July 8, 2010

Foundation

Until I started idly blogging about the long term future yesterday, I hadn't been aware of the existence of the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute. The JPPPI is an offshoot of the Jewish Agency for Israel, the famous quasi-Israeli governmental body currently headed by Natan Sharansky (author of a favorite book of George W. Bush: The Case for Democracy).

The JPPPI does some interesting Hari Seldonish long term planning work focused upon demography, the kind of analysis that is badly out of fashion in U.S. mainstream media circles. (In general, analysis coming out of Israel tends to be more interesting than what is published in America.) For example, there is the JPPPI's 2010 book 2030: Alternative Futures for the Jewish People, which does not appear to have been mentioned yet in the American mainstream media, although it has received attention in America's Jewish press.

Although there's no explicit mention of Isaac Asimov's famous Foundation series, 2030's Preface by Avinoam Bar-Yosef, founding director of JPPI, states:
Nations and large organizations in many places around the globe plan strategically decades ahead, but this is the first time that such a project focuses on a people and civilization. ...

When looking back in time, it seems that some of the best futurists 100 years ago were writers of science-fiction. This perception was the basis for enrolling in this effort to promote the Jewish future some of the best creative minds of the Jewish People today in a series of brainstorming meetings that began at the Wye River Conference Center in 2005-2006 and continued in Jerusalem in 2007-2008. These brainstorming exercises never exceeded groups of more than 20 participants, and included academics, writers, professionals and lay leaders known for dedicating their time to thinking and planning for a better world.

"Brainstorming" participants credited in 2030 included Elliott Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, Stuart Eizenstat, Abe Foxman, Todd Gitlin, Henry Kissinger, Charles Krauthammer, Edward Luttwak, Dennis Ross, William Safire, Natan Sharansky, and Lawrence Summers, plus a whole bunch of Israelis. This book does not appear to have been mentioned in the U.S. mainstream media yet.

Who runs the JPPPI? From the JPPPI's website:
Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat has been appointed Chairman of the Board of Directors... He replaces Ambassador Dennis Ross who resigned the position last January when he was appointed to a senior position in the Obama Administration. 

Ross is an interesting personage. From Wikipedia:
Dennis B. Ross (born November 26, 1948) is an American diplomat and author. He has served as the Director of Policy Planning in the State Department under President George H. W. Bush, the special Middle East coordinator under President Bill Clinton, and is currently a special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia (which includes Iran) to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Ross was born in San Francisco and grew up in Marin County. His Jewish mother and Catholic stepfather raised him in a non-religious atmosphere.[2]... He later became religiously Jewish after the Six Day War.[2] In 2002 he co-founded the Kol Shalom synagogue in Rockville, Maryland.[2]

During President Jimmy Carter's administration, Ross worked under Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the Pentagon. There, he co-authored a study recommending greater U.S. intervention in "the Persian Gulf Region because of our need for Persian Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."[4] During the Reagan administration, Ross served as director of Near East and South Asian affairs in the National Security Council and Deputy Director of the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment (1982–84).[3]

... In the mid-1980s Ross co-founded with Martin Indyk the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-sponsored Washington Institute for Near East Policy ("WINEP").[5] His first WINEP paper called for appointment of a "non-Arabist Special Middle East envoy" who would "not feel guilty about our relationship with Israel." ... He also worked with Secretary of State James Baker on convincing Arab and Israeli leaders to attend the 1991 Middle East peace conference in Madrid, Spain.

In the summer of 1993 President Bill Clinton named Ross Middle East envoy.... According to Aaron David Miller, a member of the Ross-led US negotiating team in 1999-2000, under Ross they frequently acted as "Israel's lawyer", and their policy of "no surprises" (meaning all US proposals were first reviewed by Israel), led to a lack of negotiating flexibility and independence.

Eizenstat has also been a busy boy. From Wikipedia:
From 1977 to 1981, he was President Jimmy Carter’s Chief Domestic Policy Adviser, and Executive Director of the White House Domestic Policy Staff. He was President Bill Clinton's Deputy Secretary of the Treasury (1999-2001)...

He has served as the U.S. ambassador to the European Union from 1993 to 1996 and as co-chairman of the European-American Business Council (EABC).... In 2008, the Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat Distinguished Professorship in Jewish history and culture was endowed in Eizenstat's honor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Ambassador Eizenstat was also the Clinton Administration's Special Representative of the President and Secretary of State on Holocaust-Era Issues.

On the other hand, the next three people on the JPPPI's masthead are Maj. General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, "one of the world's leading experts in the field of security, military and intelligence," which I bet he is (he is a former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Directorate); Mr. Avinoam Bar-Yosef, founding director of the JPPPI; and Ms. Ita Alcalay, formerly of the Finance Ministry.

So, the JPPPI is essentially the demographic trends R and D arm of the Israeli government, although it is traditionally headed by Washington powerbrokers in-between their White House posts.

2030: Alternative Futures for the Jewish People looks like a very interesting book. Here's an excerpt from 2030, with some interesting bits put into bold:
Jewish Momentum - Internal:
• Jewish demography: A negative balance of Jewish births and deaths now prevails in most Jewish communities worldwide with the prominent exception of Israel. Across the Jewish Diaspora, more frequent choosing of marriage partners from outside the Jewish community is associated with growing percentages of children not raised Jewishly. The consequent erosion of the younger generation has produced a steady process of Jewish population aging, leading in turn to higher death rates and population decrease. Further major consequences of ongoing familial and cultural changes include the blurring of Jewish identification boundaries and the growing complexities in defining the Jewish collective. In Israel, Jewish population grows naturally but the demographic balance between Jews and non-Jews produces a problematic equation critically linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The location of Jews on the world map largely reflects the ranking of countries by the Index of Human Development. Over 90% of world Jewry now lives in the top 20% of more developed countries - that is in North America, West Europe and Israel. The two major Jewish population centers in the United States and Israel now jointly comprise some 80% of world Jewry.

• Jewish identity: The overall trend in Jewish identification is towards more diverse and pluralistic forms of Jewish identification less focused on a common set of basic values. There is a shift in identification from religious to secular, from ethnic to cultural, from community-oriented to individualistic and universal. Global norms about identity, individual choice, communal expression and religious freedom are making it more acceptable to choose one’s religious or non-religious and community identity. Jewish identity is increasingly about choice and the personal quest for meaning, especially among the younger generation. Outside Israel, within the overall growing diversity and plurality, the course of Jewish identification seems to be towards increased polarity between those clearly identified and those totally unidentified as Jews, with a large segment falling in between.

• Jewish hard and soft power and influence: The Jewish People has never been as powerful as now, including the military power and global standing of Israel, the soft power implied in the idea of “The Jewish Century[this is a reference to historian Yuri Slezkine's 2004 book that was well-reviewed in the Jewish press but largely ignored in the mainstream media] - however exaggerated - and the political and economic power and influence of the American Jewish community and, to a lesser degree, other Jewish communities. However, power has to be evaluated in terms of relative or “net” power, which means the power of the Jewish People in comparison to the dangers, threats and challenges it faces. Outside of Israel the Jewish People faces almost no physical danger, while Israel is still subject to existential threats. Israel is still confronted by enemies determined to destroy it, and is subjected to the intense anti-Israelism of a variety of groups, including some in Western countries.

• Israel-Diaspora relations: The overall trend in the relations between Jews in Israel and the Diaspora is for the younger generation both in Israel and the Diaspora to be less and less interested in the fate of their fellow Jews overseas. Relations between Israel and the Jewish People in the Diaspora are strong at present, but are likely to face decline. The younger generation in the Diaspora is distanced from the dramatic historical events that accompanied the establishment of the State of Israel. The younger generation is more likely to be exposed to negative views of Israel and its policies, and has almost no experience of identification with Israel as a source of pride. It is less concerned about Israel and its future and has less of an emotional attachment to the country.

