Steve Sailer would love this article -- a classic illustration that a big driver for liberal politics in America is a struggle for status among whites. A bit like the famous IQ charts purporting to show that Gore/Kerry voters were smarter than Bush voters. Of course average IQs in the deep south really are lower than in the Northeast, but it is the Democratic voters in those states that account for the bulk of the difference.  
 
Corzine really is remarkable -- bearded politicians are rare in America, and mostly found in legislatures. It helps that he is a billionaire.

Ten-cent sociological analysis: I assume you have a lot of coal-mining areas in West Virginia that never went Republican. I wonder if the Civil War, or rather its absence, had a lingering effect. E.g. West Virginia was split off from Virginia in 1863 and made a Union state, while Kentucky, I believe, was pretty much cleansed of Confederates after the Battle of Pea Ridge in 1862. So, no Reconstruction for these places. I assume West Virginia had very few slaves, but I don't know about Kentucky. 
 
I noticed a deep blue county right in the middle of Virginia--is that where UVa is?

Griffey was a fine player, but pre-steroids Bonds (there seems to be a fair amount of confidence that he didn't juice before 1999) was a much better one.

There was, in the 18th century I believe, a man who had memorized the entire Bible. Not only could he recite it in order, if you named a verse to him, however obscure, he could tell you what it said. But I have forgotten his name. :) 
 
In ancient times quite a few people knew the Iliad by heart, I understand.  
 
Chess players are known for their monstrous memories; Paul Morphy supposedly memorized the entire civil code of Louisiana, Harry Pillsbury could recite lists of unrelated words backwards and forwards etc. All chess masters have to memorize long lines of opening analysis and endgame technique; even in positions where rote memorization doesn't help, pattern recognition is still critical. 
 
When I was a teenager (or maybe younger), I figured that memory was part of what people interpreted as "being smart". 
 
Yes, absolutely. When I was young people thought I was smarter than I really was, because of my memory. Unfortunately they are much harder to fool now.

Ben 
 
Give me a couple of years, my wife & I will be starting a family soonish (we're both 30). 
 
Meaning you've given the wrong half of the bell curve a 15-year head start. Ben, Ben, how could you?

I must be the only person who actually believes this. 
 
The protagonist of "About His Deposit" must believe it too. I have a pretty good idea what she makes; she could suck it up and pay her son's tuition if she wanted.

Donna B. 
 
Why do people live where these (in my mind) outrageous tuitions are the norm?  
 
New York City is an interesting place. 
 
Honestly, I have to think it's more a prestige thing than an education thing.  
 
I think it's more of a connections + nice environment for your child thing. Though prestige doesn't hurt. Unless you're a genius, and sometimes even if you are, I suspect connections matter more than anything else. That's why I pay for private school for my daughter.  
 
As long as we're showing the dirt under our fingernails, I went to lousy public schools and a lousy state college that I paid for with grants, loans, and money from construction and flipping burgers. Unfortunately I forgot the "work hard in school/get good grades" part.

Yes, what pconroy said. As far as I know high length and weight in a newborn is all upside and no downside, except for the delivering mother of course! If any medically knowledgeable posters disagree, I would be interested to hear from them.

As long as we're sharing, I got a 45, which is far higher than I expected. It's the conjuring of trillions of dollars out of thin air by the federal government since last summer that has frightened me, I guess.  
 
I did love the format of the test, with increasingly doctrinaire sections. "No clue" would have been a nice third choice for some of the questions. How many of us have a good understanding of the extent of worker safety regulations, after all?

I have to say, the election seems an increasingly trivial matter (not to mention a foregone conclusion) in the face of the financial meltdown. Yet on message boards all over the web, partisans still fling Todd Palin and Rev. Wright in one another's teeth. How do you manage to care?

bioIgnoramus 
 
W vs Kerry seemed a worse choice to me. At least with O being such an unknown quantity, you can cling to the hope that he might have some merit. It's a long shot, of course. 
 
