Half Sigma is way off on this one. I don't want to diss him too hard because the h-bd realist blogosphere isn't big enough for internecine warfare, but come on now...Palin is the most libertarian candidate to run since the Reagan administration.
A candidate like Palin is only available because Alaska is a frontier region which has somewhat escaped the tender ministrations of the diversicrats in the lower 48.

Some points:

1) First, the guys who think "worse is better" are morons. Rhodesia and South Africa prove that "worse is worse". The left can take a country all the way to the grave by controlling the media. A rightist backlash is NOT assured.

2) Second, from an h-bd realist perspective we're fighting to hold territory, not to take it. We just need to hold off the left till genomics can come through. We're going to be knocking off sacred cow after sacred cow in the next decade or so. "Race is a social construction" has now been completely dynamited by the genomic maps of Europe, the Hapmap, and all the related papers -- and that only took about 6 years time. Any knowledgeable person can now fillet an unreconstructed Lewontinite by just linking half a dozen recent vintage papers, and there will be literally hundreds by the time the decade is up.

Moreover, it's only a matter of time before the IQ/genomics correlations come down the pike, and that will change everything. But under Obama, there is a very serious risk that work on the genomics/race/IQ nexus will be outlawed or banned. Marcus Feldman and his rapid response teams are only the beginning of this...there are a lot more mutterings going on than have been made public, and left creationists will be ascendant as never before in an Obama administration. There is plenty of precedent: just look at how research into nuclear power, physical anthropology, and genetically modified plants have been brought to a shuddering halt in Europe (and slowed in the US).

It doesn't have to be an overt "ban", of course -- it can just be a series of obstacles to getting any funding for such "racist" studies. It's already well nigh impossible to study genetics, IQ, and race directly given IRB issues...all they'd need to do is apply even stricter scrutiny to the various loopholes that savvy scientists have been exploiting (e.g. Alzheimer's).

By contrast, 8 years of "hold" under a Palin administration will buy us the time we need. And it will be a "Palin administration", in that McCain will see that his popularity depends on his VP. I think amnesty is a *lot* less likely if Sarah has something to say about it.

Anyway -- all the rest regarding the ostensible "prole" nature of solidly middle class Palin is basically bullshit. I mean, for real? Does everyone forget that Obama is an agitator for the underclass, a longtime drug user born to an airheaded teenage mother, the son of an African polygamist and a member of a barbaric church? Obama is beloved by both Yale *and* Jail, and is an apologist for criminal vermin like the Jena Six. Palin is an advocate for the taxpayers. That's the difference between them.

Razib,

You're too kind, thanks. As long as I have perspicacious minds (like GNXP, Steve, RP, HS, Inductivist, etc) potentially doing more with patterns I see and taking a look at AE, it's "worth it". Quantity over quality (even if the ideal is both!), right?

For reasons I'm not sure of (maybe I'm just cognitively stagnating!), my daily hits literally got cut in half from what they'd been in early summer to August. I'd heard the newest IE had compatability issues with sitemeter, but my regular reads didn't seem to see a drop.

probably a google algorithm tweak?

gc,

You make good points. Yes, worse is worse and we can't be assured of a backlash.

One point: Doesn't a Democrat in the White House increase the chance of Republicans taking back Congress?

Another point: Whoever gets elected this year is going to be unpopular because of the number of bad trends coming to a head. Does it make sense for McCain to be the guy who becomes unpopular?

I share your concern about the regulation of thought and research right when the genetic research is about to prove thinks that the Left does not want to see proved.

I can't figure out whether McCain or Obama would be worse on net.

“2) Second, from an h-bd realist perspective we're fighting to hold territory, not to take it. We just need to hold off the left till genomics can come through. We're going to be knocking off sacred cow after sacred cow in the next decade or so. "Race is a social construction" has now been completely dynamited by the genomic maps of Europe, the Hapmap, and all the related papers -- and that only took about 6 years time."

Very interesting.

I had not thought of things from this perspective. As a conservative, I was firmly in the "Let the damned fools have their Obama" camp.

However, your, so to speak "delay - don't drive back - the advancing heavy tank divisions with ATGMs and insurgency tactics, while we wait for armored reinforcements" strategy might be the one and only good reason I have heard of to vote McCain-Palin.

I am not a scientist. I do not know if the evidence has accumulated to the point where, quietly, scientists involved in the relevant fields are coming to agree with the HBD viewpoint, or, whether the vast bulk of said scientists are still drinking the Kool-Aid.

If there is, in fact, an under the radar consensus emerging on HBD, then it is possible somebody will spill the beans once gene sequencing is affordable to the point where we can isolate the combination of genes involved in racial differences vis-à-vis cognition (the "Watson temporarily let the cat out of the bag" incident could be a taste of the future).

On the other hand, few Americans are aware the "race does not exist" mantra is rapidly being debunked. My primary concern with your thesis is whether or not people such as Venter and Feldman, have the ability to repress/obscure/dissemble the truth far past the next decade.

I am still not convinced the “Worse is Better” argument has been debunked. But I’m willing to entertain gc’s idea.

PS: Obama wrote an, of course, negative review of The Bell Curve sometime in the 90’s. When you consider how much energy he has devoted towards thinking about race, he has most likely been following - to some extent - HBD arguments and is aware of Watson’s comments. Given his ideology and past associations, it is hardly unthinkable Obama would try to cut funding for research going into population genetics.

Palin was dying to ban books at the Wasilla library, but her totalitarian tendencies were checked in time. Libertarian she ain't.

Vote for that team of old, cold tedious frogs if you want, but at least live in reality while doing so.

She's already infected by neocons re: Israel. Probably will be like this for other issues that she has no experience with -- debriefing at the AIPAC building, and then give a rousing speech that those eggheads couldn't.

http://lyingeyes.blogspot.com/20...er- already.html

I find it hard to get a fix on her, whether she represents an independent, libertarian voice or is a more conventional religious-right Republican and easily subsumed into McCainism.

In that notorious YouTube video, where she is giving a pep-talk to some ministry camp graduates or whatever they are at her old church, she mentions her son in the military and asks for prayers for the soldiers and to "pray that our leaders - our national leaders - are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for - that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

From my experience, that's the way evangelicals talk about everything. Not that I don't think they mean it, but it doesn't always translate well. One plausible secular tranlation is "I sure hope Bush and Cheney have a clue what they're doing over there, and that if our boys - my boy in particular - are in harm's way that they're fighting for something worthwhile and this isn't just some major clusterfuck." So perhaps in her own idiosyncratic and indirect way she's being an Iraq War skeptic. This is a radically different translation from the press reports which interpreted it as a fanatical endorsement of a Christian Crusade, but I think it is at least as plausible. But I don't see her having much opportunity to express any independent thoughts over the next 8 weeks, so I'm afraid we'll have to keep guessing and interpreting her past statements and actions.

As someone who understands the importance of IQ, I have a difficult time saying anything positive about the lowest-IQ VP in my lifetime.

I don't know why you assume she's a libertarian. The only thing she seems to feel strongly about is evangelical Christian stuff. She supports oil drilling, but that's just a position that everyone from Alaska supports.

Political philosophies are for higher IQ people. Palin is not a thinker.

She probably hasn't thought about h-bd at all, but because rednecks aren't politically correct, she probably would find it amusing to discover that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

ziel,

Women aren't big on abstract thought. Their evolutionary role makes them far more practical. Palin didn't spend decades refining her thinking the way Reagan did. Heck, a lot of Reagan's intellectual development occurred in the late 70s when he read a lot of books on economics and political thinking.

Half Sigma,

Lots of the really high IQ people have been dangerous to the cause of liberty. I suspect that moderately high IQ people are better friends of liberty than really high IQ people.

I think GC makes a good point about genetics research and Obama. The Democrats do not want the genetic discoveries to lead to widespread knowledge about the truth about human differences. The Democrats are really more anti-Darwinian than the fundamentalist Christians who deny the origin of species. The fundies will accept the genetic evidence about differences even if they deny where the differences came from. The Lefties see the differences as what needs to be suppressed.

FuturePundit

"Lots of the really high IQ people have been dangerous to the cause of liberty."

Why is that?

Is it because they're so smart that they don't trust the rest of us less smart people with control or something? The far-right Bell Curvers have often been statists.

HS -- I agree that ceteris paribus it would be great to have a candidate with the IQ and business acumen of Romney, the military record of McCain, the immigration policy of Tancredo and the Teflon charisma of Sarah P.

But I am nothing if not a pragmatist and I certainly do not believe that Palin is dumber than (say) Joe Biden or Dan Quayle. Google Biden's academic record. It is not spectacular. One has to keep in mind that there are still some intelligent people who don't want to go far from their hometowns.

Obama is quite intelligent but his premises are wrong. His deductions will be wrong and his reign would be disastrous. High IQ without good premises is like a fast computer with an exponential time algorithm. It doesn't matter how good the hardware is if the software installed by the schools and the media and the TV is error riddled...

apologies for the typos and choppy sentneces, hate typng from my phone

JBS, Randall -- I will write a longer response later, but first let me say that I completely understand your POV. Four years ago I voted Kerry to punish Bush (though a straight Republican ticket the rest of the way).

But a number of happenings since then have changed my mind. Hard to believe that the Hapmap only came out a year after that election! The pace of change in genomics is now meteoric. I would argue it is up there with immigration in terms of the most important issues in the long term.

