I live in the South. I coach youth football. In our league, the players start wearing pads and playing tackle football at five years old! I've looked on occasion at the Caste Football site because Steve Sailer has linked it, most recently concerning the leading rushers in the NCAA. The standard non-HBD response to a query about the over-representation (relative to population) of blacks in college and pro football is, as Steve has noted, that they are more motivated by their circumstances to excel in sports and thus work much harder to achieve greatness. Ridiculous. When you coach youth football it is exceedingly difficult to defend against speed, unlike (at least to an extent) junior high and especially high school where a good defensive scheme can somewhat lessen its advantage. In youth football, if you have speed, you simply put the speedy kid at QB and run him around the end. Result, touchdown! You get three guesses as to the race of the kids who run the ball in our leagues, especially on the 5-6 and 7-8 year old teams. I suppose it's all that work ethic they have when they're 0-4 years old.

Obviously you are correct. But the issue is the extent of the pain that must be endured as equilibrium is reached. The pain will be intense, as the debt wall that was built was extraordinarily large, and the financial instruments that were created to "smooth out" the attendant risk have such large notional values and are carried as assets on the books of otherwise insolvent institutions.

Schiller and Roubini in a class by themselves? Not so. Bill Bonner (Empire of Debt), Michael Panzner (Financial Armageddon), Eric Janzsen (iTulip blog), Marc Faber and Michael Hudson are but five of an admittedly small minority of economists, in addition to Schiff, who made the correct call. While Schiller has a modicum of modesty and humility, Roubini's relentless self-promotion is embarrassing and just makes it seem as though he was the only economist to make the correct call. (Of course, Schiff is a relentless self-promoter as well but, at least to me, in an inoffensive way). Moreover, Roubini is a shill for corporatism and is not correct in what he claims will be the outcome of this mess.

No data to offer, just the observation that the Southern Baptist Convention, one of the largest if not the largest Evangelical denomination in the U.S., appears to be trending toward Reform (writ, Calvinist) theology (see Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville). Also, a number of non-denominational, even charasmatic, groups of evangelical churches are trending that way as well, e.g., Sovereign Grace Ministries of Gaithersburg, MD.

Another 100 percenter. Really only had to think about two answers -- the road to Emmaus and David's great-grandmother, Ruth, but got 'em right anyway. It helps having gone to a real undergraduate Bible school for a while, even though I haven't read the Bible through in some time.

In Nashville (close to where I work) over the weekend a Muslim cab driver got all hacked because a couple of his customers apparently criticized his religion, so he ran over one of them with the cab. This is all the buzz around here. We've got a lot of very interesting local reactions, running the gamut from preemptive surrender -- to mealy-mouthed can't we all just sing cumbaya -- to the predictable southern rebel flag toting defiance. It's nonetheless a serious issue and one which won't likely go away very soon in the west. So, maybe not anti-religious jihad is in order but perhaps a little more criticism like that envisioned by dougjnn is. But will individuals who do so pay a potentially very heavy price?

RKU, I don't mean to contend that fundamentalists will necessarily and logically think through inherent contradictions in their behavior as judged against their religious beliefs or that all of their actions will conform to doctrine. Certainly they will not. Thus, there will always be contradiction, rationalization, and, as Razib said, "complexities." But actions will be informed by belief, at least to some extent, and I think to a very great extent, which is very scary, especially considering that fundamentalist "religion" can indeed be (and in my view too is) the views of the enlightened and rational elites identified by Mr. Blowhard....

By the way, such knowing belief is not the exclusive province of the "religious" as such -- witness the Bolsheviks, Leninists, Stalinists, etc. But the fundamentalist (writ, human?) tendency is the same, is it not?

And it really isn't entirely clear to me that the 9/11 attack should be regarded as much connected with religion as such, let alone Islam in particular. 
 
Gotta disagree. I doubt you were ever a fundamentalist of any sort -- not even one of Harris's ilk. I was (not atheist, but rather a fundamentalist Christian), and so I understand and believe to be true Harris's statement that The result ... is that your fellow moderates tend to doubt that anybody ever really is motivated to sacrifice his life, or the lives of others, on the basis his heartfelt religious beliefs. Moderate doubt—which I agree is an improvement over fundamentalist certitude in most respects—often blinds its host to the reality and consequences of full-tilt religious lunacy.  
 
If you KNOW a thing to be true, then you'll act in conformity with that belief. Jihadist Islam is not political at its most basic level (of course it has such implications); rather, it is religious.

And when you think about it, the doctrine of a life-to-come is not such an uplifting idea after all because it necessarily devalues life on earth. Just remember the most famous people in recent memory who acted in expectation of a reward in the hereafter: the conspirators who hijacked the airliners on 9/11. 
 
Good grief! And Paleo-Marxists, Maoists, and the Khmer Rouge exalted it? Pinker is one of my heroes for his no nonsense, almost everyman response to the data, PC be damned. But then he comes up with this. Again I say, good grief!