Not that long a shot. Merely by not blundering into an unprovoked trillion-dollar war, either presidential candidate can put himself himself miles ahead of the incumbent. If Obama (whom I expect to win) proves to have genuine ability, that will just be a bonus. 
 
To me, W is so bad that I would probably rate McCain v. Obama ahead of W v. Marcus Aurelius, especially because W would probably beat the emperor. 
 
j mct 
 
Every high school graduating class is the best ever and every set of presidential candidates are the worst pair ever. 
 
Two constants in an ever changing universe. 
 
Beautiful. I am definitely going to steal that one.  
 
Levi 
 
Thanks, very interesting.

birch barlow 
 
I wrote a long post comparing all the presidential nominees since 1900 with the current ones, but apparently it was too long. Probably just as well. Anyway, I strongly disagree that the current nominees for president and VP are among the worst ever or even in the bottom 10%. They are about average.

1952 and 1956: Eisenhower v. Stevenson 
 
A very impressive matchup.  
 
1960: Nixon v. Kennedy 
 
Kennedy was our first movie-star president. Best ghostwriters ever. I'd take Obama over him any day of the week. Nixon I'll save for 1968. 
 
1964: Goldwater v. Johnson 
 
Another Arizona Republican. More principled than McCain, but never had a prayer. Johnson, like Hoover, would stand much higher in popular estimation today if he'd never been president. 
 
1968: Nixon v. Humphrey 
 
Nixon was a smart man, but a horrible president. Not just for Watergate; everything he did on the economic front was catastrophic. A major proponent of affirmative action, whatever you may think of that. Overrated on foreign policy. Whoever was president would have gone to China. 
 
I never had any use for Humphrey. 
 
1972: Nixon v. McGovern 
 
I'd take Palin over McGovern, never mind any of the other three. 
 
1976: Ford v. Carter 
 
A terrible choice. 
 
1980: Reagan v. Carter 
 
Reagan obviously had strengths, and he was a necessary corrective to the despair of the 70s. But right now his biggest legacy looks like debt. 
 
1984: Reagan v. Mondale 
 
Meh. 
 
1988: George H.W. Bush v. Dukakis 
 
Dukakis is just average. Bush was genuinely able at foreign policy, and the victim of bad timing on the economy. 100X the man and the president his son is. 
 
1992: GHW Bush v. Clinton 
 
Clinton is one of the ablest politicians America ever produced. But it took a Republican congress for him to accomplish anything. 
 
1996: Dole v. Clinton 
 
Pretty good choice. But it's not like Dole dwarfs McCain or anything. 
 
2000: W v. Gore 
 
I think Gore is a man of genuine ability, though like Kennedy he has good ghostwriters. I think W is the worst president since at least Andrew Johnson, maybe ever. Unlike, say, Hoover, his difficulties were self-inflicted. 
 
2004: W v. Kerry 
 
Kerry is a mediocrity who married money. Hmmm.... 
 
Conclusion: the current nominees are middle of the pack compared with presidential nominees since 1900.  
 
It's important to note that we judge all previous presidents taking their service as president into account. We can't do that with McCain and Obama. Either one may rank much higher (like FDR) or lower (like Hoover) after he has served.

they are almost certainly amongst the worst candidates Americans have had to choose from in U.S. history (is worst 10 percent reasonable?)  
 
No, I don't think it is. Beginning in 1900, and looking just at presidential candidates, we have: 
 
1900: McKinley v. William Jennings Bryan  
I'd take this year's candidates over those two, especially the aggressively ignorant Bryan. 
 
1904: Roosevelt v. Alton B. Parker 
OK, no one this year measures up to T.R., but I don't know a single thing about Judge Parker. Does anyone? 
 
1908: Taft v. Bryan 
 
I like Taft, but he was an unpopular and unsuccessful president. He achieved his life's ambition when he was placed on the Supreme Court in 1921. 
 