• Jewish economics: The Jewish People today is at a historical zenith of wealth creation. With the vast majority of Jews living in countries that are among the world’s wealthiest, and with the majority of those Jews belonging to middle and upper socio-economic strata in those countries (excluding Israel) the Jewish People as a whole enjoys access to wealth as never before. There is more money per capita in Jewish hands, absolutely and perhaps even relatively, than anytime in history. Within Israel, the accumulation of wealth by Jews is much more dependent on the economic and social policies of the government (or lack thereof), within general global economic and local security contexts. The expected trend for Israel is a slightly better performance than the growth rates for most developed countries, mostly due to improved policy, especially with respect to encouraging higher rates of employment participation and fighting poverty through employment. With respect to the distribution of wealth and its allocation to Jewish causes, there is insufficient data and the evidence is mostly anecdotal. It appears that outside Israel philanthropic giving directed to Jewish causes is only a very small share of overall Jewish philanthropic giving, but the increase in wealth may mean that in absolute terms there are more funds available today for Jewish causes than there has been in the past. A critical juncture will come as the current older generation of committed, involved and wealthy Jews makes estate planning decisions about the disposition of their wealth. While the recent economic crisis has had immediate and specific impacts on Jewish wealth and philanthropic giving, it has appeared to not yet substantially transform the underlying conditions and long-term trends of Jewish economics. 

• Leadership: The Jewish People is facing a serious paucity of high quality leadership - spiritual, political and organizational - with no clear trend of improvement. Current leadership, both in Israel and in Jewish institutions, with few individual exceptions, appears to lack the capacity to meet the challenges facing the Jewish People and a deep understanding of changing realities and new ideas for coping with them that are able to assure, as much as possible, the long-term sustainable thriving of Jewish communities around the world and the thriving of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, which add up synergistically to the thriving of the Jewish People as a whole. Jewish leadership positions in Israel and in other Jewish communities do not attract the best and brightest - with some notable exceptions. Efforts to attract and prepare the best and the brightest for leadership are inadequate, and despite some beginnings, including on the Jewish civic society level, the entry of younger persons into leadership positions is very slow. There is also a very pronounced lack of spiritual leaders acceptable as such by major parts of the Jewish People.   

The rise of China and India: Is it good for the Jews?

My noodling below on global grand strategy for a year 2100 in which China and India contend for world dominance suggested that the Jewish community could play a key role in tipping the advantage toward one or the other. A reader kindly points out that the implications for the global Jewish community of the rise of China and India relative to America is a topic already on the mind of influential Jewish leaders, sensibly enough. From a very interesting article:
"Questions of survival"
By Shmuel Rosner
Haaretz [A leading Israeli newspaper]
June 26, 2006

WASHINGTON - The following disparity tells us more about human nature than about the future of the Jewish world: The executive branch - the heads of the large Jewish organizations, on the whole - are optimistic and believe Judaism has a glowing future, while the intellectuals and thinkers are much more pessimistic and insist on mentioning the pitfalls and obstacles the coming years hold in store. ...

Two groups of Jews gathered together last weekend at Wye Plantation, Maryland for a long discussion on the situation of the Jewish people. The first group, which met Wednesday and Thursday, consisted of the heads of 15 Jewish organizations such as the Presidents' Conference, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Anti-Defamation League, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the American Jewish Committee and others. In the second group were the "thinkers," as the organizers termed them: Natan Sharansky from Israel, Charles Krauthammer from The Washington Post, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler, former Jewish Agency head Sallai Meridor and many others.

The Institute for Policy Planning of the Jewish People had organized this gathering. It had a somewhat ambitious aim - a strategic debate about the future of the Jewish people. ...


Their conclusions, in brief: The future is unclear. And in greater detail: There are many risks, and it is time to roll up our sleeves. The institute and its heads - Dennis Ross, Prof. Yehezkel Dror, Avi Gil, Avinoam Bar-Yosef - are already doing their homework.



One of the papers that was prepared in advance and presented to the participants in the conferences was that written by Dr. Shalom Wald. He chose 14 well-known historians, from Thucydides to Gibbon, Spangler, Toynbee and Kennedy, and examined their theories concerning the circumstances in which civilizations flourish or collapse. Then he tried to examine how these theories can be applied to the context of the Jewish people.



Several of his conclusions provoked disagreement. For example: "Getting all Jews into the same shape and country, even if it is Israel, as recently advocated by an Israeli [writer, A.B. Yehoshua - S.R.] is not the best survival strategy." Some of the Israeli participants did not like that idea. Granting official legitimacy to the Diaspora would be a mistake, Meridor said, according to some of those who participated. That would be the end of Zionism as we know it.



The fear expressed that "a real decline of the West, particularly the United States, would have dramatic consequences for the Jewish people," also led to controversy. Brandeis University president Jehuda Reinharz agreed that this type of decline can be expected "in the coming two decades" - but Stuart Eisenstadt was less emphatic about it. He believes the United States will remain the leading power. In all events, it was agreed the Jews "should strengthen cultural links with non-Western civilizations, particularly China and also India," powers that are on the ascent. This is not a question of preference or closeness; it is a question of survival, of readiness for the future. How should this be done? That will have to be the topic of discussion in the next gatherings already being planned.
[Emphasis mine.]


Abraham Foxman of the ADL says he came to the conference full of skepticism but left satisfied at its conclusion. ... It is the first time the heads of Jewish organizations have sat down round the same table and sought ways to cooperate, pushing aside the competition, suspicions and sometimes even latent hostility....



However, on the substance of the agreement to "work together" there are various opinions. Some of the participants believe it was agreed that a mechanism would be set up for "joint work in the future" while others told Haaretz that "not too much came out of it." Nevertheless, they managed to define aims and goals. First and foremost - investing in education for the young generation. The philanthropist Michael Steinhardt put great emphasis on this point, as well as on "lowering the price of Jewish life" in America. This means lowering the price of access to synagogues, Jewish schools, cultural centers and other activities.



Last year the institute held similar strategic conferences, but with slightly different participants. Then, too, in general, agreement was reached on more than a few topics. For example, that it was necessary to draw those on the fringes of Jewish civilization inward. This year, at the opening of the meeting, Bar-Yosef, the institute's director, presented a general report on the situation of the Jewish people. One sentence from that survey can sum up the results of that agreement better than any other - "The Jewish people: worldwide zero growth."



The better-known historians mentioned in Wald's review, particularly the earlier ones, also agreed for the most part that "the Jews will survive as a people and civilization." But there was nevertheless one who dissented - Oswald Spangler. What kept the Jews together as a people, he stated, was "magic consensus" but, he added, this is vanishing with the years. The Jews of the Western world have assimilated into general Western culture and will disappear with it. The Jews will disappear from a historical perspective; that is inevitable, he said.



There were several interesting arguments. One was over whether the Jews of America have to worry about the social welfare of the Jews of Israel. The Americans said yes - "All Jews are responsible for one another." The Israelis said no way; leave the social problems in Israel for us to deal with. Yisrael Maimon, the government representative, proposed a partnership with the Americans in technology, education, "brain investments." But the improvement of the lot of the poor, he said, must be left to the Israeli government.



Prof. Dror also stressed the importance of investing in improving the situation of education in Israel. One of the central aims he presented was "to develop Israel into a learning-knowledge society." Those present discussed the level of the universities in Israel and some of them even proposed the level of at least one of these institutions be raised sufficiently to attract students from abroad in higher numbers.



