I believe also, don't think anyone has said this...in China if you were born under the one-child policy you can have two kids. I also know more affluent Chinese who have multiple kids, they just pay the fine...these are usually city dwellers who are rich by Chinese standards though.

One thing to keep in mind is this is not new in China. 
 
There is much research on China, I know one book by Richard Smith, 'China's Culture Heritage: The Qing Dynasty..." he found pretty firm evidence that in poor economic times in the last dynasty of infanticide, mainly of girls (and selling girls into prostitution, early marriage, etc). 
 
He also found there was a constant over supply of men, due to polygamy, in which wealthy men had multiple wives, this situation existed until the well into Guo Ming Dong rule...actually I don't think it was fully banned until Chiang Kai Shek (Jiang Jie Shi) was in Taiwan and Mao was controlling China. There was not a lot of social instability in China but for the last 50-100 years of the Qing to my knowledge, but there were always a lot of men. 
 
There were wars of expansion though, to the North, West, and Southeast.

In any case...Hillary will likely be behind at the end of this month: 
 
My picks for the rest of the Month: 
 
Louisiana - Decisive for Obama 
Nebraska - Decisive for Obama 
Washington - Obama (barely) 
U.S. Virgin Island - Decisive for Obama 
Maine - Hillary 
District of Columbia - Decisive for Obama 
Maryland - Decisive for Obama 
Virginia - Obama lead with a delegate Split 
Hawaii - Obama by a nose 
Wisconsin - toss up...I think it favors Obama, it will be a dead heat. 
 
The Hillary campaign already knows they will be behind by the end of this month this is why in her speech last night she talked up March. A Clinton campaigner said they expect Obama to do well in the Potomac regions, tehy are basically conceding. They think their strength will be in Texas and Ohio in March. 
 
It is thought Obama has more money than Hillary right now and has the ability to raise more as Hillary is largely maxed. We will see how true that is. 
 
In the end it will come down to is Obama can win enough small states by large enough margins to overtake Hillary's big state advantage. It is possible, but it will be very very tight, as it was last night. In the end I predict no one will get a majority and this will be a brokered convention, which is not good for Obama as the Clinton machine has a lock on the Democratic party (as it has since Bill left office, despite the recent rebellion of some establishment figures). 
 
Hillary is still leading in Super Delegates, but most of them are still uncommitted, and they can switch votes at any time before the convention so the media should stop reporting them in final tallies.

EW: 
 
He has been at the church for 20 years. 
 
First off what is "Afrocentric to you". It sounds like you here "black empowerment or Afrocentric" and fear runs down your spine. LOL 
 
Does the church focus on issues in teh black community? Yep. 
 
Is that bad? Conservatives usually point the finger and say blacks should be responsible, blacks need to do this more, blacks need to do that more. 
 
Obama's church teaches black social and financial self empowerment. It teaches that blacks should start business, stay out of jail, have strong families, etc. They minister to blacks in jail (I don't see Pat Robertson going to prisons and trying to turn people around). 
 
So now that these blacks take responsiblity it is bad? Is it racist? 
 
His minister does not teach "hate whitey" he teaches "don't hate yourself" and respect your community. 
 
Isn't that what should be the message in the urban ghetto black community like the Southside of Chicago? 
 
His minister did praise Louis Farrakahn at one time, but if you read what he praised him on it was the same thing..."community upliftment" he didn't praise him on "hate whitey, hate jews, etc" 
 
He praised him for his work in starting business, keeping black males out of jail, support for strong family units in the black community, support for educational achievement. 
 
These are negative things to you? 
 
IF you are a black man in America and you live in Chicago and your focus is on helping the disadvanaged who can you most help if you don't speak Spanish and who needs the most help? 
 
To me to critisize Obama for doing that is odd. 
 
If his church was teaching white people were cave men (actually some GXP people hope that is true in the way of Neaderthals) and that whites were created by evil scientist and were naturally evil, or "mud races" (as white nationalist like to say) or that blacks should seperate from whites I would be concerned. That is far from the case. 
 
It would seem in the benefit of all Americans in society that middle and upperclass blacks did community work and support work through religious and non-religious situations in black poor urban areas. Maybe one of those black men they reach out to might not steal your car, break in your home, rob you, rape your sister, etc. 
 
But that is bad...? Okay. 
 
Now if black people and white people were reversed if blacks were 66% of the U.S. population and whites were 12% and the power dynamics were reversed in the same way with blacks controlling the vast majority of political and economic power, as well as social institutions then if I were you I would worry about any form of black racialism, positive or negative. 
 
Obviously that is not the case.
More....

EW: 
 
Do you have the same political beliefs and general ideology as you did when you were 20? 
 
Most folks do not. Look at all the ex-Hippies who became Reagan Yuppies in the 80's.

I noticed something tonight. Pundits kept saying Obama might not be able to attract white voters, he might only be a "black candidate" after South Carolina, that Bill Clinton "blackened him"... 
 
Uhm...actually tonight Obama is winning the states with the most white populations in the West and Midwest. He is not winning the more "mixed" less Anglo-Saxon areas of the Northeast and the Southern states he has won had large black populations (he did almost win 50% of the white vote in Georgia but the other Southern states it was almost all on the black vote). 
 
My theory is hardcore racism (based on my experience) is where you have large populations of competing groups or large populations of poor ghetto blacks (even if they aren't the majority) it causes racial friction. 
 
