an idea: it may be that the natural operating temperature for people of northern euro descent is colder weather. The military has stats on this. Perhaps we could put temperature of the county as another axis and do a multiple regression (taking into account both income and temp). 
 
You might also add in humidity and altitude. Maybe Douglas CO is the climactic opposite of Baker FL.

An alternate way to look at is this: suppose the agribusiness' team of PhDs had come to believe that unleashing a plague of locusts would be a great way to boost harvests in the coming years. In that case something might be wrong with education and theory at the graduate level.  
 
Similarly for economics. If econ was forced by this to take more h-bd factors into account at the graduate level, that would be great and long overdue. I'm not holding my breath though.

Just thinking out loud, but is it possible that estimators of Ne can exhibit nontrivial sampling variance?  
 
My stats is certainly stronger than my pop gen, but recall the Genghis Y chromosomal incident. Could it be that Hammer et al. oversampled the descendants of polygamists and vice versa for Keinan?  
 
Either that or someone may have a sign error a la poor Geoffrey Chang.

The secular right is the evolutionary right, the right of Nietzsche, Darwin, Mencken, Fisher, Galton, Summers, and Watson.  
 
It's the ideological Linux for those who have long since uninstalled the factory OS of the public schools.  
 
And Steve Sailer's site is the new kernel.org.

Google Translate might be helpful.

wouldn't surprise me if black women were vociferously opposed to interracial marriage

A more precise version of Steve's claim is that "population" has become a politically correct proxy for race in the field of "population genetics".  
 
And that is something that few can deny.

In terms of statistical graphics this information is best presented in a histogram (or table) ranked by frequency. Otherwise you need to search around to find the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. by cites.  
 
The 2D representation would primarily be appropriate if you were to do a cartogram and/or if you were to superimpose the bubbles upon the countries. Even then I would use coloring rather than bubbles because (as someone pointed out above) the scaling of the bubbles leads to visual distortion.

Re: red states being net tax eaters, the problem there is the aggregation of voters into states. I remember doing this analysis a few years ago.  
 
If you disaggregate into voters, it comes out that high income individuals are tax payers (obviously) and more likely to vote Republican (though ultra high income voters are more likely to vote Democrat).  
 
In other words, the recipients in the red states are disproportionately blue voters and the donors in the blue states are disproportionately red voters (where the def of "disproportionately" is TBD -- you'd have to see whether the correct denominator is the immediate surrounding environment or the national environment...)

http://www.thecareandfeedingofman.com/hail-xx/famous-women-in-film-video-mash-up/

Amac -- at risk of digression, an important meta counterargument is that women will usually be less happy if they achieve high status, as they generally want to mate with men of even higher status.  
 
Overall, telling women to achieve high status a) reduces their time window for childbearing, b) makes it less likely to find a partner, and c) increases the likelihood of feminist indoctrination -- triple whammy to fertility. Case in point -- watch them struggle over whether a feminist can be in a heterosexual relationship:  
 
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/04/03/feministe-feedback-what-does-a-feminist-relationship-look-like/ 
 
And Sylvia Ann Hewlitt presents data to indicate that childless CEO-type women wish they'd had kids instead. Conclusion: the most subversive kind of sex ed reform would be telling girls the truth: 48% of women will be infertile by age 35.  
 
http://www.babycenter.com/0_chart-the-effect-of-age-on-fertility_6155.bc

s/N2/Berkeley/g 
 
There, fixed it for you!

correlated with mental illness.  
 
seemingly debunked 
 
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1979-33764-001 
 
D. B. Cohen (see record 1979-23735-001) reported that dark-haired/light-eyed college females may be more susceptible to psychopathology than other groups. Data from a similar survey in an inpatient psychiatric hospital fail to confirm his findings; there was no significant difference between male and female distributions, nor was there an obvious skewing of the color combinations in favor of the dark/light combination. (1 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)

i doubt he'll turn america into a majority black nation which can usher in the emergence of a more explicit black nationalist in his wake.  
 
But under Obama America will likely become majority non-white as mass unskilled immigration (legal and illegal) will accelerate to heretofore unseen levels. Whether that leads to the election of a black nationalist isn't really the point I was making -- the point is that the civilized Mbeki is the point of the spear that lets in the uncivilized Zuma or Mugabe or what have you.  
 