Remember that *no one* will speak up for "racist pseudoscience". Any public opposition to a ban would be about as popular as a crackdown on Darwin in the 1860s -- which is to say not very. We need to step very carefully as we are going up against the official state religion, namely PC. Until we reach critical mass we'll be convicted in the media and will go straight to the gulag rather than be afforded the benefit of a Scopes trial. Just think of how many fedguv bureaucrats and NGOs owe their livelihoods to the axiom of equality. An Obama administration will passionately go after the heretics.

[Edited by siteowner to fix typos b/c original post was from a cell phone.]

gc, How serious is the threat to suppress HBD research? Don't the discoveries end up falling out of attempts to discover other things? How can brain genetics research go forward at all if an attempt is made to suppress HBD brain genetics research?

"Google Biden's academic record. It is not spectacular."

Yeah, but then we're comparing someone who fared poorly in law school but completed with someone who only got an undergrad degree and reverted from a business major to journalism, broadcast journalism at that. The concerns about her being below 115 in IQ don't seem unreasonable against her track record.

As someone pointed out at Half Sigma, they really should have gone with Jindal. None of the doubts about having brains and serious religious-social conservative cred. It would have taken some time for Jindal to get going, but I suspect you'll find the reverse and more damaging trajectory with Palin, starting big and then fizzling out as she increasingly comes across as unqualified.

We just need to hold off the left till genomics can come through

The left for the most part uncocerned about research on human genetic differences. It has bigger priorities like the economy, the climate, etc. The loudest voices are the angriest so this gives the false impression that the left as a whole is anti-HBD research.

But under Obama, there is a very serious risk that work on the genomics/race/IQ nexus will be outlawed or banned.

Ridiculous. Evidence please.

There is plenty of precedent: just look at how research into nuclear power, physical anthropology, and genetically modified plants have been brought to a shuddering halt in Europe (and slowed in the US).

In America the supression of science by the government has come primarily from the right. Think stem cell research, Bush's endorsement of the "wisdom of repugnance." So it's more rational to fear the effects of the right on science in America than the left.

By contrast, 8 years of "hold" under a Palin administration will buy us the time we need.

Putting aside the other issues like Palin's complete lack of foreign policy knowledge (she is currently cooped up with AIPAC for 3 weeks learning the ins and outs of neoconservative foreign policy)-- i must ask, how can you expect an end-times evangelist global warming denier to be more pro-science than Obama, who explicitly supports science research in his speeches and platform? This is crazy talk based on no evidence whatsoever... just broadbrushing inaccurate stereotypes of the "Left".

ben g,

Opposition to and support for science isn't an all-or-nothing thing. On each side of the political spectrum opposition and support is really on a case-by-case basis. You can't simply cite a few right wing cases of opposition and then jump to a generalization about how the Right is anti-science and the Left is pro-science.

If you happen to be on the Left doing that might make you feel good. But in reality both sides have reasons to oppose different aspects of science.

"I certainly do not believe that Palin is dumber than (say) Joe Biden or Dan Quayle"

Didn't they both graduate from law school and pass the bar exam? If Dan Quayle had ever failed the bar exam, the press would have told us about it a zillion times, they really had it in for him.

Quayle was also a THINKER. He had his own ideas about reforming our tort system, which got ignored because after the liberal media hatchet job, no one took him seriously. What does Palin ever think about, besides her religion?

A lot of people who can't pass the bar exam (I took bar review classes with them) can still sound intelligent when talking, and you wouldn't know the were IQ deficient based on seeing them on TV.

Palin has not demonstrated the ability to pass a bar exam, or be knowledgeable on a broad array of policy issues as Biden or Quayle.

There once was a young female Congresswoman named Susan Molinari. Everyone made a big deal about her for a while, because she was young, female, and Republican. But she was STUPID. She had no ideas except what smarter people put into her mouth. Her star died and now she's a nobody lobbyist (her knowledge of Congress is still valuable anyone who wants to pay for access).

in reality both sides have reasons to oppose different aspects of science.

i agree. although i'd emphasize that actual government interference with science in America is primarily a phenomenon of the right.

furthermore, i'm yet to see any evidence that Obama plans on limiting science that doesn't support his ideological axioms.

ben g,

The Left's restraints on science do not get publicized. Where's the big research for IQ genes? Where's the funding for that? Where's the big research program for psychometrics? The Left strangled that very thoroughly.

This is what Godless Capitalist is talking about. We could see shifts of money away from brain genetics research of the sort that uses large samples of data from many people for example. Anything that gets near identifying IQ genes could get strangled.

As a practical matter, it would be difficult to ban research with HBD implications.

A scientist could use complete genome sequencing to discover the genes for intelligence in whites only and another researcher on a different project would look for genes involving intelligence involving blacks.

Eventually someone would compare how the intelligence genes vary between blacks and whites using those separate studies.

The only way to completely stop HBD research would be to ban genome sequencing entirely.

But I'm sure there is a risk the government will try to put hurdles up regardless of the practical difficulties of banning population genetics research.

"Where's the big research for IQ genes? Where's the funding for that?"

The problem is not funding for IQ genes but the cost of full scale genome sequencing and the technology for genomic analysis still needs to be perfected.

The government isn't funding a lot of money to research IQ genes, but they are spending a ton of money to perfect sequencing.

When sequencing falls to $1000 per person, we will be able to easily find the genes for intelligence.

Heck, for $1000, the Pioneer fund could probably afford to find the genes for intelligence on its own.

This is what Godless Capitalist is talking about. We could see shifts of money away from brain genetics research of the sort that uses large samples of data from many people for example. Anything that gets near identifying IQ genes could get strangled.

Even if GC's worst-case scenario is correct, research would continue in other countries. Italian, Dutch, German and Chinese researchers have all done interesting work in this area. The results of such research will be available to those of us in the U.S.

I agree that not funding this type of research in the U.S. would be a tragedy, but I don't think that U.S. funds are indispensable for such research to continue.

Eventually someone would compare how the intelligence genes vary between blacks and whites using those separate studies.

This might happen sooner than you think... (laughs maniacally...)

The problem with banning research into the brain is that such research is vital to curing disease.

Scientists could well discover how genes for cognition vary among population groups by accident.

The only way to stop such discovery would be to ban the entire field of genetics, but they may try something anyway.

JBS is right -- the HBD train has too much momentum for even the President to derail at this point, though of course if GC knows something we don't I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.

The real reasons to be afraid of Obama are 1) his socialist instincts on health care, because the more influence the government has over it the worse the prospects are for liberal eugenics, and 2) his Supreme Court picks, all of whom I expect to be hostile to the First Amendment when it comes to "hate speech".

What do you mean by "liberal eugenics?"

The Left's restraints on science do not get publicized. Where's the big research for IQ genes? Where's the funding for that? Where's the big research program for psychometrics? The Left strangled that very thoroughly.

There's a difference between not calling for the support of IQ gene research with tax-payer money and "restraints" or "interference."

GC's claim was that "under Obama, there is a very serious risk that work on the genomics/race/IQ nexus will be outlawed or banned."

If your point is that the people who have created a politically correct environment which hinders research on human genetic differences are disproportionately from the left, I'll readily concede that.

gc, i have a question for you:
how will society best deal with the transition from unmodified, lesser competitive humans (basically, all of us) to the genetically modifed homo sapiens superior of the future? in other words does society best deal with making sure the 'transition generation' is not discarded to make way for its progeny? if we fail to answer that question appropriately, I fear mass bloodshed by the discgruntled. i would also propose one possible solution is to give subsidies of some sort to the unmodified humans, for whom the next wave of humanity should be grateful toward.

beng says:

There's a difference between not calling for the support of IQ gene research with tax-payer money and "restraints" or "interference."

Let me reword that for you:

There's a difference between not calling for the support of embryonic stem cell research with tax-payer money and "restraints" or "interference."

How does that work for you?

How does that work for you?

pretty well, but the only problem is that there are no Republicans (as far as I know) arguing for HBD funding, as there are Democrats arguing for stem cell funding. So it seems to me that it's not an issue where Dems are in any weaker than Repubs.

ben g,

The liberals will thoroughly demonize any one who supports such funding. To even suggest it will elicit a huge chorus of "racist!". Now that's highly effective speech control and thought control.

most liberals don't care. only the loudest/angriest (and unfortunately, effective) contingent is heard.

i still don't see how this specifically relates to Obama. (none of his base is [successfully] lobbying him to work against HBD related research as far as i know) he's not responsible for what a portion of his base does.

gc suggested that obama might ban research on population/behavioral genetics.. if you agree with him could you perhaps put forward some evidence..

This might happen sooner than you think... (laughs maniacally...)

But how much sooner? Do you and ben generally agree on interpretations of the available data?

Here is a piece of data relevant to GC's fears of censorship of data in our future:


Dear Dr. Harpending:

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) is planning a
workshop to explore the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) raised
by research on natural selection in humans. The impetus for this
meeting is the sense of a growing need for more thoughtful deliberation
by genomic researchers, ELSI researchers, science writers and science
editors regarding the societal issues raised by natural selection
research. The goals of the meeting will be to: 1) discuss the
scientific design and interpretation issues pertinent to this research
to determine whether a set of "best practices" can be identified for
investigators and peer reviewers in this area; 2) discuss the relevant
ethical issues and issues surrounding public understanding and reporting
of the findings of this research to assess what issues science editors
should consider when dealing with papers in this area; and 3) discuss
future directions for genomic and ELSI research related to natural
selection.


