Palit:
"Unadorned, Hinduism has few universal canons, and there is really no such thing as Hindu Law that is applicable across the country. "

You know, I had a friend who was Hindu who told me with a straight face that Hinduism was the oldest surviving MONOTHEISTIC religion. He prescribed to the belief that Vishnu was the 'only' God and that all others were simply representations of Vishnu. I doubt most Hindus I know would really practice that, however. Speaking of which, most of the Hindus I've met have tended to be fairly non- religious once they come to the US. I am not sure Hinduism is as portable as Christianity or Islam.

Nietzche: "...She reminds me of that Dutch vegan "animal-rights" activist who murdered the anti-Islamist politician Pim Fortuyn. She's self-righteous, intolerant, moralistic, rigid, narrow-minded, doctrinaire, etc. And a specialist in ad hominem attacks. CREEPY..."

I have a feeling she's probably as creepy looking as she is uptight b/c her abrasiveness reminds me of Julianne Malveoux.

duende: "My brother says that ugly chicks are sluttier than pretty ones as an evolutionary strategy."

Your brother is correct. This strategy is also employed in the entertainment industry to make women with great bodies but faces that are average (Christina Aguilera) to outright hideous (lil Kim) appear sexy. The general rule is that if a woman needs to dress and act that trashy, she's probably compensating for not having great looks. Guys, especially at a young age, might not be able to differentiate between the ugly slut and a good looking chick if the ugly slut has a good body and constantly shows off as much of it as she can.

Contrast their constant self parading in lewd outfits to, say, the unassuming elegance of Faith Hill. Faith doesn't need to 'prove' to the world that she's good-looking. You've got to be blind or be massively unattracted to Caucasoid features to assume otherwise.

Jason M: "*Mac Diva even went so far as to compare Murtaughs relationship to his Asian wife as to that of a slave-holder raping his slaves!"

I really feel for her kids if she has any. Can you imagine this chick being affectionate with anyone. Mac Diva really needs professional help in the worst way.

Sporon: "Mac Diva is obviously infatuated with you. I do not mean to presume that you and I are ideollogically aligned, but perhaps this is an example of leftists lacking creative imagination. Her entire blog is soon going to be devoted to your blog, so she may as well shut her blog down and just post comments here."

Razib's a brilliant writer and, like most South Asians, loves the podium and an audience. Don't worry about him needing to get used to any more attention. BTW, others like Richard Bennett and Overcounter thought they'd have the intellectual capital to go up against this site- we all know what happened there. Atrios can still spout his junk science in a room full of liberals, but he would never last long here... Based on what I've read of MacDiva's postings, she makes Overcounter seem intellectual. She's smartly avoided coming here for any serious discussion.

razib: "-R, why all the digs against christina a.? i thoughtz you liked the latina ladies...though faith is fine...."

Hehe. I was wondering if someone was going to bring this up since this is about the umpteenth time I've brought up how unattracted I am to Christina Aguilera. I dunno. For some reason, she hit a nerve or something. I guess cause I think I've been seeing a lot of this crap in hip hop where whether you're Missy Elliot, Lil Kim, the ex members of Destiny's Child... people assume you're supposed to be attractive b/c you keep demanding that you are presumed to be in your songs and flash some skin. Maybe it's not the women per se, but the fact that these young guys are falling for it, whereas in the past I don't feel they would have. Or, maybe it's b/c I remember growing up in the 80s when Bobby Brown (female) was 'setting the pace' in videos with Great White's 'Once Bitten Twice Shy', and now I have to listen to Lil Kim tell me how she can make a 7up disappear in her mouth. Even if she could I generally don't get off seeing ugly chicks try that and it pisses me off thinking guys nowadays do. I think I'm really pissed that the standards are lower than they were for what constitutes real beauty. Granted, I've harped before on how there are no absolute standards of beauty, but I can't even see how guys who like 'Black' features more than me really fall for it either. I just can't believe so many guys are really falling for this nonsense. Christina Aguilera is just the 'White' version of this phenomena. I've seen her as a brunette, and her looks don't hide as well without the blonde hair. I'll admit though that she can sing and OK, fine Lil Kim and Missy Elliot can rap. But, hell, this is a country of 250+ million. Can't we get chicks who can sing/ rap and who are much better looking ALL THE TIME? Like Mariah, Whitney (when younger without the cocaine and with the weave), Faith, Shania- this combo of looks/ talent should be the bare minimum required to even get an audition in the record industry in a country this big. There's almost never a good excuse to allow the 'second tier' chicks in- a lot of people can rap/ sing like Lil Kim, Missy or Christina who are about as attractive or worse in a country this big. I'd, however, allow exceptions like Celine into the club b/c her voice is literally even better than most professional Opera singers although her looks aren't (go see what she looked like when younger for those of you who really believe she's all that). I'd let Pink in as well b/c unlike Christina she doesn't try to proclaim as much that she's so hot- in fact one of her most recent songs basically talked about how she wasn't as cute as Britney. BTW, yeah I like Latinas- but I mean more like Sofia Vergara, Patty Manterola, Penolope Cruz... Now these chicks are the type of hot Latinas that I am referring to. Christina's a poseur in terms of looks. I know some women are going to get mad I'm diss
More....