...
The Jewish schools in America are currently undergoing renewed popularity. An almost 30 percent growth in the number of those registering - but those, as Bar-Yosef pointed out, are "mostly those who are already affiliated." The schools have to become a center of attraction for others as well.


What it takes

Here's that fine Bruce Sokolove article from four weeks ago in the NY Times magazine, "How a Soccer Star Is Made" on how Amsterdam's Ajax club trains seven-year-olds to be sold off to be eventually sold off to Chelsea and Real Madrid in the bigger leagues. The Netherlands have made three of the last ten World Cup finals despite a modest (although hardly tiny) population.

The inefficient American system of creating soccer players (play a lot of games, try to get a college scholarship) sounds both feckless and pretty nice, compared to this high efficiency Dutch machine of nature and nurture:
It is not unusual for players at De Toekomst to come from middle- or even upper-middle-class backgrounds, and virtually none come from poverty in a nation where the standard of living is high and literacy is 99 percent. The demographics are not much different from the soccer-playing population in the United States, where most players still come from suburban comfort. In the Netherlands, though, youth players may end up with less education than their parents in order to pursue professional soccer careers, starting with a less-demanding high-school curriculum than they otherwise might take. 

... [Dylan] said he guessed that probably only two or three of the boys he began with when he was 7 would have pro careers in their sport. “I would feel very bad if I’m not one of them,” he said. “I have tried everything I can do to make it. I haven’t done as much in school as I could. I would feel like I’ve been wasting my time all these years. I would get very depressed.”

I asked if some of what he learned at Ajax — focus, perseverance, the ability to perform under pressure — might benefit him no matter what he ends up doing. “No,” he said, shaking his head. “We’re training for football, not for anything else.”

Currently, the U.S. usually is in the top 16 teams in the World Cup. That's not bad. Not great, but not bad. I personally don't care who wins the World Cup. It comes around every four years and it's like the entire history of warfare re-enacted with only a few hooligans getting killed. Spain v. Holland? That sounds like the Eighty Years War of 1568-1648... but for the next four years, I won't care at all. The World Cup is like short track speed skating in the Winter Olympics, only more tedious to actually watch. (Has a more entertaining sport than short track emerged recently?)

I know a high school parent whose daughter is deciding between a soccer scholarship to U. of North Carolina or to Williams. For her, life is good. Soccer in the U.S. is largely a sport of the upper middle class, by the upper middle class, and for the upper middle class. 

What I think is too bad is the Burkean organic relationship between soccer teams and their fans is being eroded, the kind that we only rarely saw in the U.S., like Larry Bird playing high school and college ball in the same John Cougar Mellencampy small town. 

It used to be that kids would start with their local soccer club like Ajax and stay there and play professionally against other Dutch soccer clubs. But now their best players get sold off to the big money leagues in bigger countries, and only reassembled for national teams.

The Mid-Year iSteve Panhandling Drive

I've got some good content below, but, first ... it's been half a year since the panhandling drive in January, so it's time for me to rattle the tin cup again. I've got some big checks to write over the next couple of months. (Any advice would be appreciated on best ways to buy a used car and how to get the most for my less-than-pristine 1998 Accord.)

It drives the bastards crazy that I can eke out a career on the generosity of my readers writing whatever I think is true, interesting, new, and important. So, you're not just giving me money, your frustrating a lot of people who deserve frustration.

There are, at the moment, three ways to give me money.

You can make tax deductible credit card contributions to me here (then, under "Steve Sailer Project Option" click on the "Make a Donation" button); or fax credit card details here (please put "Steve Sailer Project" on the fax); or you can snail mail checks made out to "VDARE Foundation" and marked on the memo line (lower left corner) “Steve Sailer” to:

VDARE Foundation
P.O. Box 211
Litchfield, CT 06759

Second: You can send me an email and I'll send you my P.O. Box address.

Third: You can use Paypal to send me money directly, either by just using any credit card or if you have a specific Paypal account.

Or, if that link doesn't work, just click on the Paypal "Donate" button on the top of column to the right. (I have no idea why these links stop working. It's very frustrating.)

If you want to use your credit card, click "Continue" on the lower center-left to fill in your credit card info. If you have a Paypal account fill in your Paypal ID and password on the lower right of the screen.

I'll try to get the Amazon donation link working in a day or two, but, in the past, Amazon has been limited to $50 (hint, hint) and tends to stop working as soon as I've collected more than a pittance.

Thanks. I appreciate it, deeply.
 

July 7, 2010

Global Grand Strategy for 2100

This seemingly silly little incident of Joel Stein being forced to apologize for admitting to not liking Indian immigrants taking over his hometown reminded me that I've long sensed that the chief long term competitors (say, by 2100) in America for Jews will be Indians. A commenter had the same thought:
"Even if only 5% of Indians have the goods to be as successful as the American Asian Indian community (IQ and all) that still makes it more than 50 million plus. That is far higher than the entire Jewish population of the world. I think the Jewish lobby will have to give way to the upcoming Indian lobby as the most powerful in the land. Indians will eventually take over other areas of Jewish dominance too."

This becomes even more interesting when you look at the implications for global dominance. 

Since the end of the Cold War, the world has been dominated by the United States, or, more broadly, by the Anglosphere led by the U.S., or, most broadly, by the North Atlanticists (Anglosphere plus EU) more or less led by the U.S. 

There are, however, two gigastates, China and India, both of which are considerably more important economically than they were two decades ago. Both have been content to let the U.S. spend a fortune on military power while they build their strength. Why play the Great Game when you can sit it out? Let the rich, foolish Americans blunder around in Afghanistan and the like.

But, men play the Great Game not because it makes sense but because they like to win. So, it's unlikely that China and India will sit out the Great Game for the rest of the century. Let's assume that China and India eventually decide to play for dominance of the world.

If it can keep from falling apart, China, whose GDP is already well over half the U.S.'s, will surpass the U.S. economically in a fairly short period. India is a little under half of the GDP of China, so it would appear to have a tougher road ahead of it in the eventual struggle for world dominance with China. Moreover, China clearly has a stronger sense of national unity than India, which is riven by caste, religion, and a lack of a unified history.

But the Great Game is much more interesting than a simple, boring struggle for the largest GDP. 

The American colonies had a smaller GDP than the mother country during the American Revolution, for example, but Ben Franklin talked the French government into bankrupting itself for American independence. (He was quite the charmer.) In WWI, Germany, despite having tens of millions of German farmers and engineers in America, did not charm America, and thus lost. Israel, to cite a more recent example, has done quite well for itself strategically despite a limited GDP and being up against Arabs and their oil money.

So, the obvious card to play in the coming China vs. India global struggle is for influence and control over the fading Anglo-Euro world, especially because Anglos don't like to think about themselves being played.

When looked at from this perspective, India's chances against China in 2100 don't look so awful. Indians are better at learning English, and better at marketing ideas in English than Chinese. (One American marketing consultant in China has said that to Chinese factory owners, "marketing" means shouting "Real cheap! You buy now!")

Let's look at the leading Anglosphere countries and which way they are likely to tip (or be tipped):

Australia: China
Canada: I don't know. It could be close.
Britain: India
America: That's the big question

There are lots of Chinese in America. The Chinese have lots of money and will have even more in the future. Over several generations, the emotional distinctions between China and their neighbors and/or enemies like Vietnam, Korea, and Japan might fade, leaving a unified East Asian v. South Asian division from the perspective of the U.S.

On the other hand, I have a vague sense that the East Asians in America might wind up playing the role of Midwestern German-Americans in early 20th Century America, who were outmaneuvered by Anglophilic Eastern elites.