We would like to invite you to attend this workshop, which will be held
in Rockville, MD on October 28, 2008. NHGRI will cover your travel
expenses. An agenda for the workshop is attached.

But how much sooner? Do you and ben generally agree on interpretations of the available data?

We agree on what data we should include in our post, which is no small feat because there are a lot of studies out there with a lot of caveats and complicating factors involved. We also agree that the available data is extremely preliminary and that more data is needed. (Of course we will continue to update the running tally as more data that fits our criteria emerges.) Finally, we agree that the pattern that the available data shows was arrived at fairly and honestly.

The post should be out Oct. 1st by the latest. There will be follow up posts more deeply exploring issues raised in the first post soon after. The whole thing is really quite exciting. But I'll stop gushing now.

It's not available on the Internet yet, so for the sake of posterity here's Obama's NPR commentary on The Bell Curve:

NPR
October 28, 1994
SHOW: All Things Considered (NPR 4:30 pm ET)

Charles Murray's Political Expediency Denounced
BYLINE: BARACK OBAMA
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 635 words

HIGHLIGHT: Commentator Barack Obama finds that Charles Murray, author
of the controversial "The Bell Curve," demonstrates not scientific
expertise but spurious political motivation in his conclusions about
race and IQ.



BARACK OBAMA, Commentator: Charles Murray is inviting American down a
dangerous path.

NOAH ADAMS, Host: Civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama.

Mr. OBAMA: The idea that inferior genes account for the problems of
the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn't new, of course.
Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories
since the turn of the century. The arguments against such dubious
science aren't new either. Scientists have repeatedly told us that
genes don't vary much from one race to another, and psychologists have
pointed out the role that language and other cultural barriers can
play in depressing minority test scores, and no one disputes that
children whose mothers smoke crack when they're pregnant are going to
have developmental problems.

Now, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that with early
intervention such problems can be prevented. But Mr. Murray isn't
interested in prevention. He's interested in pushing a very particular
policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and
welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the
political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America
is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it's
artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It's
easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray's calculations. After watching
their income stagnate or decline over the past decade, the majority of
Americans are in an ugly mood and deeply resent any advantages, real
or perceived, that minorities may enjoy.

I happen to think Mr. Murray's wrong, not just in his estimation of
black people, but in his estimation of the broader American public.
But I do think Mr. Murray's right about the growing distance between
the races. The violence and despair of the inner city are real. So's
the problem of street crime. The longer we allow these problems to
fester, the easier it becomes for white America to see all blacks as
menacing and for black America to see all whites as racist. To close
that gap, we're going to have to do more than denounce Mr. Murray's
book. We're going to have to take concrete and deliberate action. For
blacks, that means taking greater responsibility for the state of our
own communities. Too many of us use white racism as an excuse for
self-defeating behavior. Too many of our young people think education
is a white thing and that the values of hard work and discipline and
self-respect are somehow outdated.

That being said, it's time for all of us, and now I'm talking about
the larger American community, to acknowledge that we've never even
come close to providing equal opportunity to the majority of black
children. Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all
women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children.
Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who
was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity
to people's lives and give inner-city children something more than a
basketball rim to shoot for. In the short run, such ladders of
opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or
affirmative action. But, in the long run, our investment should pay
off handsomely. That we fail to make this investment is just plain
stupid. It's not the result of an intellectual deficit. It's the
result of a moral deficit.

ADAMS: Barack Obama is a civil rights lawyer and writer. He lives in
Chicago.

Hopefully without getting into a big political argument, I'd like to add that I trust Obama much more with science in general than I do Palin/McCain -- as do, without a shred of doubt, an overwhelming majority of scientists.

Part of this trust is established by how a leader values expertise. Bush has expert advisors, and he listens patiently, but he isn't that interested, and nothing really soaks in. McCain has expert advisors, and he listens impatiently, and then postures disdainfully as the expert himself if he disagrees:

When speaking with an area specialist or expert, McCain is primarily interested in stating his own perceptions and is not generally regarded as an attentive listener. Analysts do not like briefing him because he becomes angry and sometimes personally offensive when someone contradicts his view.

Obama has expert advisors and he listens and he is interested and he understands and he respects the advice:

As anyone who has spent time with Obama knows, he likes experts, and his choice of advisers stems in part from his interest in empirical research. (James Heckman, a Nobel laureate who critiqued the campaign’s education plan at Goolsbee’s request, said, “I’ve never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.”)

This is what I think makes a good leader: good intelligence and good epistemology.

Again, though, there is a lot to argue here, that I probably am not going to argue. There's plenty to dislike about Obama, and I do agree that political correctness will rise under Obama to whatever extent, but both science and politics are much larger than hbd. On issues such as the war and the economy and just basic governance, I just haven't seen much to inspire faith in current Republic leaders. Just the worst of neoconservatism combined with the worst of fundamentalist Christianity (and Palin and McCain are the perfect marriage here).

And even on hbd relevant issues like immigration or controversial genetics I'm really not all that convinced McCain is better. And certainly not better enough to outweigh all my other political concerns.

Another issue is if revelations in genetics would really rapidly alter political issues surrounding race. My suspicion is that they would not. Not really so much.

Lots to respond to here. Perhaps the most important is the idea that

a) there aren't any real prohibitions against research into the genes/race/IQ nexus
b) ...or that they exist but are unwritten
c) ...or that, ok, they may be written but they are only enforced by a small minority


All of this is wrong. The fact is that it is incredibly difficult even today to do this research. Genomics has been an area of "regulatory oversight" in that the Hapmap and related high throughput SNP research started getting published so quickly that the bureaucrats haven't had time to crack down on the area.

They are now beginning to do so. I cannot disclose more but I am familiar with many of the principals and Harpending's post is the tip of the iceberg.

To give you some idea of what may happen under an Obama administration, let's review the written and unwritten prohibitions against pursuing this line of research, namely the race/IQ/genomics nexus.

1) Unwritten: ranges from general attacks on "determinism" in genetics classes and shunning of Republicans to outright excommunication as in the case of Watson and Summers

2) Written: Tons and tons of stuff, ranging from University policies to the requirement that an officer from an underrepresented minority group review every NSF application. For example:

http://www.research.umich.edu/ne.../ nsfimpact.html

NSF Will Reject Proposals Without Broader Impact Statement

NSF requires in all Pre- Proposal and Full Proposal applications the project summary contain a section covering the" BROADER IMPACTS" of the proposed research.

This requirement is set out in the new Grant Proposal Guide(GPG-02-3) available at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf...sf032/ start.htm NSF has made available an" Examples" document located at: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/ nsf...bicexamples.pdf. Please refer to this document for the "Types of Information" to be included in the Project Summary.

I have also provided some additional suggestion for your consideration:

BROADER IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIVITY
How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training, and learning? How well does the proposed activity broaden the participation of under represented groups (e.g., gender, ethnicity, disability, geographic, etc.)? To what extent will it enhance the infrastructure for research and education, such as facilities, instrumentation, networks, and partnerships? Will the results be disseminated broadly to enhance scientific and technological understanding? What may be the benefits of the proposed activity to society?

Good luck getting a grant funded for the direct study of the relationship between race/genomics/IQ with those requirements in place! PS: every study section has a broader impact enforcer, very frequently a minority bureaucrat.

And here is an even more explicit bit, from Human Subjects Compliance, a step in the process of IRB approval:

The Learning Objectives for the CITI Basic Course are to provide the Target audience with:

* An understanding of the historical perspectives, ethical principals and federal regulations associate with the conduct of research with human subjects.
* A clear understanding of what constitutes human subjects research and how informed consent must be applied in human subjects research.
* Basic information on the regulations and policies governing research with investigational drugs, biologicals and devices and how the findings of The International Commission on Harmonization affect the conduct of research with human subjects around the world.
* A basic understanding of the risks to privacy and confidentiality of human subjects who participate in Social and Behavioral research.
* An understanding of the special considerations that must be addressed when "Vulnerable Populations" such prisoners, minors, pregnant women and fetuses in utero are used in research activities.
* An understanding of how to recognize and avoid conflicts of interest in human subjects research.
* New insights into the concept of group harms in vulnerable populations such as minorities and workers in a workplace setting and the use of Community Consultation to prevent injury to special social structures.
* An understanding of the special risks facing human subjects when they participate in research conducted over the internet.
* A clear understanding of the ethical issues and federal regulations in force during the conduct of Social / Behavioral Research, Records Based Research and Genetics Research with human subjects.
* An understanding of the Policies, Regulations and Risks associated with conducting research with children in public school setting.
* A clear understanding of the special procedural and regulatory policies for human subjects research at VA research facilities.
* New information on late breaking topics that may affect the use of human subjects in research. The intent is to provide the user with the latest guidance from regulatory agencies and to provide timely information on new human subjects issues.

Below is the full description of that bulleted subheading:

What do we mean by "groups" or "communities?"

In this module we use the terms "groups" and "communities" in a variety of ways. Sometimes people are members of ethnic or racial groups (such as, African-American, Hispanic, or Bantu), religious groups (such as, Islamic, Taoist, or Christian Scientist), or groups described by geographic location (such as, New Yorker, Parisian, or New Zealander), by occupation (such as, agricultural worker, physician, or teacher), or by physical condition (such as, diabetic, sight-impaired, or cancer patient). One person may belong to more than one such groups. People may choose to describe themselves as members of groups, or may be assigned membership into these groups by others.