Jason M: "Aside from the fact that this would be a terribly ill-considered wager, why even bring this up? Looks shouldn't be dragged into politics or ethical disputes. Morality and rationality is not one's appearence.

(This is different btw than a well-intentioned question about correlations between attractiveness and political persuasions)"

Jason, you're right. However, MacDiva generally has no reluctance about trying to drag people into the mud (the insult comparing Murtaugh to a slave owner, for example). I can't believe someone made it to adulthood presumably as a white collar professional with this kind of attitude- OK, lots of people are going to say they see this all the time in real life... But even Richard Bennett in his worst moments wasn't that tactless with his ad hominem attacks. If you're going to sling mud at people at such a low level then don't be surprised if you get mud slung back at you. Yes, it's childish and doesn't promote good debate, but what can I say- aren't we all supposed to be kids at heart?

Nietzsche: "Well, I guess we all have our preferences...I'll just say that I can't believe Tom Cruise gave up Nicole Kidman (a gorgeous Anglo-Celt) for Penelope Cruz (a run-of-the-mill Latina). What was he thinking?"

Penelope was IMO the 'weakest' chick on that list. Sofia and Patty though are through and through near perfect if you like dark featured women.

"There's undoubtedly a correlation between a woman's politics and her physical looks . For example, maniacal Marxist-feminists are invariably physically ugly (as in Andrea Dworkin). This is not even an original observation. A lot of people have commented on this curious point. They're usually very fat (with huge, and I mean huge asses) and have little (if any) personal hygiene (it would be too bourgeois to wash on a regular bases, of course). Hey, if they can dish it out, they should be able to take it."

I was about to write similarly except I remembered two really hot Libbies were Sontag and Steinem (in their primes, of course).

"As far as Christina Aguilera goes, she's alright I suppose. I liked the earlier more wholesome version, though. I don't know why she's going out of her way now to look like a cheap skank and whore in all of her recent videos and public appearances. BORING! It's soooo played out. Body an 8/10; face a 5/10. I'm feeling generous this morning."

OK, now when the (bleep) was Christina ever 'wholesome'? I can't remember her not being a skank.

Good for you. have fun in SF.

Scott: "damn duende- You risk excommunication from this blog if you rip on razibs dream-woman."

Hey, Scott, you missed me practically tearing up Razib for having the audacity to think Christina Aguilera was attractive. I'm still here and still think she's a horse face (which she is, BTW)!

Gwyneth is one of those chicks who doesn't have that impressive breasts but is still highly impressive nonetheless. I think Brad Pitt married a less attractive woman in Jennifer Aniston.

alpha: "I don't know many 51 year old men that can bench 275. Actually, I don't know many 20 year old's that can lift that much."

275 is pretty good for his age, but I am less impressed with it considering how big he is, his weight and how long he's been seriously lifting.

I'm only ~5'8. I'm in my late 20's and have only been lifting for ~4yrs. When I started, I could barely do 40lbs on the bar. I can 200 on dumbell press (much harder than the bar) and 190lbs on incline dumbell press (again, harder). I am only ~175lbs (weighed ~110-115lbs after puberty). If I were even close to this guy's wt and height, I would be doing 300lbs on the standard bar bench press. I don't really try to max out so all the above numbers come from sequential sets. But, I was fooling around the other day and (again in the last of a 5 set routine) I was doing 245lbsx4 on decline bar press. Granted, IMO the decline is easier than the standard bench or incline.

Still, I think most weightlifters at my gym would be not completely impressed with his feats relative to his size. This, of course, assumes he was maxing at 275lbs, that he was not doing dumbells (much harder than bar) and that this was the most weights he had ever lifted (i.e. he wasn't lifting a lot more when younger).

"Besides, it doesn't indicate if that's his 1 rep max, or whether he does 275 for mulitple reps. Keep in mind that it's acutally harder for tall men with long arms to bench. "

IMO, the tall man theory is laregly bullsh*t. Yes, it might be true if you're tall and lanky. But, if you're tall and thick- set you're going to be powerful. At that point, whatever you have to work more for with longer arms is going to be more than offset by increased thickness and longitudinal size of those arms. That is why the strongest men in professional sports, the offensive line in football is loaded with tall, heavy set guys who can bench press a truck. Short guys get decimated by this level of power so aren't found there, by and large.

