According to a recent "study," divorce and single parenting costs Americans $112 billion a year.

This "study" has to be among the worst conclusions drawn from a correlation in recent history.

Pointing at impoverished, unwed mothers in urban areas as drains on federal money and claiming that the reason they are in their situation is because they aren't married is also demeaning, offensive, patriarchal, and shows clear evidence of ignorance and privilege shaping the "news" that citizens receive.

So, Institute for American Values (I guess I'm not an American, then), you're suggesting that the reason those women and their children utilize social services and welfare programs is because they don't have husbands?

Surely, husbands - male heads of the family - would bring in ample income and provide healthy social role models for those otherwise bastard children that couldn't be properly raised or supported by their mothers. Why, we might even draw the conclusion that women are lesser people than men - nothing without their husbands or fathers to support them, ignorant of how to raise children and keep them safe.

Could you tell me again, please, where you got this data?

"Scafidi's calculations were based on the assumption that households headed by a single female have relatively high poverty rates, leading to higher spending on welfare, health care, criminal justice and education for those raised in the disadvantaged homes."

So...this data was a result of your "assumption" that all households headed by a single female lead to those unfortunate results?

"While the study doesn't offer formal recommendations, it does suggest that state and federal lawmakers consider investing more money in programs intended to bolster marriages."

Hmm...so, you don't offer a solution that's viable or egalitarian, but you think the U.S. should pour money into the cause?

"Texas last year earmarked about $15 million in federal funds for marriage education."

Whoa. You know, the nonprofit I worked for last year had an annual operating budget of less than $300,000. This year, it won't be offering summer school due to budget cuts in the local public school district. $15 million could sure help that little place out, as well as the school district. Heck, it could fund, like, libraries and stuff. Or be used to better those failing social service programs.

"'Because of the very large taxpayer costs associated with high rates of divorce and unwed childbearing, and the modest price tags associated with most marriage-strengthening initiatives ... programs even with very modest success rates will be cost-effective,' the study says."

This is a blatant and expensive "look, there's Elvis!" attempt to account for debt, a diving dollar and a devious administration that squanders the amount of money stated here as being lost annually to divorce and single parenting ($112 billion) more than twice a year to fund the war in Iraq (AFSC, see this article). It is an ignorant, sexist, simplistic and poorly justified attempt to explain away the cataclysmic problems of institutionalized racism and sexism and privilege innate in this country's operations. Marriage will solve these problems? Marriage will get kids off the streets and out of jails, will pay the bills and alleviate the need for social services?

Did the authors ever think that our society's deeply founded push for marriage may exacerbate these problems? That the innate hypocrisy within the predominant Christian-based laws of this colonized country may push people who aren't ready for marriage into the institution, either for the tax benefits, or to satisfy their familys' indoctrinated religious beliefs, or to avoid the scrutiny American society points at unwed, child-bearing couples? And that perhaps that societal and legal push may increase the instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, poverty and the need for social services?

My sister used to attend bible camp with her childhood friend so as to provide a voice for the moral atheist on creation and sin. Perhaps I, the bastard child of a couple who spent 18 years together, currently attending graduate school with the aim of working for oppressed communities who have been stripped of a voice and basic rights in this society, will sit in on some of these marriage counseling sessions. Please. Tell me again how the absence of a marriage license between my parents cost taxpayers "a ton of money," and "is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators."

To whom it may concern:

I sent this same message a couple months back, and will continue sending it every time I have the following experience purchasing a new ink cartridge.

I was very happy several years ago to find that HP was including with all its ink cartridges an envelope with pre-paid postage that customers could use to send back their cartridges (ostensibly, so that they can be recycled).

However, I was dismayed when opening my black HP 94 ink cartridge today.

First, I had to cut through an immensely tough plastic casing - perhaps so CVS can ensure the least loss of products.

Inside that plastic casing is the cardboard container that can be hung up on display racks.

Inside that cardboard container, I discover that only half of the cardboard case is taken up with the product - the rest is completely empty.

Now I come to a plastic/foil wrapper, which contains the actual ink cartridge. This is not recyclable, and must be thrown away.

Inside that foil wrapper, the cartridge is encased in a piece of supportive cardboard.

Finally, I am to the ink cartridge. All that stands between me and black ink is a plastic tab that must be taken off and thrown away - it is not recyclable.

Now it's time to recycle my old cartridge. First I need to separate the return envelope from a highly-processed piece of paper advertising MORE HP products.

Finally, I must remove the mail-back envelope from its plastic wrap, which must be thrown away because it is not recyclable.

At last, I can send back my old cartridge (regardless of what happens after it disappears into the mailbox) so as to minimalize the immense amount of environmental guilt I'm feeling now.

HP: If you're really interested in environmental protection, cut down on the amount of materials you use to encase your products. I will remain a happy and faithful customer, as will many others.

Thank you,

-Elizabeth