What do we mean by vulnerability? [Inuit Women, Natl. Geographic 1907]

Because of their special position in society, some groups may be at increased risk of suffering harm that may result if individual members of the group take part in research. Generally, these groups include those that have suffered and continue to suffer discrimination (such as African-Americans, American Indians, and Alaska Natives), those who may have less access to education, social services, and health care (such as groups with low socio-economic status), and those who may be behaviorally or politically stigmatized (such as commercial sex workers, injection drug users, or members of religious cults). Although members of the group may be harmed as a result of taking part in research, group harms result when many or all of the group members are harmed, including those who did not consent to being research subjects.

Such harms may include stigmatization, loss of status, genetic determinism, and violation of cultural or group norms and values.


Examples of how research has harmed groups in the past

Although some studies that have resulted in harms to groups were poorly designed, even well-designed studies can have consequences for members of specific groups that could have been avoided. What follows are examples of studies that have had negative impacts on groups of people who were not necessarily study subjects:

* Publication of results of research conducted in Ashkenazi Jewish families contributed to the misperception that Jews are more prone to genetic defects and diseases. There was concern in the Ashkenazi Jewish community that this information would lead to health and life insurance discrimination, even for those who did not undergo genetic testing (Phillips KA, Warner E, Meschino WS, Hunter J, Abdolell M, Glendon G, Andrulis IL, Goodwin PJ., "Perceptions of [Jews praying at the Western Wall] Ashkenazi Jewish breast cancer patients on genetic testing for mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2," Clin Genet. 2000 May;57(5):376-83).
* Publication of the results from a study of alcoholism among Alaska Native residents of Barrow, Alaska contributed to stigmatization of this group of Alaska natives (Klausner, S. and Foulks, E. (1982). Eskimo Capitalists: Oil, alcohol and social change. Montclair, NJ: Allenheld and Osmun). This is an example of a situation in which groups were stigmatized and the economic situation of a city suffered because of conclusions drawn from a research study.
* Various studies purporting to study the intelligence of various racial groups (Herrnstein, R.J. and Murray, C. (1994). The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, A Free Press Paperbacks Book) have resulted in stigmatization of these groups. Many of these studies were poorly designed and resulted in inappropriate characterizations of members of racial groups.

What steps can researchers take to minimize these risks of group harms?

There are several actions that researchers can take to reduce the risks of group harms.

* Community consultation: Researchers should work with the community of interest to make sure that potential harms are recognized and understood, and that the study is designed to provide benefits to the community.
* Collaborative IRB review: Some groups (such as tribes, retirement communities, and school districts) have their own ethical review process for research. Community consultation is an effective approach to insure that groups harms are avoided or minimized. Researchers should work with the local ethics review body to make sure that the group's approval is obtained.
* Plan on-going consultation: Researchers should work with the group to make sure that group leaders are provided with accurate information about the research as it progresses and changes. Researchers must anticipate that their research may have to change or even stop in order to minimize potential harms.
* Plan disclosure of research results ahead of time: Most group harms result from inappropriate disclosure of research results. Working with the group so that the members are informed about how the research results will be disclosed and what the implications of disclosure may be will reduce the possibility of harms resulting to the group as the research is published or presented.

Researchers must evaluate whether or not their research could result in group harms and, if this is a possibility, take appropriate steps to minimize this risk.

You don't get more explicit than that: studies "purporting" to show lower intelligence of certain ethnic groups cause group harm, and research may "change or even stop" to prevent this harm.

And check the community consultation requirement...good luck getting professional diversity officers and representatives of groups with lower mean IQ to sign off on such studies! It's the equivalent of Darwin having to go before the Church, hat in hand, to get their approval before publishing his opus.

Another issue is if revelations in genetics would really rapidly alter political issues surrounding race.

Not overnight. The masses don't enforce referential integrity -- when one table in their database is updated with a new fact, they don't immediately make all the other tables consistent with the new fact.

But over time they do, and society changed pretty quickly when PC lies attained 99% approval in the 60's. It will change pretty quickly again when the biggest lie of them all bites the dust among the elites.

Make no mistake, the series of articles which breaks this all open definitively is less than 10 years and probably less than five years away. It's really nothing less than deicide, a world historical event that will cause massive upheaval. From an email...

...the elites are the whole kit and caboodle. The nervous system is everything, the cells are nothing. Christians and atheists alike concur that Christianity is a mere shadow today compared to what it was pre-Darwin.

The whole point of Nietzsche's "God is Dead" was about the fact that *elites had lost confidence in the system*. Not the masses, the elites. From that point on it was game over and Christianity was neutered in the West. It is still neutered today. The people who matter do not believe in it. No one writing for the NYT or teaching at Harvard believes in JC, and Massachusetts rules the world. There is a replacement religion from the Abrahamic family, of course -- as they DO believe in PC, emotionally and thoroughly.

And when their own friends down the hall, the elite scientists that they consider their peers, start quietly whispering that "Equality is Dead" (this is probably the most inflammatory way to phrase it, yet also indisputably the way in which the news will be received), it will spawn a tumult like nothing we have seen since the early days of Darwin.

I am already seeing it in academia. These people are walking it back on race, as quickly as they can. I know at least five groups involved in molecular genetic studies of IQ. There must be more. There is just no way to hold this back. Did you see the article by Feldman and crew in Genome Biology? They have acknowledged the possibility
of genetic differences in IQ between groups! No matter the hedging, this is real and serious progress. There is no new Lewontin, no new Gould. The men of the hour are Pinker and Cochran and Novembre and co.

And everyone knows in the back of their mind that there is safety in numbers. If everyone publishes at the same time, they cannot all be attacked...and hmmm, there might just be a Nobel or two in the offing, just like there was with the scramble over DNA and the genetic code.

Oh, of course, there will be Scopes trials and all manner of progressive reaction. But in the end the truth cannot be denied, particularly when biting the bullet and embracing the truth leads to a new kind of hope: in a word, Gattaca.

To clarify, I'm not saying that h-bd realism is the last barricade before utopia or anything like that. Obviously there will be big problems in the immediate aftermath -- once people realize that the West is built on axioms of sand, who knows what will happen! I mean, in a worst case scenario, what do you say to millions and millions of white Americans who have been taxed, attacked, and denounced for imaginary crimes...and who are in no mood to listen to more tranquilizing "we are the world" BS once they're in 2nd place to a rising China? There can be no guilt for that which cannot be done.

To avoid something like that, the lesson is really to *stop building the West on axioms of sand*. Stopping Obama from gaining power is just the most obvious step in that program.

Ok, now a few other points...

I agree that not funding this type of research in the U.S. would be a tragedy, but I don't think that U.S. funds are indispensable for such research to continue.

Well, the US is the engine of world research and will continue to be for some time, particularly for high impact papers. The rest can carry on, but a worst case scenario would be a *major* setback because much of Europe and possibly also Japan would follow the US' lead. Moreover, studying the specific race/genomics/IQ question will not happen in China...for the simple reason that they do not have much "diversity" over there. Research there would center on the more narrow genomics/IQ intersection, which is controversial enough -- but which the left can much more easily doublethink away. They already act upon the belief that IQ is important and heritable in some contexts -- look at all the insults heaped on the "trailer trash" Palin and her "trailer trash" kids.

the HBD train has too much momentum for even the President to derail at this point

Don't be so sure about that. A few truth tellers with an inconvenient truth against the entire Church? What do *you* think the combined resources of Harvard, the United States Government, and the New York Times can do to a field, if they decide to destroy it?

I mean, Lysenko could only ruin science in one country. By contrast, the USG + Harvard + NYT rule most of the world, with the notable exceptions of China and Russia.


but both science and politics are much larger than hbd.

Science is, but politics in the US really isn't. Think about the major domestic issues: immigration, education, socioeconomic inequality, health care disparities, crime rates, the housing bubble, the push for "women's rights"...I'm hard pressed to think of a single issue which is not utterly transformed by knowledge of h-bd.

The reason the left has been successful in elections is that people observe inequality and they are prevented from attributing it even partially to DNA rather than discrimination.

And h-bd is even more important to foreign policy. Everything from free trade to which countries are likely to uptake democracy to why India is never going to catch China...these are h-bd things that influence very high level policy decisions.

Just about the only issue I can think of off the top of my head that Obama will make the right decision on is net neutrality -- primarily because it's so far from h-bd. Anything nearby is corrupted by his bad axioms.

Just to summarize, let me humbly submit that some of the blase comments here, paraphrased as:

"h-bd is not the most important thing in the world"

or

"everyone doesn't oppose h-bd truths, only a vigilant minority"

or

"h-bd can't really be stopped, we don't need to push that hard"

or

"Obama will not oppose this tooth and nail"

...are, IMO, out of touch with reality. First, here is a simple exercise: go and post that blacks have lower mean IQs than whites on a number of discussion boards, liberal and conservative. Repeat on a public street corner, something like the sandwich board scene from Die Hard 3. Repeat in a church, a university lecture hall, a corporate boardroom, a water cooler discussion, a crowded bus, and an Obama Meetup event.

See what reaction you get. Record in your lab notebook.

PS: A related trick. I recently got tired of arguing with a friend about black crime rates in person. I stopped in the middle and said, "let's go for a ride". My friend looked at me quizzically and asked where. I casually mentioned the name of the center of our toughest nearby black ghetto. He threw up his hands and said "ok, point taken".