This tall man statement is really a defense for tall, skinny and, usually, wimpy guys who don't eat right and spend more time talking in the gym than actually trying to work out.

My statement: "This tall man statement is really a defense for tall, skinny and, usually, wimpy guys who don't eat right and spend more time talking in the gym than actually trying to work out."

alpha: "-R, I hope you were joking when you made that stmt cause it's lame. Who stronger than who and who can take who is kind of meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Training for BJJ/Greco-Roman/MMA is fucking 50 times harder than lifting weights. But to me that's meaningless - cause i don't give a shit - Besides, Bill Gates is "wimpy" but I'd rather have Mr. Gates IQ and physique than superhuman strength or my friends fighting abilities, or for that matter - money. I guess it's just that i value intellect much more than anything."

Thanks for educating me on some of the facts I didn't know about muscle biology.

Anyway, this is a public forum and I'm not directing my statement at anyone in particular so I didn't feel the need to sound tactful. I've never wrestled so I'll take your word for it that it's harder than lifting. I also value intellect more than lifting and never meant to imply that Gates or Chin should start focusing more on lifting over what they are doing. That statement had more to do with guys at my old gym who would take hours to finish a 45-60 min workout b/c they seemed to come to the gym to socialize. For some reason, that just really got on my nerves. I doubt they were Greco- Roman wrestlers or setting up their own computer companies/ hedge funds. That said, it is still possible to be a high IQ productive member of society and still a wimp. Hell, before I started working out, I was a classic geeky short wimp- and that had nothing to do with my or any other classic geeky short wimp's moral worth.

For the record, I think one of the most insidious things in American culture over the past 20 years is the proliferation of sarcastic humor designed to crack a joke at someone else's expense. I didn't feel I was doing that with the above statement since it was not specific.

I'm not white and am grateful America let my parents emigrate here. But, I am no longer convinced diversity is necessarily a good thing. I realize the irony of this statement. Be that as it may, most people discuss diversity and simply only laud its success stories.

However, who is to say that a world filled with a single race that didn't vary much in appearance would not be beneficial? Certainly, if you look at most sci fi on the screen (like the Klingons or Romulans in classic Trek) before the modern era of PCness, most depictions of alien civilizations were based on a the species looking relatively homogenous. Earthlings were the ones that were more heterogenous. My point is simply that we don't know what fewer problems there might be with true conformity.

I realize that this is simply purely theoretical and largely a moot point given the variety of human life on our world. However, as Razib has alluded in his post, many (the vast bulk?) of us seem to try to associate with those we can relate to on some level of similarity. In that sense, we are trying to replicate some ideals of conformity in a 'sea' of diversity.

Razib: "...(filler space to important stuff)...World on Fire deals with the topic of "Market Dominant Ethnic Minorities." The prelims out of the way first, Amy Chua's jacket photo is far more flattering than the photo on the Yale web site. What's up with that? I suspect that the book photo is about 10 years old or so, she looks to be about 30, near the prime of her sexual peak in terms of physical attractiveness... (filler space again)"

A woman reaches her physical 'peak' usually between 18-23 yo. By the time she's 30, she's already begun her slow decline in terms of looks. NOTE, before I get tons of angry hate mail for saying the obvious, I am not saying that a woman at 30 yo cannot look good. In fact, most of the big name Hollywood actresses are already near that age or older by the time they've gotten their big break and major name recognition on the silver screen. I am simply suggesting that someone like Nicole Kidman looked better at 21 yo than her mid to late 30's. She's still beautiful but was even more so when younger.

Pawan: "naahh...when they're 21 most women are still awkward and haven't really discovered themselves..its only when they get to their mid to late 20's that they really blossom...American women are an exception unless they manage to avoid growing to size 10 and above"

Assuming proper nutrition, a woman has fully developed (I am using Tanner stage criteria, btw) by the time she's 18yo. I can maybe see some women who might develop fully a few years earlier or take a few more years to fully develop. However, generally speaking, suggesting women are physically at their peak by 18-23yo is valid. If this is the case, then there is only a slow, progressive decline from then on. Attractive women will still be attractive if they take care of themselves by 25yo, 30yo maybe even 35yo, but there's no way they are going to look better than when they were 18yo or 21yo- from a physical standpoint.

If you want to argue that they are going to 'discover themselves' or 'blossom' from an emotional standpoint later in life, then that may be true. If you believe that is attractive to you, that is fine too, but I am talking purely about looks.

Jeez, Catherine Zeta Jones looks so f*cking hot! What the hell was she thinking marrying that old geezer? It's not like she didn't have money of her own.

I knew this medical student who was blonde/ blue eyed and Latino. There are many more examples I could think of like this. In the minds of these 'White' latinos, do they even care that AA was not intended for them? I don't blame them for using it to their advantage as long as they acknowledge this irony.

