I've seen the issue of the "proportionality" of Israel's response raised in several recent articles. Can somebody tell me, how many Israelis have been killed by Hamas rockets since the cease-fire was broken? I think this would be relevant to the debate over whether Israel is "retaliating" vs. "defending", and whether or not it is engaging in collective punishment.

Thanks for answering my question -- your number is exactly what I recall having previously read, but I didn't have a source for it.

Most reasonable Americans agree that Israel has the right to defend itself, and most reasonable Americans might also point out that retaliation (against those who are actually guilty) is one step removed from "self-defense". But, retaliation against the innocent, or "collective punishment" is too far removed from even the most elastic definition of self-defense. Americans don't support this -- but they need to be told that it's happening.

That's why I'm surprised these numbers are not clearly presented to the public.

I think we are within our rights asking whether it is absolutely strictly necessary to kill 500 (and counting) people in response to the murder of four people. There simply comes a point where the "necessity" argument cannot be maintained.

I'm glad to see another letter writer pointing out the dangers of reading the tea leaves of statistics.

Teen pregnancy rates in this day and age aren't all that different from teen pregnancy rates a generation or two ago -- my own grandmother was married at age 18 and had her first baby by the time she turned 19. What's changed now, is that many parents are willing to accept and even encourage a delay in their daughter's marriage, even knowing the baby is on the way.

In "The Way We Never Were", Stephanie Coontz examined the issue of teen sexual activity and pregnancy and concluded that teens are no more active today than they were in the 50's -- the big difference being that, in the 50's, the average age of marriage was ridiculously low. Girls in their 20's who were single were considered "old maids". What has changed -- at least in part -- is that as a culture we are less willing to stigmatize girls, pregnant or not, who do not marry straight out of high school.

We haven't pushed forward the age at which kids begin having babies; we've pushed back the age at which we expect them to marry and settle down. This is a good development. Early marriages, particularly when linked to early pregnancies, have an absolutely dismal survival rate. Early marriage may avoid children being born out of wedlock, but early divorce leaves them just as likely to be raised by single parents.

Looking at the linked article "Red Sex, Blue Sex", it appears that the areas of the U.S. where these "traditional values" are most idealized, are the same areas of the country where girls are becoming pregnant at roughly the same ages that you would have seen in the 50's. The evidence of the damage done by forcing early marriages, set out in that article, is overwhelming.

I doubt very much that teens are motivated by the glamour factor in getting pregnant. The culprit seems far more likely to be a lack of real incentive to devote a few more years to education, financial stability, and emotional maturity.

Just out of curiosity, I'd like to hear from employers out there. How many of you are eager to stampede to the campus of the nearest community college to grab up all those graduates for a career path that will have them earning six figures in a year or two?

Let's face it: big name employers like to have an Ivy League graduate come on board. It looks nice on the website bio. There really IS an economic advantage to the Ivy League degree.

You just can't go on and pretend that college-educated parents, who themselves have felt the sting of real workforce bias, are overreacting when it comes to making sure their kids get whatever advantage is out there. All those "geographically diverse" applicants from Idaho who make it into Harvard? Let's face it, they'll graduate and move straight to New Jersey, where their kids can benefit from the advantages of affluence.

And please, when we compare the children of college-educated parents to the children of working-class parents, let's not stack the deck. Let's not pretend our choice is one stellar, self-made, driven working-class kid with an intense thirst for knowledge vs. lazy, fat, overprivileged middle-class kids from New Jersey or anywhere else where college-educated workers tend to settle. Either make both kids mediocre, or both kids brilliant, ok? "Meritocracy" is great as an ideal, but we don't live in a world where all children are "gifted and talented", and if the real problem is that we need to have rewarding jobs and economic security for everyone -- including mediocre students -- then let's stop pretending the only kids who matter are the straight-A students.

Joan, I'm not particularly shocked by sexism on Chris Matthews' show, nor am I particularly shocked that Dick Armey should think the most effective way to address your argument would be to decline a marriage proposal that could only exist in his imagination -- but I am pretty surprised that after all this time, it hasn't occurred to him that he should keep his mouth shut.

I think you handled the situation well, and I hope the clip gets played over and over and over. Apparently, there are still a half-dozen voters who haven't yet gotten the message that the Republican establishment doesn't take women seriously. Next, I assume we will be hearing a chorus of voices raised in opposition to "political correctness" which is what we hear whenever one of these clowns embarasses himself.

This way, they won't have to talk about their nonexistent economic policies.

Please ... don't stop. Just keep talking. Just say the very first thing that pops into your collective right-wing heads.