A number of readers asked how to help the Rocketes get back their maternity leave. Matthew DeCapua says that raising political heat on Cablevision is the best way. Therefore, he suggests you contact:

National Organization for Women:

NYC Chapter 212-627-9895

Nat'l Office: 202-628-8669

NYC e-mail: prez@nownyc.org

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D, New York)

New York City office: (212) 688-6262

Washington office: (202) 224-4451

Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D, New York)

New York City office: 212-860-0606

Washington office: 202-225-7944

Web site: http://www.house.gov/maloney/messageform.html

Centerbeth, your post puzzles me. Of the item on the Rockettes, you wrote, "newsflash, Salon: many, many US companies don't offer maternity leave."

But what is your point? Didn't the item suggest that what's happening to the Rockettes may be indicative of larger cultural and economic forces? Are you saying that because many other women don't get maternity leave in the first place, it simply doesn't matter that the Rockettes lost their maternity leave? How does that make any sense? Would you have preferred no mention of it? How does that make any sense?

So, I wonder, can you please explain why you don't think it's worth nothing that the Rockettes were forced into signing a restrictive labor contract?

Quentin, thanks for pointing that out -- I wondered for a while about whether that was the S word or the F word, which is why I allowed for both possibilities in my story. But yeah, I lean toward it being "suck."

Come on, Elisa, you can't really mean this: "If a man is so loathe to have children, he should either abstain from sex altogether, carry and enforce multiple forms of birth control, or have a vasectomy."

Isn't this the exact argument that the pro-life side uses in its fight against a woman's right to choose? It sounds like you'd be unwilling to impose such strictures on women -- unwilling to say, for instance, that if a woman is loathe to have children, she should either abstain from sex altogether, carry and enforce multiple forms of birth control, or have her tubes tied. Why be so tough on men, then? Can you explain why this position isn't unfair?

Jeffrey, Jeffrey, Jeffrey, thanks for your lovely post. So you asked a question:

...but by your own twisted logic, if Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists, then you'd be for the invasion? Then it would be forward thinking? I was againt the invasion because, assuming true all they said about Iraq, I never considered them a threat to America - or even American interests... So I can call a savage a savage and not have to qualify with cheapshot anti-Americanism...

The answer is Yes. Obviously: If Iraq had WMDs and harbored terrorists -- two conditions which would go far toward showing it was a threat -- of course I'd have been for the invasion. And actually it was the suspicion that the first of these conditions (WMD) was true that I did pretty much support the Iraq war, or at least the idea of invading Iraq. How it was done -- rather not well -- was and is a concern of mine. But in principle I wasn't opposed.

But Jeffrey, I have to ask you something. Are you really saying that even if you knew that it were true beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had bad weapons and terrorists, you'd have been O.K. with letting it be? And you would be O.K. with it only because of a personal belief that it wasn't going to threaten us? How would you come to that conclusion?

Seriously, I don't see how you could consider a country with WMDs and terrorists to be non-threatening. Isn't that pretty much the definition of threatening? I'd really like to hear more about your system of logic, especially since you hold yourself up as a paragon of patriotism, and according to you I've got a lot to learn about that.

Since the discussion would obviously not be germane to this post, why don't you e-mail your response to me? Let's have it out there, shall we? farhad@salon.com

Thanks Lee. We fixed that dumb mistake!

Can I call you Jeff?

Are you being deliberately naive? You know I didn't say "support" terrorists and neither did you. We said "harbor." And we were specifically talking about Al Qaeda. So your answer is beside the point. Put the question to you again, then, and this time be sure to note the terms:

Are you really saying that even if you knew that it were true beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq had bad weapons and terrorists, you'd have been O.K. with letting it be? And you would be O.K. with it only because of a personal belief that it wasn't going to threaten us? How would you come to that conclusion?

Jeff, come on, give me your e-mail address. Let's talk there.