There is no difference between the issues in Iraq and those facing the economy--eventually they were bound to become the same.

Our "war of choice" now conflicts seriously with our vital necessities. You cannot throw $70 billion per year down a hole with NO RETURN on investment for years on end; the foregone result will be to bankrupt the nation, or a massive tax drain, or a total cessation of government services when the interest payments hijack our ability to make the payments. Louis XVI found out the hard way what happens when you combine foreign wars of choice, tax breaks for the rich and increasing hardship for the common people; you get an empty treasury competing with empty stomachs, and we know who wins.

Rising Iraq costs translate into rising property tax rates due to reduced federal outlays to our states/cities. Instability due to our foreign policies incite violence and diplomatic problems, raising the price of oil and gas at home.

So the next time I hear ANY candidate talk about ten or a hundred years in Iraq, I'll be sure to ask them: So, you're advocating we throw away about $100 billion per year, adding it to our debt, forever? Thank you for telling me whom NOT to vote for.

The premise of the article has nothing to do with whether men are smarter than women or vice versa. Weldon is simply arguing that our brains work differently, regarding technological development, something painfully obvious to both casual and scientifc observers.

Test after test performed on children demonstrates that boys on average score higher on spatial concepts than girls, for example, which correlates directly in architecture, construction, engineering, surveying, metallurgy and so on. Are there exceptions? Absolutely, but they are much fewer than the men who have aptitude in these fields, just as the percentage of men who can decorate a home or wardrobe appealingly is much less.

The fact is, without each other, neither men nor women would have gotten out of the Stone Age. It is foolish to think otherwise, just as foolish to think our brains are interchangeable.

As someone who's been married for 15 years to a civil engineer/hottie, I won't argue that the numbers of female engineers are growing. BUT your point about society restricting female access to education tends to support Weldon's assertion, not necessarily because of actual aptitude, but due to social pressures cause by the fact that the majority of women are not skilled in these areas. For example, my wife is very good at what she does, but her 80-year old mom thought engineering school was a waste at first, telling her she would be good as a secretary--because that's what women did. Never mind the fact that my wife was a straight A student, graduated 4th in her class of 386, and received a four year scholarship to UMass engineering.

But social pressures come from somewhere. For example, most men, by and large, are poor dancers with limited grace. (Do I need to defend this assertion? Have you been to a wedding lately?) Those who are gifted and interested in dance are few, and many of them are gay. So, when sons tell their fathers they want to be ballet dancers when they grow up, they generally get far worse reception than if Junior says he's interested in carpentry or diesel mechanics--those are "manly" interests that, in popular culture, do not imply a negatively-viewed sexuality.

Women and men are conditioned, and were throughout the ages, to pursue certain roles because the majority of their peers' minds work that way. You cannot explain the division of labor without factoring in what men and women were perceived to be good at.

from people who know nothing about Europe. In fact, my guess is that as soon as they learned the source of that advice, most Euros dismissed it out of hand. To them we are (at large) a society of willfully ignorant, militaristic, religiously medieval bumpkins who gleefully spend billions on fighter planes but not a dime on a health system designed to benefit all. They like us--to a point--but they have no use for political or moral advice from this side of the Atlantic.

I will say one thing in particular about your thesis regarding discrimination against immigrants in Europe: most wouldn't care what an immigrant thinks about their social promotions, or who feels left out. Their cradle-to-grave system, arguably the most generous in the world, comes at a steep price. Immigrants move to the EU to take advantage of that, and once their children are born there they are automatically citizens with all the rights and privileges. That means, of course, full disability, welfare dole, national health, paid maternity leave (guaranteed), old age pension, steeply discounted/free university, etc. etc. Given all that, a person could emigrate from Africa or Asia and potentially live a much higher standard than before, do little work, and contribute nothing back to society, becoming a drain. I don't think I'd call them out for deciding who is eligible to receive free money.

After all, every immigrant chose to live there; as an Italian friend of mine put it, there hasn't been an African or Asian forced to live in Rome against their will since the Coliseum featured matinee lion shows.