In this China v. India struggle for influence over America in the second half of the 21st Century, the key question will be which side American Jews come down in favor of. Currently possessing the optimal combination of power (35% of the Forbes 400 and 50% of the Atlantic 50 most influential media pundits), cohesion, and immunity from criticism as a group, they are the key players in a fractured market for power.

Which way will American Jews lean? That's  hard to predict.

It won't solely be a matter of material interest. Much of it will depend upon which Asian superpower best figures out which American Jewish buttons to push to get Jews to feel that healing the world depends upon the U.S. siding with either India or China. 

In this, I would bet on the Indians.

On the other hand, it's exactly the greater similarities between Jews and Indians that might lead Jews to resent Indians as their displacers, and conclude that they would be better off in a Chinese-run world where their skills would be more valuable.

We shall live in interesting times. 

Well, not me, personally. I'm not going to last that long, but somebody reading this will likely make it to 2100.

Joel Stein's Own Private Jesse Jackson

Joel Stein is in trouble with Indians (Asian) for his Time column "My Own Private India" about how he regrets the demographic changes in his Edison, New Jersey hometown since he grew up:
TIME responds: We sincerely regret that any of our readers were upset by Joel Stein’s recent humor column “My Own Private India.” It was in no way intended to cause offense. 
 
Joel Stein responds: I truly feel stomach-sick that I hurt so many people. I was trying to explain how, as someone who believes that immigration has enriched American life and my hometown in particular, I was shocked that I could feel a tiny bit uncomfortable with my changing town when I went to visit it. If we could understand that reaction, we’d be better equipped to debate people on the other side of the immigration issue.

The amusing thing is that Stein already wrote a 2006 column for the LA Times apologizing in advance to Jesse Jackson:
The reverend turns down a preemptive 'I'm sorry' and denies that he's the arbiter of apologies
Joel Stein
December 5, 2006
EVENTUALLY, I'M going to write something horribly offensive. And when I do, it might be several tense hours before I can get Jesse Jackson on the phone in order to apologize to him. So I figured I'd call him now and pre-apologize.

In addition to Michael Richards telling Jackson that he was sorry for his racist tirade at the Laugh Factory, Jackson has accepted apologies from Mexican President Vicente Fox (for saying Mexican immigrants will do jobs that "not even blacks want to do"), the producers of "Barbershop" (for a Rosa Parks joke in the film) and himself (for calling New York "Hymietown").

Needless to say, the new Seinfeld DVD is selling swiftly, Fox served his full term, "Barbershop" had a sequel and New York is still chock full of Jews. A Jackson pardon never fails.

So after putting in a request that I thought Jackson's staff wouldn't take seriously, I was startled when my phone rang two hours later and the reverend was on the other end. I would be absolved, I thought, in two or three minutes.

I was very wrong. When I explained my request, it became clear that this hypothetical offensive thing I might do someday was instead happening right now.

"Why should you be offensive?" Jackson asked, annoyed. "I don't know why you would do that."

Luckily, as I was stammering a response, Jackson smoothly segued into reciting his own agenda. I was not surprised to hear him tell me about America's lack of concern about Katrina victims, the media ignoring Trent Lott's return to party leadership and the dearth of black actors on television ("all day, all night, all white"). I was, however, surprised that it took him nearly four minutes before he mentioned that he worked with Martin Luther King Jr.

A smarter man would have thanked Jackson for his time and gotten off the phone. But as I predicted in the very premise of this project, I am not a smarter man. I asked again if he could slip me an indulgence.

"I don't know why you would insist on continuing to bring this up," he said. Oddly, I was thinking the exact same thing.

I explained that I was interested in finding out how a single person can play judge for damage done to an entire group, and why society needs a figurehead to represent its pain. Then I hoped and prayed that sounded smart.

Jackson said that when Richards called him, "I made it clear that I am not the arbiter of apologies." In fact, he said, "I'm more likely to be called upon to get someone out of a foreign jail than to accept an apology." Between the foreign arrests and the apologies for racist slurs, being a civil rights leader seems a lot like being a parent to rich children.

Then Jackson pointed out that listening to confessions is pretty common for someone in his line of work. "When people are distressed, when people are injured, when people need their cases argued, they tend to call a minister," he explained. "People tend to call someone to give them a listening ear. That's all. At the end of the day, it's about providing a service: to alleviate misery."

My future misery, however, was currently unalleviable. "It would be inappropriate," he finally told me. I am the first person in history to have an apology turned down by Jesse Jackson.

But as ridiculous as it seems to have people apologize to Jackson for things they didn't do to him, and for him to demand apologies for events he wasn't involved in (Outkast for dressing in Native American outfits; the U.S. for crashing a jet in China) — the theatrics do serve a purpose.

Confrontation is a necessary part of contrition. Apologizing in a press release to anyone offended makes sense in theory, but it has no stakes. We need to see human emotions expressed by real humans; our catharsis has to come from leaders playing our parts on stage.

And though Jay Leno, Barbara Walters and Dr. Phil may try, Jackson performs that role best. I know that after I finally got off the phone, my sweaty palms and aching stomach felt like they were taught a moral lesson.

I just hope that people don't find this column so offensive that I'll have to really apologize. Because I'm not sure Jackson would take my call after this. Oh, who am I kidding? Of course he will. 

Meanwhile, the second most-read article on LATimes.com last evening was 
Jewish organizations protest UC president's handling of reports of anti-Semitism
The groups assert that the university's reaction has been too weak. University chief Mark G. Yudof says the groups may be basing their responses on an unreliable sampling of student opinion.
By Larry Gordon, Los Angeles Times
July 7, 2010
The president of the University of California and leaders of a dozen prominent American Jewish organizations are in an unusual public dispute about the extent of anti-Semitism on UC campuses and the university's response to it.

In a letter to UC President Mark G. Yudof, such groups as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the national governing bodies of Conservative and Orthodox Judaism have criticized the university's reaction to anti-Semitic acts on UC campuses as too weak. The letter, sent June 28, cited what it said were increasing incidents of swastika graffiti and anti-Israel speakers who use anti-Semitic language, and alleged that many Jewish UC students feel "an environment of harassment and intimidation." ...

Yudof, who is Jewish and whose wife, Judy, is the former lay president of Conservative Judaism in North America, also wrote that the Jewish groups may have based their concerns on an unreliable sampling of student opinion. Most Jewish UC students' "perspectives are more mixed than you suggest," he wrote.

The UC president said he was disappointed that the letter writers seemed to have dismissed the new UC Advisory Council on Campus Climate, Culture and Inclusion as destined to fail, and he urged them to support its work.

Considering that UC Campuses are typically located in places like La Jolla, Irvine, Westwood, Santa Cruz, and Berkeley, I'd say the the UC "Campus Climate" is pretty dog-gone nice: typically 70s and sunny.

Oh, wait, that's not what the word "climate" means anymore on campus. (Except when it's about "climate change.")
The panel, which met for the first time last week, was created after several controversial incidents over the last school year. Those included an off-campus "Compton Cookout" party by UC San Diego students that mocked Black History Month, and the spray-painting and carving of swastikas at several locations on the UC Davis campus, including the dorm room door of a Jewish student.

Some Jewish leaders have complained that UC administrators seemed to be more upset by the UC San Diego incident than the swastikas. UC officials have denied this.

Okay, so that's what this is all about: competitive aggrievement. The Jewish organizations are mad that the black organizations got more mileage out of their recent UC San Diego hate hoax brouhaha. Well, of course.

Still, the reigning heavyweight title contenders of competitive aggrievement, the blacks and the Jews, should be aware that there's a new Indian kid in town who is ready to rumble.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Is Our Adults Getting Stupider?

