and for people who love film as an art. The prizes should be for the films that are best, not the most likely to make money.

In any case, I appreciate the blurbs on the films at the end of the article. I hope that I can track these films down on video soon.