Big think is a joke. To expect that any meaningful information can be gleaned from 2-minute celebrity sound bites is absurd. That medium will remain the purveyance of poets and troubadours. 
 
Complex ideas are still communicated the old-fashioned way through reading, writing and arithmetic (and the occasional long lecture.)

A female Fields Medalist is predicted to surface once every 103 years: 
 
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm

Very good razib, I knew you could do better than a simple "no."

"Another person assuming you're a muslim, razib." 
 
Not really. I'm just trying to narrow down the possible reasons for his implied "great man" theory of history.

I find the scholarly research into the social pathologies of Bedouin society leading up to the Islamic revolution to be more than sufficient to explain the success of Mohammad, just as I find the socio-political condition of Roman society to explain Julius Caesar, and the anarchy of revolutionary France to explain Napolean Bonaparte. 
 
Humans require a certain minimum level of justice and order. And when absent they rally to those persons or institutions that can provide it. 
 
However if you are a Thomas Carlyle literalist or worse yet a believing Muslim, we probably have nothing to discuss.

"no." 
 
The underlying disorders in social and economic relations among Arabs that resulted in Islam sweeping the Arabian peninsula would still have existed. Muhammad was the catalyst for change not the ultimate cause of it.

Without Muhammad I daresay the Arab world would have produced some other unifying ideology and probably just another one based on the Old Testament.

It is possible that the anonymity of the submitters is masking other factors that may or may not be related to their sex. Academic credentials, etc.

Minnesota is a blue state. The predilection for rich folks to vote slightly less Republican in the blue states can probably be accounted for by the higher golf course to church ratio found in metropolitan areas!

"it's just a different, mostly non-urban style of being rich." 
 
Indeed, the sporting country gentleman stills remains the aspirational ideal at least in the English-speaking world. Hence the increasing gentrification of places like Montana. Those newcomers are on the whole more politically "liberal" than the indigenous rich though.

"they are likely to be limited to specific markets" 
 
Unfortunately, when that systematic error is in the market for stocks the disruption actually can affect the whole financial system even while the speculation is entirely fueled by hot short-term money. 
 
I agree with you though that the maturity mismatch carried on the books of most financial institutions multiplies and greatly exacerbates the risk of a general credit collapse and deflationary depression irrespective of which particular market panic initiates it.

"I think the general principle - that maturity transformation under official protection is the general cause of the "business cycle" 
 
While it certainly is a major factor, as you point out so well via the financial machinations in Nitropia, I fail to see how in our present fractional reserve banking system even enforcing strict lending rules to eliminate maturity mismatches in bank balance sheets would necessarily eliminate the "business cycle" of the credit markets.  
 
Would not there still exist the danger of credit contraction and deflationary depression due to the mis-pricing of risky loans? Defaults on tulip deliveries or mortgages in speculative and overheated markets could still result in bank insolvencies even if the loans for tulips and houses were funded by issuing notes of the same maturity as the loans?

A trifle too Asiatic in her features for my taste. I tend to prefer the looks of a Grace Kelly or Catherine Deneuve.

I assume this is somewhat tongue in cheek as it grossly underestimates the power and sheer day to day practical utility in being rich.

Arcane, I agree with you. Which was why I merely wanted to point out the particular institutional bias of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. That's all my initial post was intended to do, in order to provide background for readers who might not be familiar with it. It wasn't intended as a rebuke, but merely as a bit of added information to put the source into context.  
 
Friends again?

Arcane,  
 
I'm sorry if I offended you, but I was responding to the original posting, and was addressing the question of INSTITUTIONAL think-tank bias/slant, such as you mentioned in the case of the Brookings Institution; no one with any knowledge of the Middle East or the way Middle Eastern issues are reflected in Washington sees WINEP as an objective or neutral player in the fray. 
 
As for contributing to the discussion, I won't even try to compete with your numerous postings on whether/why Ms. Hunt is "hot". Your aesthetic standards are your own business, and if they're your criteria for recommendation, that's fine by me.

In terms of political bias/slant, you might also point out that Ms. Hunt's employer, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, has a TOTALLY pro-Israeli slant, which imbues everything that comes out of it.