See if you can figure out the answer to the mystery posed in the following blog item by Kevin Drum of Mother Jones. Neither Kevin, nor the physics professor he quotes at length, nor Kevin's first 29 commenters can figure it out. Put your solution in my comments below. Kevin blogs:
Is Our Kids Studying? -- Take 2

After I posted a couple of days ago on the subject of whether or not college students are studying less than they used to, I got a long email on the subject from Paul Camp, a physics professor at Spelman University. This is pretty far outside my wheelhouse of expertise, but his take was so interesting that I wanted to repost it here just so that everyone would have a chance to comment on it. Here's what he told me:
I've been engaged in a few conversations about this in the past couple of years. I can offer the following data that correlates with anecdotal evidence from other professors at a variety of institutions.

Since the early 1990's, I have pre and post tested all of my introductory mechanics classes using a research based diagnostic instrument, the Force and Motion Conceptual Evaluation.

My first job out of graduate school was at an unranked tier 4 institution in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Coastal Carolina "University" to be specific. It was the 13th grade. There were a few brilliant students — I've learned that for a variety of reasons you can find exceptional students anywhere — but for the most part the student body was composed of people who were there for financial reasons or because they thought it would be a cool idea to go to school at the beach. The first four pages of our brochure described the beach, not the college. We knew which side our bread was buttered on.

I pretty reliably got 50-60% normalized gains on the FMCE.

Normalized gain is the ratio of how much their scores increased compared to how much they could have increased — (post-pre)/(100-pre). 50-60% is actually pretty stupendous on this particular measure. It means they were typically getting 80-90% of the questions right.

I left that job in a huff. There's a very long story, but the short version is that I was ordered by my dean to give everyone a passing grade and I wouldn't do it. I spent 5.5 years in a research position at Georgia Tech before coming to Spelman.

Spelman is a top 75 liberal arts college, according to US News, and top 10 according to the Washington Monthly. My personal impression of the students is that the average is generally much higher than it was at Coastal. These are students who can think around a few corners. Also, since they are able to cross register in some considerably easier classes at other AUC institutions, I tend to get classes of students who are there because they choose to be there and are therefore more engaged and thoughtful about their efforts.

I think I'm at least as good an instructor as I used to be, and probably a lot better. I know quite a bit more about developmental psychology and cognitive science as a result of my job at Georgia Tech and I think that improves my instruction considerably.

And yet, in a good year I get about 20-30% normalized gains.

I don't really know what is different but something clearly is.

Right now, I'm blaming No Child Left Behind, but that is less because of data than of general suspicion of high stakes testing. In fact, I am also now quite skeptical of pre/post testing (I could send you a research paper on that if you're interested) but not enough that I can account for the difference in the data. ...
I can't really say that this is a correct account. I can say that many faculty I have spoken with have expressed similar observations without me prompting them, but the difference between me and them is that I have data. I know what I used to get at a crappy college with surfer students, and I know what I now get at a top tier college with highly engaged students, and it isn't consistent with ought to be happening, all other things being equal.

So that's my data point. I suppose I could always have had some kind of mental excursion and become a bad teacher without knowing it, but I don't think so and my students don't think so either, and neither do my peers in and out of the physics department. So I'm going to provisionally discount that explanation.

I left Coastal in 1998. I started at Spelman in 2004. You tell me what changed during that time frame.

Class, this mystery has baffled the best minds of Mother Jones magazine. Do you have any ideas how to solve this conundrum? Put them in the comments below.

World Cup Final: Spain v. Netherlands

In the semifinals, Spain beats Germany 1-0 and Netherlands beats Uruguay 3-2 (hey, a good score!).

So much for the LA Times headline: "Germany's World Cup streak may be result of a multicultural team." In reality, Germany did about as good in 2010 as it usually does: semifinalist in 2010, semifinalist in 2006, finalist in 2002, quarterfinalist in 1998 and 1994, champion in 1990, finalist in 1986 and 1982.

The only way I think the American liberal soccerati can spin a Spain v. Netherlands Final as Another Triumph of Soccer Diversity over racist American sports like football is to focus on the immigrant stock players on the Dutch team as proof that Pym Fortuyn got what he had coming

The ironies pile up. The South African Boers will get to watch their ancestral team play Spain, a team that looks at least as white as the Washington Senators of the late 1930s, who used to sneak, pre-Jackie Robinson, a couple of part-black Cuban players onto the squad on the grounds that they were Latin so the color line didn't count.

So, in reality, soccer remains a white-dominated sport. Where are the calls from the American SWPL soccer fans for affirmative action programs so that the non-white majority of the world doesn't continue to suffer such relentless disparate impact in the World Cup?

Formerly, the Carbon-Based Life Form Vote

Here's an article from the Washington Post on the white vote in the 2010 election. It's notable for the straight-forward, non-apologetic way it talks about the importance of the white vote. Long ago, there was no more point for political reporters to talk about the national white vote than for fish to talk about water. Then, it became in bad taste. But as the country becomes less white, it becomes paradoxically inevitable that the white vote will have to be talked about.
Democrats hope Obama 2008 model will help stem midterm losses

By Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 5, 2010; A02

To become the nation's first black president, Barack Obama not only won heavy percentages of the black and Hispanic vote but also managed to trim the Democratic Party's traditional deficit among white voters.

Four years after Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) lost the white vote by 17 percentage points, Obama lost it by 12, according to exit polls. While the 2008 gains were generally attributed to Obama's strength with young voters -- he won by 10 points among whites 18 to 29 years old -- he managed to improve on Kerry's showing with white voters across every age demographic.

Fast-forward to today. With the November midterm elections less than four months away, Obama's standing among white voters has sunk -- leading some party strategists to fret that the president's erosion -- and the party's -- could adversely affect Democrats' chances of holding on to their House and Senate majorities.

"Since in the past House elections white voters tended to represent the independent vote, [the midterms] will surely be devastating for Democrats running in an election that will be a referendum on the Obama agenda," predicted one senior Democratic operative who closely tracks House races.

In Washington Post-ABC polling, Obama's approval rating among white voters has dropped from better than 60 percent to just above 40 percent. In a June poll, 46 percent of white voters under age 40 approved of how Obama was doing, compared with just 39 percent of whites 65 and older.

The latest NBC-Wall Street Journal poll reveals that Obama's standing among white voters is remarkably similar to that of President George W. Bush at this same time two years ago.

In the June 2008 NBC-WSJ survey, 37 percent of white men and 26 percent of white women approved of the job Bush was doing. In the June 2010 poll, an identical 37 percent of white men approved of Obama's handling of his job, as did 35 percent of white women. ...

One senior strategist, speaking candidly about his concerns on the condition of anonymity, noted that white voters made up 79 percent of the 2006 midterm electorate, while they made up 74 percent of the 2008 vote. If the white percentage returns to its 2006 level, that means there will be 3 million more white voters than if it stayed at its 2008 levels. That scenario, said the source, "would generate massive losses" for House and Senate Democrats in November because of Obama's standing with that demographic.

To avoid such losses, the Democratic National Committee has committed to spending tens of millions of dollars to re-create (or come somewhere near re-creating) the 2008 election model, in which Democrats relied heavily on higher-than-normal turnout from young people and strong support from African American and Hispanic voters.

The DNC's plan is ambitious, to say the least: In the space of a few months, the strategists hope to change the composition of a midterm electorate that, if history is any guide, tends to be older and whiter than in a presidential-election year. Put that way, it sounds crazy -- and it has drawn considerable skepticism from independent observers.

But given the reality that white voters -- again -- almost certainly hold the key to Obama's and the Democrats' chances in the fall, they would be even crazier not to try. 