Note first: I don't even need to mention a place. You all know of one nearby.

Note second: I think there might be only one region in the US with a significantly above average representation of blacks and a below average crime rate, and that is Prince George's County (though I haven't dug into bestplaces.net to confirmt that this is in fact true). But it's the exception that proves the rule...

Note third: many of you have been desensitized to discussing this topic to such an extent that you may not remember that people will literally scream at you at the top of their lungs and lunge for your throat. Jensen hid under a desk to avoid being torn limb from limb...and that was forty years ago. PC has only gained in strength. Those who dispute its utter ubiquity are engaging in denial.

Don't McCain and his neocon tribe have just as strong of a reason to do whatever Obama would do? Namely, to achieve their dream of importing a large peasant underclass from Central America and give them amnesty?

Race/IQ/genomics research would point out how dim the prospects of assimilation are, especially since Central Americans have relatives who've lived in the US for 4 or 5 generations to serve as a comparison.

Same goes for race/criminality/genomics.

This touches a nerve more than the Tuskegee Experiment or drunken Alaskan native stuff that Obama would emphasize, out of his "protect the group's image" impulse as a community organizer. You can hear McCain and his staff now:

"Waves of poor, hardworking immigrants are having the door shut on them, just because of pseudoscientific claims about their genes making them less intelligent and more criminal, less able to assimilate. We all remember what *that* was about the last time -- never again, bla bla bla."

To toss some red meat into the discussion, the most important factor in whose administration would be worse for race/IQ/genomics research is the proportion of their top dogs who would be Jewish intellectuals. Black intellectuals attack "racist pseudoscience" too, but the smear campaign has always had more of a Jewish intellectual contribution, from Franz Boas to Richard Lewontin. And it doesn't matter if they're Republican either, as long as they're neocons; at least for this issue.

I don't follow politics much, so I don't know who McCain and Obama have lined up as their picks for top advisors and Department Secretaries, but the neocon influence on McCain's group doesn't bode well.

I see two alternatives:

1) Elect McCain, blow his head off, and then kidnap Palin for a few months to deprogram her from AIPAC brainwashing.

2) Encourage, train, support, etc., like-minded researchers in Eastern Europe. Recently Rushton and a local researcher in the former Yugoslavia tested the IQ of Gypsies in a range of their communities, and the mean was 70 (a bit lower in some places, but in the 80s among more prosperous Gypsy castes).

No one there gives a shit about PC, so it can't be too hard to get the research done. There are a bunch of other studies on Gypsies done in that area, one on parental investment in Hungary, comparing them with ethnic Hungarians no less.

You might be thinking Northeast Asia is a better source of research, but really, where are you going to find lots of really low-IQ and violent people to study in Japan, compared to Gypsies in Southeastern Europe?

Just for purposes of comparison: Gleichschaltung. (Past participle, an even more wonderful word: gleichgeschaltet - as in, is it just me, or is it getting a little gleichgeschaltet in here?)

The basic purpose of Gleichschaltung was to ensure that there was no space in society in which antisocial perspectives could flourish. It was not at all hard to be an anti-Nazi in the Third Reich. But you had to keep your grumbling to yourself. And you definitely were not allowed to get together with other washed-up, behind-the-time anti-Nazis to share your pathetic gripes about the new Germany.

One problem with this was that German society, like any society, contained many organizations which had nothing to do with politics. These could easily serve as petri dishes in which circles of antisocial misinformation could spring up and flourish.

No problem! Everything can be Nazified. Klemperer in his diaries explains how the cat-fancier magazine he subscribed to was, by the mid-1930s, printing articles about the "German Cat." Does your corporation have a board? Your board had better have at least one Pg (Parteigenosse, party member) on it. Is your university department Pg-free? That doesn't look good at all...

Racism, of course, is evil. But any method of social control can be used for good or evil. It can be used to eradicate good anti-Nazis, or evil racists. And trust me, by 1938, anti-Nazis in Germany were about as socially marginalized as, say, segregationists in the US in 1978. Nobody wants to be on the losing team.

Of course, I'm not saying that diversity is a method of social control. Its goal is to heal America's deep spiritual wounds, and to correct the evils of the past, such as segregation, lynching, inappropriate lawn ornaments, etc. Nor is the analogy between members of historically disadvantaged groups and Pgs exact. Victims and potential victims of racism, sexism and homophobia have all kinds of diverse perspectives on our society.

But fortunately, it is pretty much impossible to live in the United States or Europe in 2008, have any kind of professional career or even personal life, and be anything but a secret racist. And I can't help thinking that diversity - including the kinds of policies that gc quotes above - has a lot to do with this.

Of course, America is about progress - ethical, artistic, and scientific. Diversity definitely does not, and cannot, conflict with progress. Diversity is progress! And so is science. And perhaps one way to make this clear would be to require that all, not just a few, of the researchers in these sensitive and easily misinterpreted fields are diverse individuals. Obviously, the investigators themselves are in the best possible position to verify this information.

So I think IRBs in the future, perhaps in an Obama administration, should consider requiring scientists in at least these sensitive areas to submit their own DNA profiles, showing disadvantaged ancestry, as a precondition of funding. Surely this is a simple and foolproof way to ensure that the data will not be misinterpreted. And if there are no disadvantaged investigators in the field? Well - that doesn't look good at all...

agnostic,

Being a half-Jew myself (normally the genes mix evenly, but I am actually Jewish on the left side of my body and Aryan on the right, like in that old Star Trek episode) I have to take issue with your Saileresque lumping of Boas and AIPAC in the same category. It's like saying that Obama and Palin must be on the same side, because they're both Christians.

In the 20th century at least, the feuds between factions of Jews were if anything more brutal and vindictive than anything among the uncircumcised. The leading supporters of Israel are and always have been Jews. The leading enemies of Israel are and always have been Jews. Perhaps the name "Sulzberger" means something to you. Or the name "Jabotinsky." Boas and AIPAC are on opposite sides of these trenches.

Basically, Jewish assimilationists (Sulzbergers, Boas, all the Jews in Berkeley or Marin, half the Jews in Israel) are Unitarians of Jewish ancestry. They see Jewish nationalists (Jabotinsky, AIPAC, all the Jews in the West Bank) as, basically, Nazis. Do they like Nazis? Not at all. Whereas your Jewish nationalists see the assimilationists as, effectively, accomplices of the Nazis. Do they like Nazis? No more than you do.

This is really not an exaggeration of the level of love that's lost between the two. Reality is about as far from Kevin McDonald as can be imagined. And as for HBD, the Sulzbergers are definitely not the droids you're looking for...

Based on their record during the amnesty battles of the past two years, I'm not sure if neocon Jews would be a significant threat to HBD in a McCain administration. Bush's amnesty drives in 2006 and 2007 seemed to be primarily driven by Rove's attempt to "capture the vital Hispanic swing vote", the Chamber of Commerce, and Bush's still unexplainable fascination with the Mexican people.

Some neocons, especially at the Weekly Standard, voiced support for amnesty on cable news and in magazines, while others, particularly National Review, expressed opposition. There isn't much evidence the neocons were the driving factor in the amnesty offensives. The fault there has to go to Rove, the Chamber, and Boosh.

Neocons appear to be vastly more interested in their Universalist-Wilsonian-Straussian democracy experiments overseas than any domestic issue. In a McCain administration, they will probably be more involved in foreign policy than anything else (not that this is a good thing mind you).

I agree the Jewish Neocons have more of an open mind on h-bd - Brooks, Frum, Kristol - they ready to be convinced, and would almost certainly oppose restrictions into good-faith research.

But I also fear they're more than willing to plunge us into a long, protracted, very costly cold war with Russia over an analogy (Chamberlain's tapping umbrella in Munich), and it could well be we're the ones who end up going belly-up this time. Even Bush has been convinced to "step off" by his non-neocon SoD.

So that's our choice then? Eight years of National Sensitivity and Awareness Training or eight years of brinksmanship and eventual bankruptcy?

GC,

What I still don't understand is how it could even be possible to ban taboo knowledge without also banning wholesale the studies of human genetic variation and neurobiology. Sure, you couldn't mention the stuff in a paper, nor put together all the pieces in a suggestive manner, but as long as the pieces are all out there what's to stop someone outside academia (or someone tenured and too old to care) from doing so?

I'm imagining something like this: team A finds that gene X has been under selection and expressed in the brain; team B at another institution works out the pathway that maps gene X to phenotypic effects; team C finds that gene X influences performance on some sort of cognitive task (not IQ, of course, but something closely related enough that people in the know will get it). Then Maverick Scholar D goes and writes about it somewhere public. (MSD may of course be a pseudonym for anyone from teams A-C . . .)

I can easily see things the feds can do to make life difficult for people studying HBD, but what I can't see is there not being trivial ways around this. I can think of several examples of researchers who are doing stuff that's plenty pregnant with implication but who are sliding right under the radar because they know how the game is played. Come on, it'd be fun -- you get a thrill out of being part of the underground resistance, admit it. ;)

"So that's our choice then? Eight years of National Sensitivity and Awareness Training or eight years of brinksmanship and eventual bankruptcy?"

Basically, yes. Plus, there is some modest chance McCain will die of natural causes early in his term and then Palin would become President.

