I hate those too. You can edit your hosts file to block spa.snap.com Google hosts file if you want to do it. I've added a ton of sites to my hosts file to block ads, pics, and javascript, it makes the internet faster and more enjoyable.

Are you sure that cities had lower (surviving) birth rates back then?

"the foreigners lived in cities, and the cities were demographic sinks" 
 
Was this true even in ancient times?

Could part of these minorities stronger identification as Muslim be the importation of Western identity politics? Especially in cases where there's been Western immigration, I'd imagine it's hard not to internalize the depiction of themselves they're subjected to daily in the Western media, and then export that self-image to their home countries.

While purely anecdotal, when examining my own porn viewing habits, which is mostly looking at pictures of pretty naked women, I am no longer surprised to find that the women I like the most are Hungarian or Czech. I suppose the numbers of porn stars from both may be largely due to economic factors, thus increasing the chance of finding one who matches my aesthetic desires. On the other hand, this is smack in the middle of Europe and that can hardly be coincidence.  
 
(Interestingly both Heidi Klum and Claudia Schiffer were both born in North Rhine-Westphalia. Another non-coincidence? 
 
Also note the number of beauty pageant winners from Venezuela. Venezuela had a huge influx of Europeans following WWII. This, I think, is the result. [For the record, perhaps the most beautiful women I've ever met was when I was in Valencia, Venezuela.])

Razib, I don't have the statistics in front of me now, but Jews were massively over represented at all the Ivy leage schools well before the 1960's. Even during the eras at specific schools where Jews were subject to a quota, they were represented at several times their share in the general population. 
 
Well before 1960, many (German)Jews were very assimilated and were part of the American elite. What happened in the 1960's was that the doors were opened to people of non-elite backgrounds in general. This group included a lot of Eastern European Jews, but also whites of other ethnic groups.

Nice site

It took me a while to realize that Kozak is not arguing against viral IRESs, just cellular IRESs. So the question is not whether or not IRESs exist, but rather whether they exist in cellular genomes.

I wonder, though, if breastfeeding might actually be an indicator of divorce and increased natural stress in the family life rather than a causitive effect for reduced stress in children after a divorce. 
 
In other words, if a woman chooses to bottle feed, it may indicate that she is doing so out of time and scheduling constraints--perhaps she is working. 
 
It is also possible that the woman who breastfeeds feels a stronger maternal instinct and thus, during a divorce may make extra effort to shield her child[ren] from the worse parts of it. 
 
(As an aside, three of my four children adamantly refused to be breast fed. The oldest wouldn't even try. The next two gave a very feeble effort, but quicly gave up. My wife breastfed my youngest for nine months, though we had to supplement her diet with formula since my wife didn't produce enough milk.)

One thing missing in all this is a genuine debate about how much research (medical and otherwise) the government should be funding and what the status should be of any patents and other inventions obtained as a result of this funding.

I've long been highly skeptical of the claims made my stem cell advocates. If the research is that promising, why are they having such a difficult time obtaining private funding for their research? 
 
I've long gotten the feeling the proponents of stem cell research have been wildly exagerating their claims so they can feed off the government's teat. 
 
My biggest question with all this is that IF the research pans out, and government funded lines are used, will the patents fall into the public domain? A rhetorical question--of course they won't.

I remember reading an interview a few years ago with a pretty good glamour photographer. A lot of his models had never posed nude or partially nude before. He said the where models had the most difficult time was to show their derrieres. Even girls willing to show a full spread, so to speak, would balk when asked to turn around, even with bikini bottoms on! 
 
Then there was an autobiographical article by a middle-aged woman recounting her first sexual experience with a much younger man. After getting naked, she led him to her room which required going up a small ladder. She recalls the horror of realizing the guy would have to see her butt and the illusion that she wasn't "that old" would be broken. 
 
My conclusions; 
 
- A truly nicely toned, well formed butt is a rare find. 
 
- Women are very aware of this and thus just showing their rear is, to them, a very intimate act. 
 
- All this creates a social taboo that heightens the eroticism of the booty. 
 
(As a complete aside, I recently saw a porn movie with a plot [this had quite a bit of plot], and decent acting, from the mid-90s. I found it more erotic than the stuff churned out today, not just because the quality of production was much higher [it was shot on film not video, for example] but because the women were totally natural and the men looked like normal guys--not buffed out gorillas or tatooed freaks. 
 
In relation to the rest of my blathering, while the photography didn't focus in on them, several of the women had quite normal butts, slight sagging and cellulite included. The net effect was the women seemed very normal--yes, prettier than your average woman next door, but still someone who lived in the same plane of existance as me.

In years past, Brazilian Playboy was prized by many Americans because the women didn't have breast implants and tended to be on the smaller side. 
 
