Posts with Comments by observer
Spengler does it again!
Razib,
At Secular Right you doubted whether Orthodox Jews voted heavily Republican.
I found a July 2008 Gallup poll that showed McCain and Obama split the vote between the 39% of Jews who felt religion was important in their lives.
Granted, the survey was taken months before the election and doesn't focus on Orthodox Jews. Nonetheless, you might find it useful anyway because it adds to the pile of evidence that Jewish liberalism is correlated with their level of secularism:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108688/religious-intensity-predicts-support-mccain.aspx
These patterns, so starkly evident among white Christians, essentially disappear among Catholics who are Hispanic, and non-Catholic Christians who are black. Cultural considerations deriving from ethnicity and race among these groups are likely the dominant factors influencing their vote decision. The differential impact of personal intensity of religion within these groups, it appears to follow, is much less important than it is among other groups examined in this analysis.
Only 39% of U.S. Jews report that religion is important in their daily lives, well below the overall national average. Among this smaller group of religious Jews, however, Obama and McCain break even, 45% to 45%. This compares to Obama's 68% to 26% lead among the majority of Jews for whom religion is not important.
At Secular Right you doubted whether Orthodox Jews voted heavily Republican.
I found a July 2008 Gallup poll that showed McCain and Obama split the vote between the 39% of Jews who felt religion was important in their lives.
Granted, the survey was taken months before the election and doesn't focus on Orthodox Jews. Nonetheless, you might find it useful anyway because it adds to the pile of evidence that Jewish liberalism is correlated with their level of secularism:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108688/religious-intensity-predicts-support-mccain.aspx
These patterns, so starkly evident among white Christians, essentially disappear among Catholics who are Hispanic, and non-Catholic Christians who are black. Cultural considerations deriving from ethnicity and race among these groups are likely the dominant factors influencing their vote decision. The differential impact of personal intensity of religion within these groups, it appears to follow, is much less important than it is among other groups examined in this analysis.
Only 39% of U.S. Jews report that religion is important in their daily lives, well below the overall national average. Among this smaller group of religious Jews, however, Obama and McCain break even, 45% to 45%. This compares to Obama's 68% to 26% lead among the majority of Jews for whom religion is not important.
In a more xenophobic time it woulda been particularly sensible for them to all move to the same place,
The Roman Jews on the Italian Peninsula were generally tolerated (if not exactly loved) and enjoyed legal rights from the second century BC to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. I'm not sure whether their rights became restricted between 70 AD and the twilight of the Empire.
The Jewish Diaspora: Rome
The Roman Jews on the Italian Peninsula were generally tolerated (if not exactly loved) and enjoyed legal rights from the second century BC to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. I'm not sure whether their rights became restricted between 70 AD and the twilight of the Empire.
The Jewish Diaspora: Rome
This is consistent with the observation that their mtDNA looks mostly European. For example, that very common K lineage whose closest sister lineages were found in Italy, Portugal, France, and Morocco - looks like an Italian lineage that spread over part of the Roman empire, to me.
There was a sizable and many centuries old population of Jews in Anatolia during the age of the Hellenic Empire.
Do Ashkenazis show any notable similarity specifically with Turks, Greeks and Armenians, or is there not enough data to say either way?
There was a sizable and many centuries old population of Jews in Anatolia during the age of the Hellenic Empire.
Do Ashkenazis show any notable similarity specifically with Turks, Greeks and Armenians, or is there not enough data to say either way?
no, that's not the issue i was alluding to. rather, all jews seem to show some similar levels of isolation from gentiles after the rise of christianity and islam.
Sorry. I misread your point. Obviously that is true and I do not dispute the fact Jews later became genetically isolated.
I was referring more to how various Jewish groups both genetically differ and relate to each other.
Sorry. I misread your point. Obviously that is true and I do not dispute the fact Jews later became genetically isolated.
I was referring more to how various Jewish groups both genetically differ and relate to each other.
what did you mean by "limit the term to ashkenazi jews"?
My point was Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews are genetically similar because they share common ancestry but also genetically differ because of admixture with local populations.
My point was Ashkenazi and Mizrahi Jews are genetically similar because they share common ancestry but also genetically differ because of admixture with local populations.
non-ashkenazi jews show plenty of evidence of genetic isolation from middle easterners too (e.g., compare the % of sub-saharan maternal ancestry in yemeni jews vs. non-jews). but i'm not too interested in jewish genetics as such, so i'll be curious to pointers to papers.
Yes, I was aware Mizrahim show traces of the original Jewish people which they share with the Ashkenazim. That's why I added the qualifier "not perfectly distinct" to my comment.
p.s., from what i know "at least 60% european" is probably wrong too. seems like the estimate will be somewhat north of 50%, so 60% will be close to our current median expectation, not the low bound.