Obama, like Sidney Poitier or Jackie Robinson, is the exceptional pioneer, well above the white average in behavior and ability...which paves the way for the bulk of the distribution to follow as the psychological guards are now down, with the same predictable consequences observed everywhere else.  
 
the ANC is a "catchall" party and zuma has a separate and distinct base different from mbeki, the latter did not pave the way for the former, they're from different branches of the ANC  
 
I don't believe that's looking at the issue from the right level of granularity. FW de Klerk led to Mandela, who led to Mbeki, who led to Zuma. Mandela gave lip service to whites, Mbeki gave lip service to Mugabe, and Zuma gives lip service to his machine gun. A clear example of the slippery slope in action. Civilization survives when the slippery slope is halted (as in NYC under Giuliani) and perishes (as in Detroit or Zimbabwe) when it is not. I know it's regrettably crude, but you know what they say -- once you go black, you never go back.  
 
And thought it's probably already too late, under Obama the USA will irrevocably become 50% nonwhite and will therefore (yes, it is a causal link) begin to recede as a world power. For the actual mechanism, one need look no further than the subprime crisis, just one example of our looming idiocracy.  
 
Anyway. These are just truths. Who can deny that the media will push Obama to be the blackest president ever, to appoint America's most diverse cabinet, to bring "change"?  
 
And what happens when the most powerful man in the world can play the race card? "When Victims Rule"...not just the mass media, but the White House as well?  
 
The outcome will be as retrospectively obvious as the jihad against our troops in Iraq.

who is in his entourage?  
 
Jeremiah Wright, for one... 
 
For others, see Tribune article on this very topic:  
 
http://www.memos2mom.com/2008/02/who-is-in-obamas-entourage.html 
 
First one does not look promising.  
 
Cassandra Butts 
http://www.americanprogress.org/experts/ButtsCassandra.html 
 
Prior to her service at CAP, Butts was an Assistant Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, where she worked on civil rights policy and litigated voting rights and school desegregation cases. She also served as Legislative Counsel to Sen. Harris L. Wofford (D-PA). Butts also served as an international election observer to the Zimbabwe parliamentary elections in 2000. She is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Obama is my second choice for Prez anyway, just because I doubt he has the experience or connections to do much serious damage in DC. What's the worst that can happen there?  
 
Think Marion Barry, Coleman Young, David Dinkins, Ray Nagin, Wilson Goode... 
 
What happens when you have Rampart on the scale of the Department of Justice? When Obama's entourage has positions in the highest echelons of the federal government, when they cannot be criticized for fear of "racism"? Think about Rod Paige as Sec Def...if you've thought our public bureaucracy hit a low during the Bush administration, just wait till you see the most diverse administration ever.  
 
If Obama wins, we are utterly screwed. People don't get that an election is not an election of one man -- it's an election of his entourage. Analogy: Obama, like Thabo Mbeki, is respectable enough on the surface. But he brings along many who are the American analog of Jacob Zuma, tribal to the core.

cultural anthro is a tale told by a fool signifying nothing. 
 
its rrlationship to physical anthro (which is increasingly just biometrics plus genomics) is like the relationship of alchemy to chemistry, or astrology to astronomy 
 
the fact cannot be evaded thatcultural anthros have in a strong sense negative knowledge. Their predictions about the fates of societies are worse -- not better -- than those of the man on the street.

Americanization of 300 years???? 
 
50 years ago, they cant go to a university. So you are talking about what, 1 or 2 generations of a small percentage of blacks who went to college.

You will need more data to have any justifcation  
 
No, in fact the existence of affirmative action (and known distributions of SAT test scores, etc.) imposes a Bayesian prior which needs to be overcome with data.  
 
For them to be at the average of their class, they'd have to be the exception.

you are all off base here.  
 
brooks is triangulating furiously to get IQ research mentioned in the new york times.  
 
this is the equivalent of a captive in a vietnamese prison doing his best to spell out "they are torturing me" with his eyes in morse code while being forced to denounce america on camera.