McCain didn't do all that that badly among those whites who bothered to vote in 2008 -- 55% relative to Bush's 54% in 2000 -- but he didn't get all that many whites to bother, whereas Obama got lots of nonwhites, including young ones, all worked up. Since 2008, however, the Youth of the Future have gotten bored with politics (as is natural -- politics becomes more relatively interesting as sports, music, romance, etc. become less interesting, so politics is Last Man Standing among your interests). Obama is trying to whip them into a frenzy again, but without alienating whites.

July 6, 2010

"The Twilight Saga: Eclipse" v. "Knight and Day"

In Taki's Magazine, I review two anti-Buttkicking Babe movies:
It’s worth comparing a current box office smash—The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, a Mormon teen vampire romance—to a dud—Knight and Day, an expensive Cameron Diaz-Tom Cruise thriller parody.

Knight and Day is expertly made and consistently entertaining, while the Twilight episode is talky and amateurish. Yet, the public’s preference makes sense, because Eclipse’s bizarre ambitions and common passions makes it more memorable than Knight and Day‘s facile technique.

Both movies revolve around a young woman’s struggle to choose the man who will protect her in a savage world.

Eclipse is the adaptation of the third of Mormon housewife Stephenie Meyer’s Twilight novels, the biggest bestsellers since J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. Bella (pretty Kristen Stewart from last year’s Adventureland) is a human schoolgirl whose (follow me closely here) especially tasty-smelling blood drives vampires wild with bloodlust. Her lively scent has won the heart of the undead Edward (tween heartthrob Robert Pattinson), a gentlemanly vampire who strives manfully to keep his lusts under control. When a less civilized vampire army from Seattle comes hunting for her, however, the icy Edward realizes that Bella's safety requires him to seek assistance from his warm-blooded rival for her heart, Jacob, a weightlifting American Indian werewolf.

I realize that this previous paragraph will likely strike you either as old news (if you are a 9 to 17-year-old girl) or as gibberish (if you aren’t). And I must admit to being baffled for long stretches of Eclipse.

A weaker novelist than Rowling, Meyer doesn't so much understand the adolescent girl’s mind as share it. Her Bella epitomizes female teen self-absorption, the desire to have every boy fight over you and every girl hate you for it.

Read the whole thing there and comment upon it below.

By the way, Stephen Dawson points out the that on IMDB, Eclipse is rated 6.9 by females and 3.6 by males. Is that the biggest gender gap ever in IMDB ratings for a hit movie?

Friends of the Israel Defense Forces

A friend who was employed fundraising for a Democratic candidate was struck by all the interesting charities he came across when looking for the names of big givers. For example, there's the:
Friends of the Israel Defense Forces
Their job is to look after Israel. Ours is to look after them.

On Thursday, December 17th, more than 1,100 people filled the International Ballroom of The Beverly Hilton hotel to honor Israel's brave soldiers. The annual LA Gala, which was once again chaired by Cheryl & Haim Saban, was completely sold out by the first of December and set a new record raising $5.2 million in support of a variety of programs that ease the burden and further the wellbeing of Israel's soldiers.

Jason Alexander served as Master of Ceremonies for the event... In announcing that the Gala had raised $1.6 million, Gala Chair Haim Saban stated that he and his wife, Cheryl, would be matching that total "dollar for dollar."

Haim Saban, owner of the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, is, of course, one of the top donors to the Democratic National Committee, the Brookings Institute, and the Clinton Foundation. He was a key supporter of Hillary Clinton's run for the Democratic nomination in 2008.

Saban's donations are, apparently, tax-deductible:
"Headquartered in New York City, FIDF is a 501c3 not-for-profit corporation that operates 13 regional offices in the United States and two offices in Latin America."

Saban is a dual citizen of Israel and America. He was born in Alexandria, then moved to Israel due to the 1956 Suez Canal war, and then moved to America in 1975. 

Presumably, Saban took the Oath of Allegiance when he became a U.S. citizen. I don't know what the exact wording of the Oath of Allegiance was when he took it, but it currently reads:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

Who do we think we're kidding with this Oath? (Not Haim Saban, that's for sure.)

A good question

A reader asks:
Do you know of any studies investigating whether there is a correlation between a child's physical resemblance of one parent and that child's similarity in personality to that same parent? e.g. Al looks much more like Dad and has his laid back personality, while Al's brother Bob looks much more like Mom and has her lively personality. 

Assuming that Bob really is Dad's son, of course ...

I don't know, but this is a good question because it could help get at an idea that has been lingering for a long time -- are differences in looks associated with differences in behavior? If so, why?

Greg Cochran has a strong aversion to Darwin's theory of sexual selection (not because it's never true -- it is in some cases -- but because it gives too easy an out for explaining physical differences: "Somebody must have thought it looked purty.") He suspects, for example, that fair hair and fair skin were less selected for in themselves than that they were by-products of something else that was being selected for in Europe.

Looking at siblings who look different, especially fraternal twins, might provide some evidence on this subject.

"Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability"

A reader writes in reference to the new paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, Parasite prevalence and the worldwide distribution of cognitive ability by Christopher Eppig, Corey L. Fincher and Randy Thornhill.
Steve, did you notice that The Economist finally decided to inform its readers about Lynn and Vanhanen's IQ estimates?
When Dr Lynn and Dr Vanhanen originally published their IQ data, they used them to advance the theory that national differences in intelligence were the main reason for different levels of economic development. This study turns that reasoning on its head. It is lack of development, and the many health problems this brings, which explains the difference in levels of intelligence. No doubt, in a vicious circle, those differences help keep poor countries poor. But the new theory offers a way to break the circle.

Of course it's only now that a politically correct explanation has been found 8 years later.

A subscription to The Economist is expensive, so subscribers should complain that the editors were covering up important information until a more polite spin could be found.

Actually, The Economist did cite "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" once before, in its May 15, 2004 issue (p. 26) when The Economist fell for that lowbrow Internet hoax about high IQ blue states and low IQ red states!

The Economist is doing a disservice to the long-term reputations of Eppig, Fincher, and Thornhill, since it's an interesting paper, and I recommend that you read it. I don't find anything novel about the idea that improvements in health are one of the reasons for rising raw IQ scores, but it's a good point to reiterate. 

Eppig et al don't actually support the Economist's spin, writing:
A nation of more intelligent individuals is likely to produce a higher GDP, but a wealthier nation is also more able to pay for public education, as well as public medical and sanitation services. An indirect link between education and intelligence may also exist, as a better-educated population may be more interested in public health measures—leading to increased IQ by reducing parasite stress—provided that education includes information about germ theory and hygiene. These sources of endogeneity must be considered when interpreting our findings (and see below). It should also be mentioned that we are not arguing that global variation in intelligence is only caused by parasite stress. Rather, variation in intelligence is probably caused by a variety of factors, including those we have mentioned here as well as factors that are yet unknown.

They make the point that I made last week:
We also propose a complementary hypothesis that may explain some of the effects of infectious disease on intelligence. As we mentioned, it is possible that a conditional developmental pathway exists that invests more energy into the immune system at the expense of brain development. In an environment where there has consistently been a high metabolic cost associated with parasitic infection, selection would not favour the maintenance of a phenotypically plastic trait. That is, the conditional strategy of allocating more energy into brain development during periods of health would be lost, evolutionarily, if periods of health were rare. Peoples living in areas of consistently high prevalence of infectious disease over evolutionary time thus may possess adaptations that favour high obligatory investment in immune function at the expense of other metabolically expensive traits such as intelligence.

Still, there are some problems with the paper. 

