"....unusually high number of births of what turn out to be gay people during historical periods of great stress for a population. I think there have been some such studies and they came up empty." Not at all: Dörner, G., Geier, T., Ahrens, L., et al. 1980. Prenatal stress as possible aetiogenetic factor of homosexuality in human males. Endokrinologie 75: 365-368. Dörner, G., Schenk, B., Schmiedel, B. & Ahrens, L. 1983. Stressful events in prenatal life of bi- and homosexual men. Exp Clin Endocrinol 81: 83-87.

I don't think that there are more recent data. There's now a certain tendency against such studies, because the gays suspect, that with influences known, parents would select against potentially gay fetuses or apply measures against such an outcome. As the above linked article in the New Scientist describes. Or this one on the same subject: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/02/the-anti-lesbian-drug.html

I remember reading in a book of Czech globetrotters Hanzelka and Zikmund written in 60's about counting of Xivaros (those making tsantsa heads...). They counted up to ten, but remembering the numbers over six needed a co-work of the whole great-family. And yes, 10 was "I ended both hands".

I lost interest after I learned that almost everybody is a Cylon.

I noted during my shopping since the last September to this March that the ruling colors of clothes were combinations of white, violet, grey and black.  
What does it say about the political-economical climate of this winter? Aren't these colours interpreted by psychologists as colors of depression?

Oh, woe me, I could have been a genius, had my father not be 62...or maybe my mother aged 38 acted as counterbalance?

Good to hear from La Griffe again.  
 
Especially, when I just finished reading a .pdf of "Gender at School" in Czech, a proud opus of some Czech NGO financed by Soros. Of course, the gap between school performance in maths between boys and girls is mentioned, and with a handwawe ascribed to the stereotyping. The logic was hit over the head by ideology many times in that little gem in the style "damned if you do and damned if you don't".  
 
An example: If a boy performs well in maths, he is NOT praised. If a girl does the same, she IS praised. In this way she can take home a message, that her performance was extraordinary for a girl, which will only cement her in the stereotypical opinion, that women aren't good at maths.  
 
Another example of the same sofism in the book: At the workplace, women often make coffee for all coworkers, male and female alike (naturally it is wrong...). A gender-progressive firm may interfere and introduce a rule, that all males and females must take turns in making a coffee. Which is wrong again, because it makes people even more conscious of their gender, i.e., masculinity and femininity. The question as how to make a corporate coffee without offending any dogma remained unanswered, though.

And I would like for parents to have a choice in selecting whatever phenotype they want (including homosexuality). That is a niche for the market to fill. 
 
Do you think there would be also a possibility of litigation of these children against someone who had turned them intently fro e.g., deaf or homosexual? I for one wouldn't be happy knowing that I could have been a "normal" person, but someone (and yes, my dear parent/s) wanted me to be different and not in the positive sense.

A-Bax: true, my voice is also higher-pitched when recorded and when heard by other people. And I don't like the sound of it much ;-)

To whatever floats your vote: 
 
Interesting. The lack of certain deeper probing of MSM into Obama's past was also several times criticized by Steve Sailer. I can only say, that most of the information about Palin appeared rather quickly, rather completely and in my langiage at my side of the pond, whereas for the information about Obama I had to dig a bit in the US sources. Here in Czech Republic, the media are more for McCain, probably because Obama is considered left leaning and in a post-communist country to be left-leaning is for media the equivalent of belonging to a church where they speak in tongues. 
 
Histeria said:Palin scares me because she seems to connect with whatever tiny bit of pioneer spirit is left in americans 
and considers it a bad thing. Why?

Some data for comparison: 
http://www.aicgs.org/documents/jhunt06.pdf

The pre-1989 economy and industry of East Cermany was comparable to that of Czechoslovakia. However, after the reuniting of both Germanies, their course was different. While the cities of East Germany have been "polished" and new highways built after the reuniting, the industry was devoluted, partly intentionally, and all economical and scientifical potential of the East spurned.  
West industry bought and then closed the potential eastern concurrents. Due to the lack of jobs, young people leave the hopeless eastern states.  
While Czech Republic, with similar economic background and 40 years of commie rule and population IQ, but without a capitalist intervening "older brother" is economically better off.

What's so good about having less sex? 
 
The results cited by agnostic do not say that the young generation has less sex. Just less partners. Might that be a preference for quality over quantity?

think of adults contracting chicken pox 
 
I caught it aged 37. Terrible. Don't know if in some more medieval conditions I would have survived it due to bacterial infection of the open pox lesions.

Long Ma: 
General ideology - I would say I retained about 50%. Taking into account all the political changes in my country and the isolation behind the Iron Curtain, this is rather a lot ;-) 
 
But back to Obama - here I don't think he is now a different person. Otherwise he wouldn't take an Afrocentric reverend for a spiritual guide.

Obama was writing about his teenage years and his early adulthood. 
 
In other words - the formative years...

I can't quite get what makes people root for Obama. 
 
For what I've read about him, he has an identity problem - not being black enough, not accepting that he's half white...is that really good thing for the aspiring leader of the nation when he's not at peace with his heritage and himself?

How exactly do they make submitters anonymous? A single self-reference says at least which lab the submitter is from.

Razib, in 1989, when the power takeover started, the Slovak people meetings were much more nationally accentuated than the Czech ones. As I see it now, the split was only a matter of time. The politicians did only what was already present in the undercurrents. 
 
The whole short history of Czech and Slovak common state was marked with misunderstandings. With the economic imbalance - that's also a bit complicated matter. Czechia had more diversified industry, but underfinanced, Slovakia had more modern industry built after 1950.  
 
Also there were differences in "national character and style" - Slovaks were more outgoing and emotional, whereas Czechs tended to be more matter-of-fact and ironical...I should know a bit personally, as my aunt married a Slovak ;-)

Czech-Slovak association was in 1918 conceived to achieve a majority over the minorities remaining in Czechoslovakia from formerly ruling nations of Germans and Hungarians. However, due to a different history, Slovakia was, compared to Czech lands, deficient in industry and educated population. Therefore, Czech administration and teachers have been sent to Slovakia to improve the situation. However, Slovaks felt patronized and a dislike towards Czechs was growing.  
 
When Czechia in 1939 was incorporated under German rule as the so-called protectorate, Slovaks got their first national state of their own, although it hasn't been much more than a puppet state in the German sphere of influence. After WW2, Czechs and Slovaks were reunited and it started anew, this time in a Commie regime. On one side there was more cultural and even personal closeness, on the other side, a lot of money has been transferred to Slovakia to build a new industry, whereas Czech state enterprises were sorely underfinanced.  
 
And, of course, there were various attempts of assymetrical, federal or otherwise arrangements, that should somehow compensate for the fact, that one nation is 10 millions and the other 4 millions... 
 
Anyway, after 1993, each part decided to go its own way. For myself, I can say that I was a bit sad, but as the years went, I think that the separation was a good thing. Frankly, I can't imagine that in case of economical problems we wouldn't again turn one against another and start the old dialogue about who patronized whom, whose money financed whose development etc., etc....

jaakkeli: 
 
You are probably right. It's similar as the Czech-Slovak divorce in early 90's. Frankly, I don't give much hope to the multiculturalism myth of the West. When even two nations so closely genetically and ethnically related as Czechs and Slovaks weren't able to live in a common state - what are the chances of so distant ethnies as sub-Saharan blacks, North Africans and French?

Exactly my kind: 
 
Today, rural (Finnish) people tend to be socially right-wing and economically left-wing or ambiguous. 
 
Well, that's what I am. A Post-communist central European.