We disagree about the history of science. I believe historians have oversold a myth of great men. You don't. Whatever. Continue to worship your idols. I probably worship a few that you think are false, too.

Of course, the GI Bill had a profound affect on society. And so did the ideal that women should stay home and take care of their men. The cause of the trend that I noted was clearly societal and not any innate difference in the sexes. That's exactly my point.

Regarding the efforts to recruit women to science, I believe they have "failed" because they have not addressed the realities of modern life. The model for research as conducted today was basically formulated in the post-war years we were just discussing and depends greatly upon a society wherein men trot off to 12 hour work days and women stay home. Neither of the sexes should put up with this crap in modern times.

Finally, what an utter crock to claim that women dominate the humanities. The number of women receiving PhDs in the humanities for 1995-1990 was 48.5 percent. And that's an all-time high. You would do well to stop clinging to myths and start looking at reality.

Jack Welch is an old dude who will die soon.

I do hope that the next phase of history brings us to the point where we view this as a human issue that is not confined to one sex.

I'm also reminded of a Dilbert cartoon where one of his co-workers logged hundreds of hours simply because she was such an awful employee who could accomplish nothing in a normal work week. Do management metrics recognize productivity over presence? If not, then that's bad management, something I'm sure Jack Welch would never endorse.

In my experience, upper management is not particularly sophisticated at recognizing the productivity of individuals. They treat workers as replaceable "resources" (and are correct "on average," which is all that is necessary). They love quantitative analysis that involves integers, especially small ones that can be rendered as colors. Anything else just won't fit in a business school model. And when you're gettin' rich, why change the model?

Angela's Ashes is one of the greatest books ever written. I would force every man, woman, and child to read it if I could.

But I disagree that it "rings with unresolved bitterness." I think one of the hallmarks of the story is that McCourt moved past what would have been very justified bitterness, accepted that a rotten childhood was his history, and, most of all, remade himself in America.

Heck, even if every word of Crowley's report is accurate, Gates was arrested for yelling. In his own yard. Yelling. The dude was arrested for yelling. How can a cop arrest someone for yelling and have the approval of his superiors? He wasted time and money arresting someone for yelling. OMG.

I take your point seriously and I am working on putting it together with the one made today by Gregory Rodriguez (LA Times). Rodriguez argues that this is a natural consequence of democracy, where everyone is taught that his opinion matters and has equal weight with the opinions of others.

The trouble is that not everyone's understanding of the healthcare situation is equal. In fact, I would argue that very few of us on either side have a deep and meaningful understanding of it. Yet people on both sides are shouting that they know the answer. (OK, I'll grant you that the righties started shouting first.) I can't stomach either side at this point.

So the question for me is where are the experts and in whom should I put my trust? And the problem I keep looping back to that none of the so-called experts is raising the level of this debate.

Whenever someone wants to discuss healthcare with my (elderly) father, he forces them to answer the question: is healthcare a privilege or a right? You'd be surprised how many people don't want to answer this question, but still want to debate healthcare. My father refuses to debate the issue with anyone who refuses to answer the question. Our "experts" should be doing the same.

Too many people want to have the healthcare debate without making the ethics clear. Of course, we have economic limits, but how can we move forward with economic goals when we apparently don't even agree on what the fundamental, driving principals are? I want to debate the ethics first.

Who gets coverage and why? Is it ethical that doctors make money per procedure? Is it ethical that they own the pharmacies, labs, and hospitals where they send us for care? Is it ethical that insurers are "for profit"? Is it ethical that coverage is tied to employment? Is it ethical that research academics are financed by drug companies?

I personally believe that greater ethics in the system would help control costs. Greed is driving costs up. We need to regulate greed out of the system.

(My brother offers a great alternative for driving costs down: pay for med school for anyone who wants to go and then help them purchase equipment when they graduate. Flood the market with competition. I give him kuddos on that proposal.)

The mass migration away from the moronic "mainstream" media can continue apace. Good news.

Isn't this standard operating procedure for lots of construction projects around the world? The Chinese workers are not just temporary workers, they are temporary workers who will almost certainly not wish to stay when this one particular job is done. And even the "unskilled" workers on the site have one key skill: they speak the same language as the skilled workers.

Yes, the media should exercise greater restraint in these situations. Unfortunately, using restraint is not a good way to make money. The media want money not respect, now more than ever.

One does wonder how much of this is due to the Chinese stimulus package and therefore transient? Is this a cash-for-clunkers type effect?