Their model correlates national average IQ and "disability adjusted life-years lost" owing to infectious disease. (Unfortunately, I can't find from following their footnotes where they got this data for 192 countries. I can only find it summarized by WHO by regions. If you can find the data for each country, please let me know.) 

But, of course, the obvious question is: Does Singapore have a high average IQ because it has a remarkably low infectious disease burden for it's tropical, sea-level, humid location, or does it have a remarkably low infectious disease burden because it's run by high IQ and hard-working officials, such as Lew Kwan Yew? 

In contrast, Afghanistan has terrible life expectancy and longevity figures compared to Singapore, indicative of terrible disease burden, despite having a climate rather like Colorado's. (Afghanistan's problem is less that its residents are empty-headed as that they are bloody-minded, with one of the most selfish, nasty cultures in the world.)

If Lagos has a similar climate to Singapore but worse disease burden, it that the cause or the symptom of the difference in average IQ? (Most likely both, of course, but it should be possible to allot causality.)

I think this key problem of causation could be tackled by using not the actual current disease burden but the predictions of a theoretical model of what disease burden would be based on the natural factors of each country. Eppig et al write:
The worldwide distribution of parasites is well known. Disease-causing organisms of humans are more prevalent in equatorial regions of the world and become less prevalent as latitude increases. Ecological factors contributing to this distribution include mean annual temperature, monthly temperature range and precipitation (e.g. Guernier et al. 2004). Similar trends of parasite distribution have been shown in other host species (e.g. Møller 1998).

So, there must be models that would predict that Singapore and Lagos would have similar disease burdens. Therefore, use the theoretical predictions of disease burden to correlate with IQ, not the current actual disease burdens.

My commenter goes on:
Eppig et al report a strong correlation between infectious disease burden and national IQ, using either Lynn's estimates or Wicherts revised estimates for sub-Saharan Africa.

Eppig et al repeat a number of related analyses to show that infection disease is the strongest, but they decided not to reanalyze the one variable that's stronger than infectious disease: skin color (r = -.92). Their argument for why they can ignore the results of Templer & Arikawa (2006) is an amazing feat of intentional misunderstanding:

"Although Templer & Arikawa (2006) found a positive relationship between IQ and skin darkness, we will not use skin darkness in our analyses for three reasons: (i) although evidence suggests that skin darkness is a measure of historical infectious disease intensity over evolutionary time, it is unclear exactly what kind of infectious diseases it is indicative of (see discussion); (ii) Templer & Arikawa (2006) argued that the relationship between skin darkness and IQ is not causal; and (iii) Templer & Arikawa (2006) did not sufficiently explain why the association between intelligence and skin darkness exists. Without a reasonable theoretical framework for this association, we did not feel it was appropriate to compare it with other variables for which there is a better theoretical rationale."

Obviously the explanation for the relationship between IQ and skin color given by Templer & Arikawa (2006) was a population's evolutionary history of cold climate with adaptation to UV exposure -- a genetic model.

Again, the correlation found by Templer & Arikawa (2006) for IQ and skin color (-.92) exceeds that found for IQ and infectious disease (-.82), but this fact is avoided by Eppig et al and by The Economist.

Interestingly, Eppig el al note:
Mackintosh (2001) presented comprehensive evidence that skin darkness and the associated cellular components (e.g. melanocytes) have an important role in defending against infectious disease. Moreover, Manning et al. (2003) found that, in sub-Saharan Africa, rates of HIV infection were negatively associated with skin darkness. Manning et al. (2003) attributed this relationship in part to lower infection rates of other parasites, especially bacteria and fungi, that lead to tissue damage in the genital tract and hence increased opportunity for contracting HIV. Templer & Arikawa (2006) concluded that, despite the strong negative correlation between skin colour and average national IQ, there must be an unknown mediating factor accounting for both because there is no obvious reason for skin darkness to reduce IQ. Given the previous research linking skin colour to infectious disease (Mackintosh 2001; Manning et al. 2003), the unknown factor linking skin colour and IQ may be infectious disease.

Also, Eppig et al admit that the Usain Bolt-producing part of the world is a pretty healthy place but just isn't all that super-smart.
The only world region in which this relationship [between IQ and disease] was not significant was South America [defined here to include the West Indies]. This exception may be owing to the presence of several outliers. The group of conspicuous outliers in which IQ was much lower than expected in the worldwide trend (figure 1) are all Caribbean countries (St Lucia, Dominica, St Kitts and Nevis, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, St Vincent and Grenadines, and Jamaica), which represent 4 of 23 nations in the South America analysis (St Lucia, Dominica, Grenada, and St Vincent and the Grenadines). Because these outliers are in the same geographical location, it is possible that local parasites that are not included in the DALY owing to infectious disease variable are causing these outliers.

July 5, 2010

"Climate Change"

Has there been a stupider public relations blunder than changing "global warming" to "climate change?"

I understand why they did it. For example, the weather in LA has been ridiculously nice and cool for the last month: 70 and sunny most days, without even much of the usual June Gloom. For once, my lawn looks great. I wore my heavy jacket to see the fireworks on July 4th for the first time in memory.

So, instead of manfully standing their ground and saying, "Sure, there are always going to be exceptions to the trend, but the overall trend toward global warming is what's important," they concocted the term "climate change" to cover anything out of the ordinary with the weather that anybody might notice. 

Your lawn is verdant in July for once? Climate change!

And is "climate change" even that scary a term? Sure, it is if you live in San Diego and climate change could only be for the worst. But I lived in Chicago for a long time. "Climate change" sounds like a great idea to a Chicagoan.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

Peter Nicholas of the LA Times reports:
Obama's immigration speech echoes Bush in policy, rhetoric

Though he is quick to deride former President George W. Bush's performance in office, President Obama seems to think his predecessor gives a pretty good immigration speech.

Obama's widely publicized speech on the controversial topic Thursday closely tracks, in rhetoric and basic policy, a speech Bush gave on the same subject in May 2006.

Speaking at American University, Obama delivered an address intended to rally the nation behind a plan that would strengthen border security while providing a path to legal status for the estimated 12 million people living in the U.S. illegally. ...

But in fundamental ways, the speeches carry the same message. The parallels show the two presidents — one a Republican, the other a Democrat — have staked out basically the same centrist position on immigration.

The speeches also reveal similarities in ways presidents of both parties communicate with the public.

After reading a transcript of Obama's immigration address, former Bush speechwriter Matt Latimer said in an e-mail that "this speech could almost word for word have been delivered by George W. Bush on the exact same subject. Do they just copy our old speeches?" ...

A White House official said Friday he did not believe that anyone examined Bush's old speeches while drafting the Obama address. Rather, the speech was written by a member of the president's speechwriting team, with Obama providing "a good deal of writing," the official said.

Both speeches talk about immigrants who "live in the shadows." Both mention immigrants who came to the U.S. in search of "a better life." Both describe the U.S. as "a nation of immigrants" and reject calls to "round up" people who are here illegally.

And both use the same language about business. Obama said businesses "must be held accountable" for hiring undocumented workers; Bush said, "We need to hold employers to account."

Plunging into the body of his speech, Obama discussed how "in recent days the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country." ... Bush, in his speech, alluded to a wave of street protests in favor of an immigration overhaul, saying, "The issue of immigration stirs intense emotions, and in recent weeks, Americans have seen those emotions on display."

Neither Bush nor Obama wanted to be seen as neglecting border enforcement. Obama said that "government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders," whereas Bush said that securing the border is "a basic responsibility of a sovereign state."

Each president laid out steps they'd taken to prevent illegal crossings, using the same multipliers. Bush said he "doubled" the size of the Border Patrol; Obama said that he "doubled" the personnel assigned to border enforcement security "task forces."

