Yes, women have not been as prolific at science as men, but the answers are quite obvious. a) Women have not been allowed to do anything besides hometending for millenia, and even when they were allowed, societal pressures (and the fact that parents buy them dolls, and sons Legos as kids) prevent most of them from developing an interest in technology and science.

Also, the invention bit is bogus, because generalizations are completely irrelevant in this field. In fact, it is the outliers, and not the average person, who are the ones that end up inventing things. The inventors are almost always the exception, rather than the norm, and so the fact that "most women" may be of a certain type does not mean that the exceptional women would have been any less capable of invention, than the exceptional man.

Iraq is to WMD's as Iran is to _____ ?

Ans: Al Qaeda

Kristol says in today's NYTimes that the real question is "Why did Obama stay with his church for 20 years"? I could not understand the controversy behind this, until I finally realized, it is a direct result of the mindset of people who just cannot respect those who disagree with them. They fail to recognize that just because Obama found Wright comforting in certain roles (as someone who explained the Christian faith to him) does not mean he had to accept his every view, including those on race, America and ways to govern.

However, the press can still call you wrong on your claim that "there were serious foreign policy experts who objected to the war". The reason is that according to the press a "serious foreign policy expert" is one who agrees to the necessity of the Iraq war, so all those who disagreed with waging the war are by definition not "serious foreign policy experts".

When the Republicans have been spending record amounts of money in the past 7-8 years, I am sure being the brilliant economists that they are, they understand they have to pay it from somewhere. Either they charge American citizens more for this, or they borrow it from others. Republicans have been borrowing from others. Its not like Americans are getting away without paying, but instead they are passing on the burden to the next generation, who will have to pay back that money + the interest that is accumulating. Either way, taxes will be raised at some point, and the only question is when. Alternatively, they could go the Bill Clinton route, and simply balance the budget thereby stabilizing taxes, and not increasing the debt burden for future generations of Americans.

Tom Shales at the Washington Post has this interesting article on the PA debate where he points out how the media never covers the "issues", and then blames everyone else for it. Unfortunately, he lays this blame solely on network TV, without including his own newspaper in it. Either way, its good to see some sort of realization. I think your book might already be influencing our media pundits, Glenn!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html

I think one major difference between Obama and any other Democratic contender in the last decade is that his campaign is responding forcefully to the slightest slight, or evidence of bias they see. Of course, some complain (like Bill Clinton, whom I greatly admire) that politics is a "contact sport" and he needs to get used to this. Unfortunately, the last 2 Presidential elections, Democrats did exactly this. They just accepted it as part of the political process and barely protested it.

Obama, on the other hand is coming out and saying that its ridiculous, and shows contempt for the voters, who would rather discuss more important issues, like the economy and Iraq. This strategy seems to be working (at least a lot better than the other "ignore and accept") strategy was. I know some (including me) are disappointed that his campaign appears so "sensitive", but the fact is, a strong offensive is the only way to combat these petty "character issues" the media raises.

Also, while I have not read your book yet, Glenn, it seems from your blog posts and other excerpts that this is indeed exactly what you are arguing too in it....

Why is it that the press in every country besides the US found the reasons and evidence for waging the war laughable at best? And I am not only talking about the "crazy kooks" out in the middle east, but also press from the entire European continent (Freedom fries anyone?) and America's best (and now, thanks to W, probably only, if even!) ally England?

Or maybe, only American "journalists" are true professionals...

Lies are bad and evil (and impeachment worthy) when they result in a minor extramarital affair.

Lies are okay if they result in the deaths of several thousand americans (more than those killed on 9/11), several hundred thousand iraqis, a nation in disrepair, loss of prestige of what used to be the beacon of democracy, drainage of billions of dollars down middle eastern sheikh's black hole like swiss accounts, etc...

Proportionality indeed...

He is letting the Democratic party's leadership run his campaign, rather than going by his guts and instincts. Al Gore did the same thing and suffered greatly.

We are going to witness 2000 again. All this energy being spent trying to gain a little favor with the Republican base, which will be scuttled the moment the McCain campaign releases a BS Swift Boat style ad. At the same time, the excited Democratic base, will keep getting more and more demoralized and not turn out to vote.