Jason,

When you equate "listening to experts" with "good epistemology," you demonstrate the security hole perfectly.

Who, exactly, are these experts? By what means did they achieve their positions of authority? Are their disciplines really, actually, genuinely possessed of the wonderful error-correcting quality of Popperian science? Or has this been, in some way, neutralized or bypassed? Or was it never there in the first place?

Don't forget another TLA: AGW.

What's strange is that people who have looked into HBD know that there are things under heaven and earth that are taught at Harvard, but nonetheless are not true. Logically, you would expect them to say, hey, my database doesn't seem to be obeying referential integrity. Because here's this foreign key that points to nothing at all. So why don't I go through and update all the tables?

Basically, if you read the New York Times regularly and you believe that it is giving you an accurate picture of reality - obviously, it defers to Harvard in any case of doubt - you also believe that anyone who supports the Republicans is either ignorant, malicious, or seriously deluded.

In your case, there is a tiny seed of doubt in this picture, because you know of one issue on which you are Hamlet, and the Times is Horatio - as is everyone, except for maybe about fifteen people, at Harvard. On the other hand, you also know that science is in the process of trying to correct itself on this point. You are confident that those fifteen people, who ever they are, are the future of Harvard.

And you can also identify many issues on which the Republicans are similarly out to lunch. Probably most of these identifications are the result of information provided by the New York Times. But probably a few are not. Ergo, you conclude: Democrats have better epistemology than Republicans. Is this a fair summary of your analysis? If not, please correct.

What this analysis is missing, I think, is a sense of the fundamental asymmetry between left and right in the modern American political system.

First, there is no reason at all to expect the right to have anything like an epistemological filtering system. It does not have one, period. There is no New York Times of the right. The last American opposition newspapers, the McCormick/Patterson chains, disappeared well before we were born. They kind of sucked, anyway. The American university system speaks with one voice, and pretty much always has. There are a few think tanks, but nothing of any historic prestige or significance.

So a McCain has two sources of epistemology. He can get his truth from the same place Obama does, and mostly he does. Or he can get it from demotic folk wisdom, or the Bible, or just common sense, or whatever. You would expect this process to not be very reliable, and indeed it isn't.

What's surprising is that it's ever accurate. And yet in quite a few areas, there's a pattern across the 20th century of this basically unintellectual side of the debate being right, and Harvard being wrong. In economics, for example.

This doesn't tell us that it's good to be an ignorant hick. It tells us what you already know - that our intellectual system is not immune to epistemological corruption.

And the second thing you're missing is the symbolic nature of the Presidency, especially in Republican hands. Ever see an article in the Times complaining about "political interference" with "nonpartisan public policy?" If you've seen one, you've seen a thousand. And they are the exception that proves the rule. The 20th-century American civil-service system was designed, in the Progressive Era, to respond with perfect fidelity to Harvard, and completely ignore all elected officials. Americans could elect Sarah Palin for four straight terms, and there still isn't a damn thing she could to do to get NSF to hand out grants to creationists.

Ie: don't be manipulated by the fear of an imaginary boogeyman. It is a mistake to think of electing Republicans as turning America into Palin-stan. When you vote for Democrats, you are saying that the people who have real power should stay there. When you vote for Republicans, you are agitating and disrupting the system, if to a much lesser degree than most think.

There are two genuine, positive effects of voting Republican. One, it serves as a symbolic protest against the rule of Harvard. (Or, to be more specific, of Drew Gilpin Faust.) Progressives are very good at calibrating their demands to what the public will accept - I believe it's one of Alinsky's rules. By saying, "we want Palin," you implicitly say, "we have an issue with Maoist freshman indoctrination struggle sessions" - and many other such things. This does not stop such programs, not at all, but it strikes a little bit of fear into the enemy's heart. By saying "we love Obama," you say, "full speed ahead." This is basically gc's argument.

Second, the American right is a destructive tool. It cannot error-correct the great consensus, with its one tiny little flaw. And it is full of errors itself. But suppose that consensus cannot correct itself, either? Then we know of one tool that can be used to help destroy it.

Since the right has no significant elite and no intellectual institutions, its beliefs are not a good guide to the beliefs of a world in which the progressive edifice has been toppled and shattered - a change that would make the fall of Communism look like a petty detail. After that great, cataclysmic collapse, which I'm sure would discard some good along with the bad, a new intellectual elite would have to construct itself. And you, personally, would be on the inside track for membership. With your present views, you are certainly not eligible for membership of the current ruling elite.

This frightening but enticing scenario rests on three hypotheticals. One, the system is not capable of correcting itself - accepting and fully internalizing HBD, and/or other errors; the only way to correct is to destroy it. Two, it is in fact possible to destroy it, and we are not doomed to an Orwellian future. Three, the Neanderthal American right is a productive, rather than a counterproductive, tool which can be useful in achieving this outcome.

All three of these points are quite debatable. I'm not sure I'd endorse them myself. Nonetheless, if you have not examined them, I think it is worth doing so.

gc,

argument by google is tiring for both of us.

out of all the sources you posted, the relevant (government related) ones support the proposition that it's difficult or in some cases impossible to get government grants for Bell Curve type research. we don't disagree on that.

politics in the US really isn't [much larger than hbd.]

civil liberties, global warming, national defense, aid to the disabled, tax policy, seperation of church and state, etc. etc. etc. hbd is *tangential* to issues where the primary discussion isn't about achieving equality.

The reason the left has been successful in elections is that people observe inequality and they are prevented from attributing it even partially to DNA rather than discrimination.

Don't think so. Equality is not the primary concern of most voters.

...are, IMO, out of touch with reality. First, here is a simple exercise: go and post that blacks have lower mean IQs than whites on a number of discussion boards, liberal and conservative. Repeat on a public street corner, something like the sandwich board scene from Die Hard 3. Repeat in a church, a university lecture hall, a corporate boardroom, a water cooler discussion, a crowded bus, and an Obama Meetup event.

I wouldn't deny that discussing race, the importance of IQ, or (especially) racial IQ difference is tabboo in our society. I don't think that the existence of that taboo is in any way inconsistent with any of the paraphrasings you've provided though!

Mencius,

should we ignore Obama's qualities and policies that would make him a good president and vote for McCain so as to get a nice jab in the epic fight against "Maoist freshm[e]n"?

Ah symbolism, not pragmatic politics – Got it. Don’t let anyone confuse that for emotion.

ben, this is not a "argument by googling". I simply know a lot more than you do about genomics research. I can dump loads more data as I did on that edar again thread back in june but I am not in the mood to argue every basic premise with someone who does not know the area. Not saying that to be an ass -- I wouldn't dream of calling myself expert on either the science or policy issues related to (say) internal combustion engine engineering. but I know this area very well. Please have the good faith to admit that evidence of existing and upcoming efforts by the left to restrict research in this area has been presented.

"What I still don't understand is how it could even be possible to ban taboo knowledge without also banning wholesale the studies of human genetic variation and neurobiology."

Agreed, Matt. Liberals cannot stop HBD unless they put a halt to the field of genetics and neurobiology entirely. In a few years, sequencing will be cheap enough that even small fringe think tanks could afford to do their own investigations.

But Obama would have the power to delay the day of judgement with many burdensome regulations if he is elected.

I badly want to get to the glorious (but dangerous) "Gattaca" epoch of human development ASAP. Obama could well strangle HBD in the crib, while McCain is more likely than not to do nothing as HBD quietly approaches critical mass.

"It is a mistake to think of electing Republicans as turning America into Palin-stan. When you vote for Democrats, you are saying that the people who have real power should stay there. When you vote for Republicans, you are agitating and disrupting the system, if to a much lesser degree than most think."

HBDers don't need McCain-Palin to destroy the left. We merely need to stall for time.

Many wars have been won by delaying an enemy's advance and slowly wearing down his forces, rather than defeating them in a decisive, Napoleonesque pitched battle.

The Republicans are not completely useless if you think the very foundation leftist ideology, has, oh, 5 - 10 years left before it turns into a pumpkin.

Please have the good faith to admit that evidence of existing and upcoming efforts by the left to restrict research in this area has been presented.

Didn't you see that I agreed that your evidence supported that view?

"out of all the sources you posted, the relevant (government related) ones support the proposition that it's difficult or in some cases impossible to get government grants for Bell Curve type research. we don't disagree on that."

and

"I wouldn't deny that discussing race, the importance of IQ, or (especially) racial IQ difference is tabboo in our society. I don't think that the existence of that taboo is in any way inconsistent with any of the paraphrasings you've provided though!"

Please have the good faith to admit that evidence of existing and upcoming efforts by the left to restrict research in this area has been presented.

upon re-reading this sentence i see i need to clarify what i just posted. i "agree" with that view to a certain extent (see above quotes).

ben -- re your issues...let's consider just one.

Civil liberties and national defense: do Muslims commit terrorist attacks at higher rates? If so is it a waste of resources to seize the shampoo of millions of travelling grandmothers? Is it a waste of resources to fight endless wars rather than to simply ban further Muslim immigration and strongly incentivize voluntary repatriation?

These policies are "bad" because they make self/nonself distinctions. They are racist -- and racism is bad because we all know there are no behavioral differences between ethnic groups.

I hope you will not make me google to establish that this hbd denying argument is explicitly advanced by Norman Mineta, Bush, etc.