Yet neither claimed that the borders are impregnable. Bush said, "We do not yet have full control of the border." Obama said that the Mexican border is more secure than ever, but acknowledged that "that doesn't mean we don't have more work to do."

Both speeches use a device in which they rejected what they portrayed as extreme positions — blanket amnesty on the one hand, and deportation of all illegal immigrants on the other.

Instead of those extremes, each president said, the country should adopt a more moderate alternative in which illegal immigrants could gain legal status by meeting tough requirements.

Bush said immigrants must "pay their taxes" and "learn English." Obama used the same language — "pay their taxes" and "learn English," among other things.

And at some point in each speech, the president told an inspiring story of an immigrant who came to the U.S., joined the military and gained citizenship.

Bush mentioned Guadalupe Denogean from Mexico, who joined the Marines and was wounded in Iraq. Obama's example was Perla Ramos, who came to the U.S. from Mexico after the Sept. 11 attacks, joined the Navy and became a citizen.

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

Benjamin Franklin's Grand Strategy

From my new VDARE column:
It’s funny how, in the woozy minds of America’s elite, celebrating Independence Day has turned into celebrating  Immigration Day. For a particularly ripe example of Ellis Island kitsch, let’s review this July 3, 2010 Washington Post op-ed by former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Harvard political scientist  Robert D. Putnam:
“A better welcome for our nation's immigrants

“On our national birthday, and amid an angry debate about immigration, Americans should reflect on the lessons of our shared immigrant past.”

By the way, have you noticed how the word “angry” has come to mean “The state of mind of any person who is winning a debate with an immigration enthusiast?”

Putnam and Bush then add a topical Independence Day note:
“We must recall that the challenges facing our nation today were felt as far back as the Founders' time. … Today's immigrants are, on average, assimilating socially even more rapidly than earlier waves.”

Why haven’t more recent immigrant groups assimilated enough not to default on their mortgages? Well, what kind of angry person even notices hatefacts?
“One important difference, however, that separates immigration then and now: We native-born Americans are doing less than our great-grandparents did to welcome immigrants.”

See? It’s all your fault.

Who are Jeb Bush and Robert D. Putnam and why are they saying these foolish things? In the past, Putnam and Bush have both made themselves conspicuous over immigration to a comical degree. So let’s review their history.

Read the whole thing there. I also outline Benjamin Franklin's grand strategy in response to the usual immigrationist attack on Franklin.

July 4, 2010

Happy Independence Day from the Washington Post

From the Washington Post, an unintended reminder of the magnanimity, broadness of vision, and faith in our common humanity of Steven Spielberg, as compared to art critic Blake Gopnik's identity politics-driven rage at how Norman Rockwell just won't stay shoved down the Memory Hole.
Norman Rockwell exhibit opens at the Smithsonian American Art Museum
By Blake Gopnik
Sunday, July 4, 2010; E01

This Fourth of July, let's celebrate courage. It took courage to split from England, courage to risk democracy and still more courage to dream up a constitution to preserve it.

Courage has been the signature virtue of almost every great American: Emily Dickinson was brave to warp grammar, Louis Armstrong was brave to blow jazz and Jackson Pollock was brave to paint splats.

Norman Rockwell is often championed as the great painter of American virtues. Yet the one virtue most nearly absent from his work is courage. He doesn't challenge any of us, or himself, to think new thoughts or try new acts or look with fresh eyes. From the docile realism of his style to the received ideas of his subjects, Rockwell reliably keeps us right in the middle of our comfort zone. 

Definitely not in the middle of Mr. Gopnik's comfort zone, however. 
A new show of 57 Rockwells, borrowed from the collections of Hollywood celebrities Steven Spielberg and George Lucas, opened Friday at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

Right, Spielberg and Lucas are "Hollywood celebrities," same as Paris Hilton and the Kardashians. (By the way, I'm not a big fan of Lucas's movies after American Graffiti and Star Wars, but I've got to admit the man's got good taste in architecture. His Skywalker Ranch in Marin County looks like what the world would look like today if the Great War hadn't come along in 1914 and ruined the West's self-confidence.)
It includes oil paintings and drawings, and every one of them is a perfect depiction of what we've been taught to think of as true Rockwellian America.

There's the small-town runaway, and the cop who takes him out for a malt before returning him home. Aw, shucks.

There are the three old biddies gossiping, imagined as so ancient and gnarled that Rockwell had to use a man in drag to model them. What a hoot!

There's the remote blonde in her convertible being joshed by a couple of truckers. Jeez, lady, wontcha give those guys a wink? ...

Of course, the "art" in Rockwell's pictures isn't that modern stuff promoted by Picasso and his crowd. Rockwell's painted realism tells us that his pictures are the real thing, old-fashioned and skilled -- the very art admired by the kinds of regular, all-American folk his craft is used to depict, and to whom it sells magazines and products.

By the 1930s, making pictures the way Rockwell did couldn't count as just a neutral preference for the old. In the hands of America's Favorite Artist, it stood as a willed repudiation of the new. Judging from the fan mail that survives, that's precisely how it was read. Rockwell panders, in the very substance of his pictures' making, to his public's fear of change.

Rockwell's greatest sin as an artist is simple: His is an art of unending cliché. The reason we so easily "recognize ourselves" in his paintings is because they reflect the standard image we already know. His stories resonate so strongly because they are the stories we've told ourselves a thousand times.

They became clichés after Rockwell recognized these stories in daily life and showed that, by taking endless pains, they could be clearly conveyed in a single memorable image. Golden Age Hollywood then amplified his influence. (Frank Capra is the most obvious analog to Rockwell in fertility of invention.) But moviemakers had it easier in a way because they could tell his kind of stories using actions, words, and music.  It's amusing, though, how the frequently Rockwellian products of Golden Age Hollywood seldom comes in for quite so much fury.
... Most reactions to Rockwell, however, continue to be decidedly simpler. Steven Spielberg has said, "I look back at these paintings as America the way it could have been, the way someday it may again be." He and others have bought Rockwell's bill of goods. But what these speakers, and these pictures, fail to grasp is that the special, courageous greatness of the nation lies in its definitive refusal of any single "American way." 

Norman Rockwell died 32 years ago. And Mr. Gopnik's views have been representative of elite discourse for longer than that, burying Rockwell's reputation under a barrage of anger. But, Gopnik, even though he's on the winning side, is still furious that his victory isn't total.

If you want a picture of Mr. Gopnik's ideal future, imagine a boot stamping on Norman Rockwell's face -- forever. (But not, let me hasten to add, a well-painted realist picture of a boot stamping on a face. Instead, say, a picture of a surrealist boot stamping on a cubist face with Jackson Pollock-like blood splatters on the floor.)  
America isn't about Rockwell's one-note image of it -- or anyone else's. This country is about a game-changing guarantee that equal room will be made for Latino socialists, disgruntled lesbian spinsters, foul-mouthed Jewish comics and even, dare I say it, for metrosexual half-Canadian art critics with a fondness for offal, spinets and kilts.

I don't want to live by the clichés of a wan, Rockwellian America, and I don't admire pictures that suggest that all of us should. But I see why we need to look into how, in a world full of threats, so many of us have been soothed by their vision.

Telling Stories: Norman Rockwell From the Collections of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg is on through Jan. 2 at the Smithsonian American Art Museum, at Eighth and G streets NW. Call 202-633-7970 or visit http://www.americanart.si.edu.

To be frank, if a WASP critic displayed this much overt ethno-cultural animus toward a Jewish painter, he would be unemployable at the Washington Post.

It should make us all appreciate Mr. Spielberg even more.