Even in this economy, there's always a better opportunity waiting down the line. This particular opportunity requires you to sacrifice a lot of things that are precious to you (good lord, your entire very happy life), for rewards that are apparently not huge (if you wouldn't be able to afford your current home again), and with an element of risk (if you aren't absolutely a cinch to excel in this position).

There might someday be an equally good opportunity that would take you to a place you like better than California, or an absolute dream job that requires sucking it up and living there. Those would be tough calls. This is a significant chance for advancement that is ultimately not worth it--just about everyone here can tell.

There are usually, though not always, good reasons why things are normally done a certain way. Living on a houseboat...why not? Raising kids on a houseboat...well, maybe. Raising kids on a houseboat as a single parent when they really don't want to be there...STOP. This is not nonconformism, it's selfishness--you can't blithely chase your own desires at a time when those of your children are much more important.

I don't agree with Cary: if you wait just a few years for your oldest to grow up, your younger kids are going to be in the same boat (no pun intended). This is a dream you will simply have to defer for well over a decade, because that was part of the deal when you decided to become a parent.

I felt I was being thoroughly, and unenjoyably, punished.

And how is this different from how you respond to ANY OTHER MOVIE?

I swear to god, I don't understand why Salon employs a film critic who DOESN'T LIKE FILM. You hate EVERYTHING, Stephanie! It's not even that you have high standards, it's just that you're a misanthrope, and it's getting irritating to watch you turn your nose up at things just because you can.

Seriously: just stop trying to make one-on-one, time-sensitive plans with Mary. Invite her along for parties, or when you and a few others are going for drinks and will be at the bar for a while. She's clearly fun to be around, just unreliable. And she clearly doesn't need you to be her lap dog. Push her into your periphery and she will almost certainly not even notice--she's got a gaggle of friends, hasn't she?

Don't break a friendship entirely over something as forgivable as flakiness. It's a tolerable, even endearing trait as long as you don't put yourself in situations where you need to rely on the person.

I'd do it in a less formal context than a letter--if you're 15 years past high school, you can probably find this person on Facebook. For something so minor and so long ago, it's already going to be touching that you remember and are taking the trouble to apologize; writing a letter (so uncommon nowadays) might elevate it into an event that's awkward for him to respond to.

But do get in touch. I still remember the day I said something racist to a half-black classmate when I was a sheltered, ignorant fourth-grader, and I've for decades been both horrified that I said it and amazed and humbled by how gracefully she dealt with it at that age. If I knew how to reach her (not on Facebook, sadly), I'd apologize in a hot second.

Because all grievances are not alike.

There are wrongs so upsetting and so deliberate that an apology would be so inadequate as to be insulting. And there are wrongs so slight that they don't even register in the victim's long-term memory.

The writer's case sounds like it's just slightly north of the latter kind--not something that really needs recognition, but something for which it simply couldn't hurt. Is anyone going to be upset to be reminded of an instance of someone being rude to him many years ago, if only to be told that the rudeness was unintentional? No, at worst they'd be confused and at best they'd be heartened.

Send the letter! You're not a death row inmate apologizing to the family of the person you murdered--you're not even trying to make amends for a persistent habit of cruel teasing. There is no downside to this.

Pawlenty would be a safe, conventional pick in a favorable climate, giving a legitimate advantage in his home state.

This year? Choosing him would be a virtual concession. This is the most exciting Democratic ticket in American history, so who do you choose to go up against it? Some bland guy from Minnesota.

That said, it's not like McCain is overwhelmed by his options. Pawlenty at least doesn't hurt the ticket.

The "no women but Hillary" line is so utterly repulsive it immediately diminishes every person who lets it slip--apparently there's only one vagina in the country that comes attached to a brain. Fine start to your Salon gig, Thomas.

If we're talking about a tied race that's expected to come down to a few hundred votes in a few swing states, then yes, polls of those swing states are crucial for knowing who is actually ahead.

But if Obama actually wins by a margin like he's currently polling (discounting that weird USA Today thing), the odds of the electoral map turning against him are virtually nil. 2000 was a complete historical fluke, not a template for how we can expect elections to unfold.

Two are utter corporate shills, and a different two are way to the right of the party on social issues. Kathleen Sebelius is the only acceptable choice in this four; hopefully it's her or a dark horse. (Frankly, if you're going to keep pushing the creepy "no woman but Hillary" line, I'm not going to read War Room anymore.)