I knew that, but the paper used Tuscans as a proxy for Southern Europeans. Jews are actually closer to Greeks than Northern Italians. If the researchers didn't compare Jews with Greeks, then the European estimate of admixture might be a tad on the low end.
Yes, I was aware Mizrahim show traces of the original Jewish people which they share with the Ashkenazim. That's why I added the qualifier "not perfectly distinct" to my comment.
p.s., from what i know "at least 60% european" is probably wrong too. seems like the estimate will be somewhat north of 50%, so 60% will be close to our current median expectation, not the low bound.
I knew that, but the paper used Tuscans as a proxy for Southern Europeans. Jews are actually closer to Greeks than Northern Italians. If the researchers didn't compare Jews with Greeks, then the European estimate of admixture might be a tad on the low end.
Jews are genetically distinct.
Well, only if you limit the term "Jews" to the Ashkenazim. Ashkenazim are distinct because they are at least 60% European and have been mostly reproductively isolated from the general European population since the onset of the Dark Ages.
But Mizrahim have substantial admixture with non-European Middle Easterners. One could argue Ahkenazi and Mizrahi Jews are both religiously Jewish but genetically distinct in a number of ways (though not perfectly distinct, obviously).
And then there are the Ethiopian Jews who are clearly not ethnically related at all to the Ashkeanazi.
Nearly 85% of the Ethiopian Beta Israel community, comprising more than 110,700 people, have emigrated to Israel under its Law of Return, which gives Jews and those with Jewish parents or grandparents, and all of their spouses, the right to settle in Israel and obtain citizenship.
Well, only if you limit the term "Jews" to the Ashkenazim. Ashkenazim are distinct because they are at least 60% European and have been mostly reproductively isolated from the general European population since the onset of the Dark Ages.
But Mizrahim have substantial admixture with non-European Middle Easterners. One could argue Ahkenazi and Mizrahi Jews are both religiously Jewish but genetically distinct in a number of ways (though not perfectly distinct, obviously).
And then there are the Ethiopian Jews who are clearly not ethnically related at all to the Ashkeanazi.
Nearly 85% of the Ethiopian Beta Israel community, comprising more than 110,700 people, have emigrated to Israel under its Law of Return, which gives Jews and those with Jewish parents or grandparents, and all of their spouses, the right to settle in Israel and obtain citizenship.
Open thread….
Waggoner,
Well you're just basically saying that they're all crazy.
Not at all.
In order to lie well, you have to be sane enough to have a decent understanding of what is true. If you are too delusional to grasp basic facts then you can't distort the truth as convincingly. Most compulsive liars (such as Kevin MacDonald) are reasonably rational.
If you want an anti-semitic blog to read, check out n/a's race/history/evolution notes (abbreviated as "racehist", perhaps punningly). "White nationalism" is too universalist for him, nordics only!
Why does he only favor Nordics? Does Mr. N/A have some sort of axe to grind with Spaniards and Sicilians?
Well you're just basically saying that they're all crazy.
Not at all.
In order to lie well, you have to be sane enough to have a decent understanding of what is true. If you are too delusional to grasp basic facts then you can't distort the truth as convincingly. Most compulsive liars (such as Kevin MacDonald) are reasonably rational.
If you want an anti-semitic blog to read, check out n/a's race/history/evolution notes (abbreviated as "racehist", perhaps punningly). "White nationalism" is too universalist for him, nordics only!
Why does he only favor Nordics? Does Mr. N/A have some sort of axe to grind with Spaniards and Sicilians?
(This is the post that wasn't going through)
Waggoner,
That's certainly true.
Not all antisemites are crazy.
Unfortunately, the sane ones tend to be bald faced liars and fifth rate snake oil salesmen:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf
http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_01.html
http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/scholarship-or-propaganda/
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0107&week=&msg=C7elCpf5lP033ARNbvHjfg&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg
3. In sum, the passage offers not a shred of evidence that, as MacDonald
would have it, "Jewish males enjoyed disproportionate sexual access to
gentile females." It offers evidence only that not even David Irving is
exempted from Kevin MacDonald's capricious misuse of his sources, and, in
conjunction with that, that whatever the aspirations that motivate
MacDonald's writings about Jews, the production of sound research that
deserves to win acceptance within the scholarly community is not among
them.
Waggoner,
That's certainly true.
Not all antisemites are crazy.
