Ms. Dickerson, I always enjoy reading your column. I never fail to be perplexed at the vitriol that is sometimes directed your way because I find your observations to be well thought out. Often fascinating.

It sounds like I'm older than you are because you speak in terms of people who, "were not required to find out what we were made of then." But I grew up smack dab in the middle of Civil Rights movement and the anti-Viet Nam War movement. I spent my misguided youth watching people getting beat up on network TV... night after night.

Lately I've been wondering what has happened to the spirit of protest in the United States. Are we too lazy to take to the streets these days? Or is our modern method of organizing on the Internet more effective? I don't know the answer to that one. But, being an old coot and all, I see pluses and negatives in the old-fashioned notion of public protest.

On one hand, how would we know there's a problem without people like Rosa Parks, Bobby Seale, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and so many others? People who stand up for the righteous cause are necessary because they take the great personal risk of letting us know we all have something to worry about.

On the other hand, see: John Kerry. He was a very effective Winter Soldier back in the day. Then, in part because he was so effective and so many people remembered him, we got stuck with Bush because a fair number of voters in what you might call my "demographic" couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kerry--even if they were Yellow Dog Democrats--because they couldn't get past the idea that his earlier and, imo necessary, war protest was "unpatriotic."

I read your article with the aforementioned bias in mind and I think, "Should I mourn the modern day irrelevance of an organization that was founded to educate the populace about the injustice of a long ago era?" It's not that the injustice is totally resolved these days, but it seems like the playing field has changed.

My personal favorite NAACP story is Thurgood Marshall and Brown v. Board of Education. Yes! Stick it to 'em, and move to highest court in the land. Do not pass "GO." Perfect. I'm lovin' that.

The thing is... back when Justice Marshall was working for the NAACP, it wouldn't have occurred to anyone that the day would ever come when America wouldn't designate top US officials, presidential candidates, Supreme Court Justice or the actors who try to convince us all to invest our cash with national brokerage firms as "colored."

But the NAACP still uses that term. "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People?" Colored People?!?!? The very name of the organization seems tragically outdated. Are their thoughts, strategies and tactics equally passé?

Your story reminds me of hanging out in the Bennington, VT tavern that was Nathan Hales' rallying point for his own contribution to the American Revolution, Ms. Dickerson.

Nathan Hales' drinking club played a critical role in one of America's revolts against oppression... just as the NAACP was a critical player in a latter-day American revolt against oppression. Both important projects.But, as with all important wars, sometimes the view of the battlefield changes.

Is that where the NAACP is these days? Still important, in a historical sense, but not necessarily up to speed with the social changes they worked so hard to author?

Color me hopeful, so to speak, but I can't imagine anything better than a day where "colored people" don't need an organization to ensure advancement.

I've always liked MLK's dream about judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skin. Still do.

In the immortal words of Rebecca Traister, "But with progress comes inevitable regress, and in our stouthearted dash to fit this family into a comfortably familiar tableau, we have fallen back into other, far too familiar, cultural traps: you know, like forgetting everything we've learned in recent decades about female achievement and identity."

I'm actually stunned to the point of drooling over the devolution of Salon. Camille Paglia! Lolcats! The First Lady's Butt! All in one week!

Wow.

Here I was, all excited about the next First Lady's intellectual and professional achievements. Moments ago, I was looking at the "Ebony" cover entitled, "America's Next First Couple" with tears in my eyes... sentimental and patriotic tears provoked by the knowledge of how much pain and struggle led up to that headline.

And then I clicked over to Salon, where Page One is a learned discussion of the First Lady's butt.

OK. So body image is important. I get that. Didn't Oprah and Queen Latifah sort of... handle that?

I've been a Salon subscriber from Day One too. And I'm not about to cancel my subscription. This is like watching a train wreck. I should turn away...but I can't. Call me a rubbernecker but I want to know what's next.

So far, it's looking like it's rolling downhill to a cheesy "reality"show. "America's Top Salon Reader!"

What's next? A Page One Tuna Casserole recipe?