Ben,

Except in unforeseeable emergencies, such as alien invasion, I regard any Democrat in the White House as pretty much indistinguishable from any other. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, Teddy Kennedy or Dennis Kucinich - it makes no difference to me. Although Kucinich would be kind of wild, strictly from a reality-show perspective.

You seem to be thinking of the President as some kind of executive or manager, as if he was the CEO of Apple or something. In fact the White House is a completely vestigial organ. The civil service runs itself. It is insulated by design from "politics." When the President is a Democrat, he has the good sense not to interfere with it, and Washington assumes its natural Brezhnevian form as a one-party bureaucratic state. When the President is a Republican, he can cause a certain amount of trouble, but it is more provocation than administration.

The only exception to this is on the military side of the fence. There is still some executive function in the role of "commander in chief." But since Obama has neither managerial nor military experience, nor any evidence of aptitude for either - apart from his IQ, which I'll assume is fairly high - it's hard to know what you mean here.

The absence of executive power in the White House does not mean that presidential elections are insignificant. They measure popular opinion in a way that no poll can. If Americans elect Kucinich it sends one message to bureaucrats, if they elect Palin it sends another. Even the civil service depends on consent. Apart from the judicial branch, its invulnerability is not even in the Constitution - it is just an act of Congress.

Why am I so sure of this? Well, for example, my stepfather was Joe Biden's lead foreign-policy staffer for a while in the '80s. More independent confirmation can be obtained from the likes of Richard Neustadt.

So basically, all this circus is over a more or less ceremonial position. People care because the election shows which of the American religions, "red" prole Christianity or "blue" elite Christianity, can rally more supporters to act, and therefore is the strongest. Strength always matters. And, of course, whichever side you vote for, by voting you are showing your affection and loyalty toward the government as a whole.

Obviously my affection is not what it should be. But when I do vote, I tend to vote "red," just as a wanton act of resistance to power. It makes me feel good in a reckless, Abbie Hoffman kind of way. I have no illusions that it is a constructive act.

gc is right, however, that the outcome of this contest affects little details like the Maoist struggle sessions and the IRBs. An Obama victory will energize the progressive movement, a defeat will enervate it. This is pretty much what we're voting on.

gc,

i took "human biodiversity" to refer to innate biological differences between people(s), not any sort of difference whatsoever. could you clarify the definition that you (and i presume most gnxp'ers use)?

as far as the specific example you provide, i would say that questions concerning "rational discrimination" (also called racial or religious profiling) are primarily ethical, not biological. ask any mainstream politician what the main ideology behind terrorism today is and they'll tell you "radical islam". so that fact is acknowledged (except perhaps by Kucinich). the reason profiling is controversial is because the ethical implications of this fact are unclear. e.g is it right for the government to be discriminating against group X just because a meaningful minority of group X is harmful to the public? these aren't easy questions to answer.. the fact that terrorism is a primarily a muslim phenomenon does not lead by pure logic to the *moral* decision to punish them as a group.

lastly, i find it interesting that you would say bush is opposed to HBD and then turn around and suggest we vote for Palin and McCain. How exactly do these two differ from a Bush and Cheney ticket in reverse that compels you to call for supporting them?

===

Mencius,

The president's ability to veto bills, guide economic policy, appoint supreme court justices, and (as you concede) launch plans of attack against other countries makes it impossible for me to view it as a purely ceremonial post. You rightly point out that Obama has no experience in the military. However, I believe his foreign policy is better than McCain's because it is less war-mongering, less manichean, and more diplomatic.

Speaking of the symbolism that you care about, do you honestly think that the McCain message is "boo Daily Kos progressives?" Perhaps in the shettled internet world. No, the *main* message given to the world is, "the iraq war was a good idea, let's continue with an even more radical neoconservatism."

freak show -- I don't know how things will play out. My guess is that for something as big as this, violence is inevitable at some point.

JBS, Matt -- I mostly agree but let us consider how an Obama admin might go about hamstringing this research.

1) First, apply hate speech laws and laws against inciting racial hatred to a few key players. Make sure to dig up or even invent some personal dirt to keep the coverage of prosecution of these "racist pseudoscientist" even less sympathetic -- or simply do it Guantanamo style[a] with full confidence that the ACLU will pass (as they did with Heller). See also the "human rights commisisions" for an even more obvious example of how the left could use a nonjudicial approach .

2) Second, massive funding for dedicated opponents. Flood the zone with straight up Boasian fabrications, Gouldian bullshit and Lewontonian half truths.

3) Third, restrict access and *gathering* of large data sets to "approved responsible investigators" to prevent "genetic discrimination". All
you need to do is make regulatory overhead (e.g. IRB fees) high enough to price statistically significant studies out of the Pioneer Fund range. Patent fees are an example -- explicit discouragement by means of financial overhead.

4) Fourth, consult with top journals to inhbit publication of facts which could give aid and comfort to racists, much as the synthetic polio paper was almost scuttled for being an aid to terrorists.

Such restrictions are among those being contemplated. Who will fight them? Who will even know why they are being proposed? Who has ever fought a crackdown on "racists"?

[a] In retrospect, Guantanamo is actually a *bad* analogy -- it gets tons of bad press because it's housing the guilty, whereas the "extraordinary renditions" to human rights commissions get essentially no press at all because they're leftist persecutions of the innocent. The media isn't going to stick its neck out for "racists", ya know...

Thank you very much gc.

Unless something very dramatic changes in my perception of McCain and/or Obama, I intend to vote Palin-McCain for the sake of HBD. I'm abandoning my previous plan to vote Obama to punish the GOP - and I'm in the swing state of Virginia where my vote will be a bit more important than if I were in a solid red or blue state.

Ben,

The President does not "guide economic policy." That is your TV speaking. Do you know what would happen if the White House called Ben Bernanke and told him to raise or lower interest rates? It's about what would happen if Buckingham Palace called the MOD and told it to send the Black Watch to Afghanistan.

The White House does not appoint Supreme Court justices. It nominates them. A significant difference. The power is certainly nontrivial, but it's also easy to overstate. The Court had its day in the '50s through the '70s, ie the golden age of judicial legislation, but it's pretty much locked in place today. And as for vetoes, the Bush administration has given us a whopping eight.

There is a simple reason why electing McCain will not be taken as a vote for a more aggressive foreign policy: polls say otherwise. The neocons thought that they could build popularity on the basis of military victory, but you need the victory to do that. They are out of power already, and they'll stay out. When was the last time you heard Cheney's name, for example?

A vote for McCain is nothing more than a vote against Obama. I actually would prefer an Obama administration - I think America needs a painful, necessary demonstration of rampant progressivism. But this is the "worse-is-better" theory, which gc is so down on. Not that I blame him.

I'm not going to try and debate all of these points, because I honestly don't know enough about, say, economic policy, to argue over it competently. I do admire that you back up your opinions with your readings in history and political knowledge.

I know there will be serious differences between Obama and McCain on the following issues that i care about, and that these differences will have serious differences in outcome depending on who gets elected. i've listed 5 ones here, there are many more:

1. civil liberties
2. climate change and related energy issues.
3. how to engage Iran (your claim about the polls preventing aggressiveness there is wrong, see LA Times/Bloomberg poll finding that 57% of the respondents “favor military intervention if Iran’s government pursues a program that would enable it to build nuclear arms.”)
4. general approach to foreign policy
5. supreme court nominations

also, regarding the point about symbolism i stand by what i said. this is not about progressives but about whether bush's policies will be continued.

WHAT THE FUCK? 69 COMMENTS?

guess that's what happens when you look away....

ben, I thought by "neocon aggressiveness" you meant actually occupying foreign countries. A little bombing is hardly a nation-building exercise.

But don't worry: the kinds of "surgical strikes" being talked about are not an effective way for the US to stop Iran's Manhattan Project, and this plus the opposition of State means it won't happen. Iran will have a nuclear device within two years even if Bozo the Clown is elected. Preventing this would require either (a) punitive bombings a la Serbia, or (b) an invasion a la Iraq. Neither has any constituency inside USG.

The US might be slightly stupider about Russia under McCain. On the other hand, the anti-Russia campaign is thoroughly endorsed by the Soros NGO world, and it provides an excellent opportunity for an Obama administration to tack right. For the same reason, although both parties are committed to the project of turning Afghanistan into Indiana, it might be slightly easier for McCain to find a politically acceptable escape route.

ben, I thought by "neocon aggressiveness" you meant actually occupying foreign countries. A little bombing is hardly a nation-building exercise.

well, i meant both bombing and occupying. i can tell you know more about foreign policy than me (although your over-confidence about things so chaotic as international relations and military strategy strikes me as unwarranted). as far as foreign policy, my current understanding is that:

*McCain would have a more war-oriented presidency than Obama-- more bombings, more invasions, more hostile foreign entanglements.
*Obama's more diplomatic approach is preferable right now given the current state of international affairs.

"The US might be slightly stupider about Russia under McCain. On the other hand, the anti-Russia campaign is thoroughly endorsed by the Soros NGO world, and it provides an excellent opportunity for an Obama administration to tack right. For the same reason, although both parties are committed to the project of turning Afghanistan into Indiana, it might be slightly easier for McCain to find a politically acceptable escape route."

Mencius: Mccain wants to go to war with Russia. "We are all Georgians" - this is not the statement of a peaceful man. This is a statement of a violent, bombastic egomaniac, and it would be wrong to dismiss the statement as a political stunt. He wants to go to war because he strongly believes that uncontrollable non-Progressive dictators are evil - the standard neocon line. Additionally, he would love to see the reinstitution of the draft, as he believes in service to country before all else and that it would be "great" for societal cohesion.