1912: Taft v. Wilson v. Roosevelt 
 
OK, that is a pretty impressive lineup, though Wilson is overrated. 
 
1916: Wilson v. Charles Evans Hughes 
 
Another impressive matchup. Hughes also later went to the Supreme Court. Supposedly he's tied with Ralph Nader for the highest score in the history of the NY bar exam. 
 
1920: Harding v. James M. Cox 
 
Harding is better than his reputation, but I'd still take either nominee this year over him in a heartbeat. I just don't know anything about Cox. 
 
1924: Coolidge v. John W. Davis 
 
You could say Coolidge was the last real small-government conservative the Republicans ever nominated. Davis was a brilliant lawyer. Pretty good choice. 
 
1928: Hoover v. Al Smith 
 
Hoover was a great man, but a terrible president. Smith was a mediocrity. 
 
1932: Hoover v. Roosevelt 
 
No one thought Roosevelt was a great man in 1932.  
 
1936: Landon v. Roosevelt 
 
Landon was nothing special. 
 
1940: Wilkie v. Roosevelt 
 
Wilkie was pretty good. 
 
1944: Dewey v. Roosevelt 
 
Dewey "reminds every woman of her first husband" someone said. A Giuliani type who made his name as a prosecutor. Hate those guys. 
 
1948: Dewey v. Truman 
 
Truman had major strengths, which are remembered, and major flaws, which are forgotten. Not for nothing was he about as popular as W when he left office.

But don't worry: the kinds of "surgical strikes" being talked about are not an effective way for the US to stop Iran's Manhattan Project, and this plus the opposition of State means it won't happen. Iran will have a nuclear device within two years even if Bozo the Clown is elected. Preventing this would require either (a) punitive bombings a la Serbia, or (b) an invasion a la Iraq. Neither has any constituency inside USG. 
 
The US might be slightly stupider about Russia under McCain. On the other hand, the anti-Russia campaign is thoroughly endorsed by the Soros NGO world, and it provides an excellent opportunity for an Obama administration to tack right. For the same reason, although both parties are committed to the project of turning Afghanistan into Indiana, it might be slightly easier for McCain to find a politically acceptable escape route. 
 
Mencius, I think you are much too confident about what is and isn't possible. When Bush took office I never would have believed we would be launching a nakedly aggressive war against Iraq within two years. Nor would I ever have believed that terrorists would bring down the World Trade Center.  
 
Looking forward, we know terrorism will continue; we know Iran's nuclear program will continue; we know Russia will continue to try to increase its influence in the territories of the former USSR. But we also know that things we have no inkling of will happen -- things that aren't in our current playbook, or in the briefing books that Sarah Palin is no doubt cramming more desperately than ever after her ABC interview. For those things we can't forsee, we have to consider the temperment and judgment of the candidates. And Obama and Biden's temperment and judgment seem superior to McCain and Palin's.

I think the effects of textual criticism on Christianity (don't know enough about Judaism to comment) are still being felt. The work these scholars are doing now might have huge effects on Islam a century from now. But we won't be alive to see it.

Token Eurasian 
 
I think jaakkeli is pulling your leg, esp. about murder rate, bride importation, etc. 
 
Of course, maybe you're pulling my leg.

Thanks for this excellent interview.  
 
It may be more accurate to say that Flynn's best scientific books are behind him. What he is doing now is synthesizing from a wide perspective, something that is appropriate if a person has spent a lot of time thinking about the broader issues relating to their discipline.  
 
freds' comment is dead on IMO. I look forward to Flynn's new book.

azizhp 
 
Yes, I thought Dyson's comment made sense too. But then razib said "extrapolate from the assertion he makes to the world around you" and it occurred to me that the champions of rapid evolution are the viruses and bacteria that mutate to defeat our vaccines and antibioticsm, and they surely have colossal populations. 
 
So maybe (relative) simplicity of the organism is the key to rapid evolution?