Unfortunately, the sane ones tend to be bald faced liars and fifth rate snake oil salesmen:
http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf
http://www.h-net.org/~antis/papers/dl/macdonald_schatz_01.html
http://guywhite.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/scholarship-or-propaganda/
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-antisemitism&month=0107&week=&msg=C7elCpf5lP033ARNbvHjfg&user=&pw=
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-ethnic&month=9807&week=e&msg=Op7hEjLz4P7WVImwLsBcYg
3. In sum, the passage offers not a shred of evidence that, as MacDonald
would have it, "Jewish males enjoyed disproportionate sexual access to
gentile females." It offers evidence only that not even David Irving is
exempted from Kevin MacDonald's capricious misuse of his sources, and, in
conjunction with that, that whatever the aspirations that motivate
MacDonald's writings about Jews, the production of sound research that
deserves to win acceptance within the scholarly community is not among
them.
Sorry for any repeat posts.
If Hoste claims to be an "authority" in both anthropology and HBD then he will cause damage to sociobiology.
That was my concern.
That was my concern.
ignore him.
The problem is he is giving other HBD bloggers who are serious a bad name by associating with HBD (even though he appears to be a typical WN crank.)
It might be prudent for websites such as GNXP to think about distancing themselves from him in order to avoid confusion.
But this is your website so I will obey your wishes and not bring the subject up here again.
The problem is he is giving other HBD bloggers who are serious a bad name by associating with HBD (even though he appears to be a typical WN crank.)
It might be prudent for websites such as GNXP to think about distancing themselves from him in order to avoid confusion.
But this is your website so I will obey your wishes and not bring the subject up here again.
I apologize for moving your conversation off topic. But as someone who follows HBD I have concerns over a certain "HBD" blogger. I would like to share my thoughts with GNXP commenters for their opinion.
A Mr. "Richard Hoste" has been representing himself as a graduate student in anthropology. He writes for a number of webzines such as Takimag, The Occidental Quarterly, and the Occidental Observer. He also claims to have a scientific background in anthropology.
According to his Takimag profile:
http://www.takimag.com/article/twilight_of_the_godless/
About the Author
Richard Hoste is a graduate student in anthropology. He blogs at HBD Books.
I have read this individual's blog. His blog entries do not demonstrate any scientific knowledge beyond what he has read in "Pop-Sci" books such as 10000 Year Explosion and similar.
Could someone confirm if this individual is truthfully a graduate anthropology student or if he lies about his academic background?
If he is an anthro student I have no problem.
But I am very doubtful he is genuine.
A Mr. "Richard Hoste" has been representing himself as a graduate student in anthropology. He writes for a number of webzines such as Takimag, The Occidental Quarterly, and the Occidental Observer. He also claims to have a scientific background in anthropology.
According to his Takimag profile:
http://www.takimag.com/article/twilight_of_the_godless/
About the Author
Richard Hoste is a graduate student in anthropology. He blogs at HBD Books.
I have read this individual's blog. His blog entries do not demonstrate any scientific knowledge beyond what he has read in "Pop-Sci" books such as 10000 Year Explosion and similar.
Could someone confirm if this individual is truthfully a graduate anthropology student or if he lies about his academic background?
If he is an anthro student I have no problem.
But I am very doubtful he is genuine.
Phylogeny does not imply morphology (?)
Perhaps I should substitute the word "exchange" for "share" in my last sentence above, to make my point clearer.
Sorry, but the term "species" does refer, as best we can tell, to a phenomenon that has an objective reality. Just like the term "mountain". The definitions may be fuzzy around the edges (when does a hill become a mountain?), but that doesnt change the fact that the term is intended to refer to something that has objective reality.
Species are lineages of organisms that are genetically isolated from other organisms. There is, we presume, a considerable grey area during most instances of speciation, in which the process can be reversed, or the genetic transfer persists on a low level. But we humans no longer share genes with the chimp or gorilla lineage, nor with any other, and that is a "real" phenomenon deserving of recognition, and we accord such recognition by referring to humans as a species-level taxon.
Species are lineages of organisms that are genetically isolated from other organisms. There is, we presume, a considerable grey area during most instances of speciation, in which the process can be reversed, or the genetic transfer persists on a low level. But we humans no longer share genes with the chimp or gorilla lineage, nor with any other, and that is a "real" phenomenon deserving of recognition, and we accord such recognition by referring to humans as a species-level taxon.
Swedish security police shut down Mohammed cartoon site
Authors are jailed in Europe for questioning the holocaust.(British author was recently jailed in Austria).
This would not be a first.
This would not be a first.
Cutting Edge of Education Research
The end is near -
Is that a mail order Ph.D.? And I thought educators earned Ed.D.s?
Is that a mail order Ph.D.? And I thought educators earned Ed.D.s?