IMO, the difference between Mccain and Obama can best be summarized as: under Mccain, the U.S. will start WW3; under Obama, Iran will. Pick your poison.

But don't worry: the kinds of "surgical strikes" being talked about are not an effective way for the US to stop Iran's Manhattan Project, and this plus the opposition of State means it won't happen. Iran will have a nuclear device within two years even if Bozo the Clown is elected. Preventing this would require either (a) punitive bombings a la Serbia, or (b) an invasion a la Iraq. Neither has any constituency inside USG.

The US might be slightly stupider about Russia under McCain. On the other hand, the anti-Russia campaign is thoroughly endorsed by the Soros NGO world, and it provides an excellent opportunity for an Obama administration to tack right. For the same reason, although both parties are committed to the project of turning Afghanistan into Indiana, it might be slightly easier for McCain to find a politically acceptable escape route.

Mencius, I think you are much too confident about what is and isn't possible. When Bush took office I never would have believed we would be launching a nakedly aggressive war against Iraq within two years. Nor would I ever have believed that terrorists would bring down the World Trade Center.

Looking forward, we know terrorism will continue; we know Iran's nuclear program will continue; we know Russia will continue to try to increase its influence in the territories of the former USSR. But we also know that things we have no inkling of will happen -- things that aren't in our current playbook, or in the briefing books that Sarah Palin is no doubt cramming more desperately than ever after her ABC interview. For those things we can't forsee, we have to consider the temperment and judgment of the candidates. And Obama and Biden's temperment and judgment seem superior to McCain and Palin's.

Nicholas Wade has a profile of David Goldstein's views on the utility of genome-wide association studies in today's Science Times (via Steve Sailer).

Asserting the futility of studying the genetics of intelligence, Goldstein says,

My best guess is that human intelligence was always a helpful thing in most places and times and we have all been under strong selection to be as bright as we can be.

hahaha. Obvious squid ink, especially given the context of all the preceding text. IQ is highly heritable, known to vary by population, and it is not obvious that it is equally advantageous in every environment. Indeed, engineered mice with higher IQs seem to have lower fitness.

So if he can agree that there is "missing heritability" for the common diseases, obviously the same holds for IQ. But fealty to taboo is necessary for continued employment, and I don't begrudge him his statement one bit.

In my view, the most interesting quote from that article is one that supports what Henry and I have been saying in this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/1...tml? ref=science

This newish finding has raised fears that other, more significant differences might emerge among races, spurring a resurrection of racist doctrines. “There is a part of the scientific community which is trying to make this work off limits, and that I think is hugely counterproductive,” Dr. Goldstein said.

For Goldstein to point this out, he can't take the position that he thinks that such differences exist. At best he can take the Voltairean position: "I will defend to their death the right to say it"...though to do so he needs to shore up his cred among the PC. Hence the squid ink.

Oh for shame godless capitalist, razib and all of the rest of you.
Sarah Palin is anti-libertarian textbook demagogue.
The base principle of libertarianism is autonomy over the citizens own body.
Palin believes the State owns the citizens body even in cases of rape or incest.
That is the antithesis of libetarianism.

Sarah Palin has about as much credibilty as a libertarian in the conservative movement as Miley Cyrus does as a hiphopdancer at a Jabbawockeez street battle.

You are not my tribe.

Hi guys.

Nice to see godless supporting a textbook demagogue running a platform of IQ-baiting and grievance identity politics.
Not.
Palin is not a libertarian.
The base premise of libertarianism is citizen autonomy over one's own body.
Palin is profoundly anti-libertarian because she advocates State ownership of a citizens body even in the case of rape or incest.
Palin has no libertarian chops.
She's a libertarian in the conservative movement like Miley Cyrus is a hiphop dancer at a Jabbawockeez street battle.

I'm surprised that you guys don't see this election for what it is.
It isn't a culture war, it is a bellcurve war.
I would have thought that was obvious to you at least razib.

Guess I was right.
You guyz are not my tribe.

sorry for the duplicate comment.

I'm astonished that you guyz have nothing to say about the IQ-baiting in this election.
Do you think Palin could even READ Murray's book???
Do you think Palin knows what a bellcurve is?

zomg
what an incredible disappointment.
you guyz are just partisan hacks after all.

I'm going to remind you of something razib.

I am not a utopian, I don't believe that all the world can be university educated and have a greater love of ideas than of cousin, evolutionary psychology tells me that won't be so. My aim is to make the world safe for my people, who are not defined by blood or belief, but a quirky disposition to dance with ideas and explore the bounds of our brains as if that was the end of life itself. I have suggested that my people should not deceive themselves into thinking that all are as they are, that ancient and deep bonds of belief, family and ethnic blood will be worn away by the application of ideas or the distribution of texts or even the compulsion of the gun. But neither should we accept our fate meekly and be bound again by dogmas, rites and rituals, in the straight-jacket of custom and tradition.

It made me sad when i found out I was not in your tribe.
Now I find that you are not in mine.
Partisan hacks need not apply.

I agree with Jinderella, Palin is scary as hell. Her views on sexuality, drugs, and entertainment make Goebells, Goering, Stalin, and Tojo look downright tolerant (though I wonder if some of Palin's wackoness is because she couldn't handle sex or drugs herself).

Also McCain has said he would go against Big Pharma, and I think Big Pharma will be important in funding h-bd research, and ultimately genetic engineering and transhumanism.

Also, Big Pharma, Big Alcohol, and Big Tobacco, along with medical pot laws, are about the only things disempowering inner-city drug gangs, especially illegal alien-dominated gangs, and the Central American drug trade. Mess up Big Pharma, Big Alcohol, Big Tobacco, and Big Junk Food, and watch the drug cartels, gangs, and other black marketeers take over the market, with tens if not hundreds of thousands of homicides to go along with such a takeover.

If any "Big X" needs to be taken in for a whopping, its Big Oil and other old money dominated industries. Also all the motherf*****s ranging from Big Oil CEOs to Hollywood actors who have their offshore bank accounts, as they make 10,000,000+ a year and pay less (as a percentage of their income) than a scientist making $100K or $200K a year are criminals and should be treated as such. Indeed this sort of bullsh** is a lot of the reason that people over at Model Minority complain about lingering racism and discrimination against high-IQ hardworking Asians. Wacky as some MM'ers are, increasingly I believe that they have a point about how unfair America is and has been to Asians.

Palin and McCain won't *touch* these folks, much as they may claim to hate Hollyweird,* but you can bet if your dying grandma needs Vicodin, her doctor will face some hard time under Palin-McCain.

Also remember that the Nazis, particularly ones like Goebells and Goering, were not all that anti-Semetic, at least not openly (remember Goering was part Jewish himself, and Goebells and Hitler may have been part Jewish and even part Hunnish-Mongolian). Even Hitler himself did not support the Holocaust originally. Indeed I do not believe the Holocaust started until sometime between Summer 1941 and Spring 1942, well after the Nazi higher-ups had started succumbing to drugs and corruption. Stalin did not start the "great purges" until well after he had become a full-blown alcoholic. Sake, methamphetamine, and morphine probably also played a major role in Japanese atrocities like Nanking. Thus my additional worries about McCain-Palin and their supporters, who if anything seem *less* tolerant than the Nazis, Soviets, or Japanese militarists ca. 1925-1930.

*They may censor shows/outlets like SouthPark, Comedy Central, KFI 640 radio, House MD (lots of sex and drug content), etc, esp where there are lots of East and South Asians and/or Jews...but as for good Aryan Hollywood stars, they won't be touched.

is haloscan eating comments? if i did say anything inappropriate or that triggered some kind of auto-deletion, please email me (though it is ok to delete this comment).

I think you're overreacting (and nearly a month after the last post preceding yours).

I'm personally in favor of legalization of infanticide, but I recognize that abortion is not a settled issue among libertarians. There are a whole bunch of pro-life libertarians and I don't think that removes them from the club.

Personally I'm not voting and have less respect for anyone who is. I don't think Razib has actually made his position clear, but you seem to have written him off. But given your tribalist mindset, why would the libertarian leaning want to be with you?

is haloscan eating comments? if i did say anything inappropriate or that triggered some kind of auto-deletion, please email me (though it is ok to delete this comment).

i turned moderation on.

I'm going to remind you of something razib.

dude, please stop being a mind-reader. i didn't participate in this thread because i think most political discussions are retarded. if you think you can intuit who i support, frankly fuck off, because you're wrong as it happens which direction i lean. but i find political food fights a waste of time, and it tends to result in the most intelligent of people shitting out retarded crap. look at the vulgar nonsense you've pulled me into. i was reading a paper, and i have to devote my time to this stupid inconsequential bullshit? (earth to everyone, our opinions on politics on obscure weblogs don't affect the world. OTOH, learning stuff can improve your own life. try it, you might like it)

I have deleted all my blog posts that were not already deleted. I would like my comment in this thread to remain though. My posts may have been more appropriate as comments as they were rather polemical and unfocused.

ok i agree to keep my posts (if not necessarily my comments) more apolitical. i think the nastiness of this election is turning a lot of political types nasty because we are so frustrated with the bad choices we have. thus the massive polemics, hyperbole, and unfounded support given to all sides.

why don't you use the open thread?