With more race mixing in the future, will the vast bulk of the Latinos be almost completely 'White' Latinos who benefit at AA at the expense of the 'Brown' Latinos AA was designed for?

The avg south Asian is usually darker than the avg Latino yet we seem to do fine without the benefit of AA in colleges- rendering a lot of the argument for AA moot. The main argument that remains is that it is necessary to promote diversity- which, of course, means it's needed in perpetuity.

Roger Chaillet: "Asians benefit from affirmative action. They are no different than blacks or Mexicans. However, it's not in the realm of colleges and universities. Rather, they can become "preferred" minority providers to Fortune 500 companies and the federal government just like blacks and Mexicans. And they too can borrow money from financial institutions at sweetheart interest rates, thanks to the Community Reinvestment Act. "

Based on test results (like SAT, MCAT, LSAT, MENSA IQ tests) in which certain Asian groups (like Indians, Chinese, Koreans etc...) do very well compared to Whites, I doubt many, if any, of these Asians need any help competing with Whites for Fortune 500 jobs.

Whatever miniscule benefit these particular Asian groups derive from Affirmative Action, is grossly offset by its negative ramifications for these Asians in college/ post- college institutions.

Economist: "...and the northern industrial towns that traditionally supplied men are in decline. As their populations fall, so the recruitment pool shrinks. For two out of the last three years, the army has fallen short of its recruitment targets."

Yet another manifestation of global demographic trends at work on the local level.

"The army tends to recruit from the lower echelons of society; and poor ethnic-minority youngsters tend to be better-educated than whites in the same social group."

More than likely, the Economist is simply not separating the distinct ethnicities out like David just did. So, the real question is why (presumably) are Black African and Black Carribean people not signing up for the army in more numbers?

If Burbudge is right about the ethnic 'pecking order' concerning education, why are Pakistanis doing relatively poorly? In this country, by anecdotal experience, do much better. Besides just the usual supects of caste, maybe there are environmental reasons too. As I understand it, Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are assimmilating less well than Indians in England.

From Educational Achievement of Canadian Ethnic Groups care of Dienekes-

I am really surprised Filipinos seem to be so educated in Canada.

Don't move to Austin: that's my recommendation.

I've lived in TX (Houston and Big D) most of my life. True, I never spent much time in Austin and most of the people (mainly white people who went to school at UT) who were from Austin loved it. However, Texas, in general, is a whole other country.

First of all, you are only 5'8-5'9. You did say that the Whites in Imbler are taller than average. Still, I've lived now in the SW, NE and W and the Whites and Blacks in TX can get as big as the longhorns. I suspect you'll find even more of a height disparity in TX and that might make you uneasy.

Second, despite TX being more diverse than a place like Imbler, there's still a lot of voluntary segregation. More importantly, I suspect that because there are more minorities, the Whites are more likely to be distrustful of minorities in CERTAIN circumstances (try going in to a cowboy bar to meet a really hot cowgirl and see how many people look at the only Bangledeshi in the place). This isn't true for all circumstances, but a lot of the really hot Texas women like frequenting those places.

Third, unless you are going to have a strong social support system (guys/ girls that will introduce you to others or hit the town with you) you'll have to start over. Maybe you like doing that, and this isn't unique to TX, but worth pointing out nonetheless.

Fourth, Texas is REALLY conservative. I've lived there most of my life but really only appreciated how conservative it was when I left. As a newcomer and a non- White, you may not like this aspect of TX. Austin is supposedly fairly progressive, but I doubt it is ever going to feel like Portland.

Finally, I don't want to come across as bashing Texas. I love Texas in many ways and really liked growing up there, in retrospect. The people are very hospitable. Many of the White chicks in Texas are really good looking. Partly this may be due to just having some really attractive women, but I think a lot of this is due to Texans really emphasizing getting made up and stuff. The standard of living is better financially than most other areas of the country. But, I am talking to Razib in terms of giving advice to a single guy minority looking to get a hot White chick.

rks404: "I lived in Austin for ten years and I really loved it, even though I am a short brown guy. I hung out with a group of people that were very culturally diverse and educated and it was a great time. Austin, like any other city, is what you make of it. But I do think that Austin is definitely a progressive town surrounded by the conservatism of the rest of Texas. Women there are beautiful and the hippie vibe is pretty strong there."

Did you go to school there? If so then it might affect your opportunities and outlook regarding the city.

">>aiyyo, aiyyo Jim: I thought that was malayalam?"

No, what you witnessed was a high IQ indian make a pathetic attempt to talk in 'ebonics'. If you think that was stupid, you should see me rap. Indians have no place in rap- which should be only be legally reserved for Blacks and maybe some really insane Whites.