I am mystified by the males-who-like-strippers attraction to hideous breast implants. (One reason porn stars have implants is they make most their money touring strip clubs and implants make a measurable difference in income.) Then again, I don't understand foot fetishes either. 
 
One pseudo-scientific way of getting better data would be to examine where money is being spent on cosmetic surgery among the middle-class (though part of this are women aspiring to resemble the upper class, among whom whims often have little relationship with reality; are there really that many men attracted to women whose lips look like someone recently punched them in the face?) 
 
Ah, forget all that, I just want an explanation for why Pamela Anderson is so popular, especially when you see her first Playboy pictorial when she was actually unbelievably cute.

On the other hand, isn't this the time to use this as an excuse to get a Dell XPS Notebook?

Try a new battery. It is possible the old one has run its course. When that happens it will not only no longer hold a charge, but can develop internal short circuits.

Two pregnancies can do that to a butt. Just ask my wife.

I believe a contributing factor is that if a couple can afford for the wife to not work outside the home, odds are their income is at a satisfactory level (almost regardless of what it is in absolute terms.) 
 
Another reason: those without children often fail to understand just how much time your children's schooling chews up. Having a spouse at home greatly reduces the stress of trying to juggle this huge responsibility. 
 
One thing both of these have in common is a reduction of stress. 
 
(I hasten to also point out that I'm now unemployed, having just been laid off. While there is stress associted with that, overall, I'm most definitely much happier not having to spend the day with the assholes I got stuck with the last few months at the job.

Many people from northern Europe have quasi-mongoloid facial features. Iceland, Sweden and Norway have a lot of these people, but so do England, Wales, Hungary and Czech Republic. Look at David Beckham's wife(formerly known as Posh Spice) or any of the innumerable porn stars from east central Europe.

Adderal is mixed salts of dextroamphetamine and amphetamine. The different salts are metabolized at different rates, which lengthens the period of action. So Adderal is essentially a less intense version of Biphetamine(Dexedrine/Benzedrine mixed capsules). Ritalin is methyphenidate, which has been around since the 1950's. If people didn't misuse it in the 70's, it's probably becuase it sucked compared to what else was available.  
 
If Adderal supposedly boosts your SAT score by 100 points, what would methamphetamine or even stronger stimulants like phenmetrazine do? Boost your score by 200 points? 
 
Don't forget that some people who are introduced to stimulants as a study aid will become addicted and suffer serious negative physical and psychological consequences. One friend of mine had an amphetmaine induced nervous breakdown that caused him to miss a semester of school. Fortunatley for him, it happened over winter break, after exams and didn't hurt his GPA.

Note on secrecy; 
 
Mormonism is highly structured organizationally and, like most religions, self-selecting. Yes, Mormons try to convert others, but if a visitor isn't willing to go with the program, so to speak, they aren't going to last. 
 
The only real secrecy element are the Mormon temples and the rituals therein. It is a gnosis, but not a very deep one. Sociolgically, the temple is critical to Mormonism. My own long standing view, even when very active, was that it was largely kept secret to make it seem more profound than it really is. What's quite amazing, and extremely bizarre, is that even among the very active, the rituals of most the temple ceremonies, and the symbolism of those rituals, are simply not discussed at all.  
 
(By that, I really do mean at all. You simply do NOT discuss the temple ceremonies. Period. You are taught that is because they are so sacred. For something so critical to one's salvation [and a Mormon cannot be saved without these ceremonies; if that isn't a gnosis, I don't know what is] this is quite surprising. On the other hand, the actual ceremonies are so anachronistic and shallow, it would be difficult to have an intelligent discussion on them.)

One interesting facet of Mormonism is how intent the organization is on using your time. In addition to a three hour meeting every Sunday, they have various meetings throughout the week. 
 
The Sunday block is divided into three sections. For one, the entire congregation meets in what's called sacrament meeting. The second section is Sunday School and for the final section, the women and men meet separately. The order is sometimes reversed to maximize building use efficiency. 
 
You can go to any local Mormon chapel on Sunday morning about 10 a.m. and attend the meetings. Wear a suit and tie and when asked tell them you are a semi-active member from somewhere else otherwise, they will switch in the conversion mode. Worse, they may tell the missionaries about you. 
 
Of course, the meetings are extremely boring and the theology preached ranges from amateurish to inane--in other words, it's just like most religions. 
 
As for the temple ceremonies; they were lifted lock, stock and barrel from mid-19th century masonic rituals. Mormons generally take it all rather seriously (the best way to piss of most Mormons is to mock the temple ceremonies.) 
 
(Note: I was once a very active believer. I now look back and can't quite figure out what the hell I was thinking, though it had a lot to do with being brought up with parents who are still devout.)