I'm sure there are many whites in Utah and Idaho that have never even met a black person and definitely never seen a ghetto but on TV. I think there is less serious racism in those type of situations it is more like curiosity. 
 
My experience overseas is there is more racism in countries like the UK or France, as in overt hatred than in East Asia...mainly because there are so few minorities there is prejudice and xenophobia but no real reason to justify intense hatred.

Razib: 
 
someone you should look at is, Harold Ford Jr. of Tenn. 
 
I believe if he would have won his Senate seat he would likely be Obama now, maybe even better. Only thing going against him is a white wife (well fiancee). 
 
He is currently the Chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. His politics are similar to Bill Clinton, slightly left of center. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Ford,_Jr.

PhysicistDave: 
 
Don't get me wrong. I was not making a statement about your support for Hillary or Obama. I was saying that in many places in the U.S. (most red states) there are large sections of the population who do consider the Clintons "evil" and would never vote for them. Like I explained above, I believe that Obama has shown if the nominee he can get all Hillary's votes and attract independents (and some Republicans) Hillary can only get the Dem base (and some independent women maybe). 
 
ziel: 
 
I don't say it is controversial to say blacks are more personable and charismatic on this site. :-) 
 
I agree. I would say though that the failure of blacks historically to win state wide elections to get into the Senate and Governor positions is in part due to white demographic and black demographic change. 
 
The change is people die. As more people who remember the pre-civil rights movement die you will see a more liberal younger generation (liberal on sex and race issues as you see supporting Obama). I would also argue that blacks are changing. Nagin (New Orleans), Fenty (D.C.), Booker (Newark), and Patrick (Gov. Mass.) were elected with wide white support. 
 
The reason is they are not Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. They are not even Dinkins or Harold Washington. They speak in a race neutral way and when they address issues that effect the African American poor, they do it by speaking about the poor and not really about race. They also tend to be business friendly. This tends to not alienate most white voters. 
 
Obama is just part of this new generation of black leaders who are more pragmatic than the former leaders who were very race conscious (outwardly) and half their platform was civil rights and race relations. I think part of the difference is also the black demographic has changed. In 1958 over 50% of blacks lived in poverty, today it is about 21-25%. So there are many more middle class blacks who are less "angry" and have a lot of similar economic interests to whites and are moderate on social interests. 
 
This can be shown by the Pew Poll that came out last year: 
 
http://www.blackprof.com/?p=1888 
 
Some black leftist are not happy about this, but the reality is the center of gravity of the black community has shifted to the right. 
 
"67 percent of black men and 74 percent of black women think rap music is a bad influence on black America. In fact, 59 percent of black men and 63 percent of black women think the whole hip-hop industry is equally detrimental to black America." 
 
"A 53% majority of African Americans say that blacks who don?t get ahead are mainly responsible for their situation, while just three-in-ten say discrimination is mainly to blame. As recently as the mid-1990s, black opinion on this question tilted
More....

EW: 
 
" he has an identity problem " 
 
That's because your reading Sailer and other such folks. I would advise reading Obama's books instead. Obama was writing about his teenage years and his early adulthood. The man is now 46 years old. That was over 2 degades ago. Kind of like saying Hillary is against civil rights because she was a Goldwater Girl. 
 
I know GC did not write the above so it is a troll. 
 
bbartlog: 
 
Good points. 
 
razib: 
 
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/01/the_obama_inner_circle.html 
 
This might help.

Oh...John, as far as the Southwest, Mandarin is dominent because of depopulation I believe. 
 
I know that the Manchus pretty much depopulated Sichuan in the 1600's. A new influx of migrants from the Mandarin speaking heart land could explain things. This was under the reign of Emporer Kang Xi. 
 
Before that in the 12th century the black plague wiped out a large amount of the local population, and the people who came in came from North China to repopulate. 
 
Yunan...is heavily mountainous and full of hostile minority groups historically and I'm guess the people who came into that region came from Sichuan not from the Southeast, so they would likely be Mandarin speakers.

Razib: 
 
Can you clarify as to what you meant by "Mandarin dialects managed to take over southeast China"? 
 
Do you mean Chinese dialects? 
 
Southeast China has many dialects of Chinese spoken routinely, more dialects per square KM than in the North or Central region. 
 
If you mean "why is Mandarin spoken now" it is because the Communist enforced education and spoken Mandarin after 1949, so almost everyone but for very old people in China (and very very rural people) can speak Mandarin to some extent. 
 
It is true that Cantonese maintains archaic "Bai Yue" (100 Yue) structures. The Bai Yue used in China like Celt was used by Romans, to mean any Barbarian from the region (this included groups related to present day Nan Yue, Vietnamese and to Thai/Lao (like cousins of the Miao). 
 
That being said Cantonese is still thought to be closer to more archaic Chinese than present day Mandarin. Then you have some dialects in the North like "Jin" which clearly show some serious affinity to Altaic, even if superficial. My point being, I?m not sure what is most representative of the original Chinese language. I doubt Mandarin is though. Mandarin was the language of the Beijing court, but Beijing was founded as a capital under non-Han ethnic groups and most of China North of there all the way to Korea was also Sinicized overtime.

Zogby did a poll, I believe last week, that showed most Muslim Americans who will vote Democrat support Obama. 
 
http://bsimmons.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/obama-the-choice-of-arab-and-muslim-americans/