Video Games News
I am neither fat nor young but I do think I am addicted to Civilization. It's scarey getting to the end of a game and seeing how much time I have actually wasted in front of my computer - ouch
Some Musings on Patent Law
George - I believe you are describing types of utility patents rather than separate categories of patents. The 3 types of patents are what I listed above: Utility, Design and Plant.
there's also a utility requirement for a patent: You can't just patent a molecule without claiming some use
Correct - which is why chemical intermediates are not patentable but a molecule such as a gene can have utility as a molecular weight marker (bp number). Utility is most often not a reason for rejection for a patent from the USPTO. If the inventors have proof (research data for example) that the gene did cause breast cancer then that can be its utility.
I must comment on the original post too. The gene poor/gene rich comments are quite silly. If the plants (insert anything here) had been in use for ages by the local populationin in the gene rich area then they are not patentable since they are not new (a USPTO requirement). No IP is being taken from the locals for the economic of others elsewhere. Even if the plants were patentable back when first introduced into a non-native environment, those patents would have run their course and the inventions would be in the public domain. At present, one has 20 years from filing for patent protection (with some adjustments available). Also of note is that in the US, patents are awarded to the first to invent not the first to file like elsewhere in the world. Thus, if a person in the gene rich area had invented something, someone in the USA would not be able to patent that invention; she/he was not the first to invent.
Cheers all
there's also a utility requirement for a patent: You can't just patent a molecule without claiming some use
Correct - which is why chemical intermediates are not patentable but a molecule such as a gene can have utility as a molecular weight marker (bp number). Utility is most often not a reason for rejection for a patent from the USPTO. If the inventors have proof (research data for example) that the gene did cause breast cancer then that can be its utility.
I must comment on the original post too. The gene poor/gene rich comments are quite silly. If the plants (insert anything here) had been in use for ages by the local populationin in the gene rich area then they are not patentable since they are not new (a USPTO requirement). No IP is being taken from the locals for the economic of others elsewhere. Even if the plants were patentable back when first introduced into a non-native environment, those patents would have run their course and the inventions would be in the public domain. At present, one has 20 years from filing for patent protection (with some adjustments available). Also of note is that in the US, patents are awarded to the first to invent not the first to file like elsewhere in the world. Thus, if a person in the gene rich area had invented something, someone in the USA would not be able to patent that invention; she/he was not the first to invent.
Cheers all
As I understand it, there are three kinds of patents:
1. A device
2. A method
3. A breed
Actually there are 3 types of patents but they are
1. Utility
2. Design
3. Plant
A utility patent covers your device, method and breed (unless your breed refers to plant).
35 USC 161 defines a plant patent
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_161.htm
35 USC 171 defines a design patent
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_171.htm
Here is an example of a gene patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=gene.TTL.&OS=TTL/gene&RS=TTL/gene
Surely patenting a molecule would only limit its manufacture or distribution?
Correct - a patent only gives one the right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the USA or importing the invention into the USA....
35 USC 154
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_154.htm
With a good patent lawyers and consultants you could patent anything
One doesn't need a patent agent or patent attorney to acquire a patent and the patent can be based on virtually any subject matter. (here is a great one "Method of exercising a cat" - which is literally shining a laser and hoping the cat follows it)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=19&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=cat.TTL.&s2=exercise&OS=TTL/cat+AND+exercise&RS=TTL/cat+AND+exercise
As stated in Chakrabarty - anything under the sun that is man made is patentable. It really is quite easy to obtain a patent (see cat exercise method above). Obtaining a patent that actually has some commercial value is a completely different story. A qualified patent agent or patent attorney is usually required for patents for the filing of patents that may have monetary value.
1. A device
2. A method
3. A breed
Actually there are 3 types of patents but they are
1. Utility
2. Design
3. Plant
A utility patent covers your device, method and breed (unless your breed refers to plant).
35 USC 161 defines a plant patent
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_161.htm
35 USC 171 defines a design patent
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_171.htm
Here is an example of a gene patent
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=gene.TTL.&OS=TTL/gene&RS=TTL/gene
Surely patenting a molecule would only limit its manufacture or distribution?
Correct - a patent only gives one the right to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the USA or importing the invention into the USA....
35 USC 154
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_154.htm
With a good patent lawyers and consultants you could patent anything
One doesn't need a patent agent or patent attorney to acquire a patent and the patent can be based on virtually any subject matter. (here is a great one "Method of exercising a cat" - which is literally shining a laser and hoping the cat follows it)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=19&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=cat.TTL.&s2=exercise&OS=TTL/cat+AND+exercise&RS=TTL/cat+AND+exercise
As stated in Chakrabarty - anything under the sun that is man made is patentable. It really is quite easy to obtain a patent (see cat exercise method above). Obtaining a patent that actually has some commercial value is a completely different story. A qualified patent agent or patent attorney is usually required for patents for the filing of patents that may have monetary value.
Recent Comments