Tyler Cowen points out that in the Nation of the Future:

“Most Brazilians do not read. I don’t mean they can’t read, I mean they don’t read for leisure so much. I was stuck at the Sao Paulo airport for seven hours and did not see a single person reading a book, not once.”

Various commenters chime in with similar stories.

Personally, I have one regular correspondent who used to live in Brazil, but he’s of Dutch background and now lives in Canada. In contrast, I have quite a few correspondents from Finland, a country with a few percent of Brazil’s population. Granted, most younger Finns are literate in English, while most Brazilians are not, but still …

Here are some amazing statistics from the big PISA international achievement test of 15 year olds in 2000 (Figure 2.3):

In Brazil, only 4% of the youths read at one of the two highest levels on a six point scale, versus 33% in the USA and 50% in top-rated Finland. Brazil is even worse than Mexico, where 7% can read at a strong level.

Brazilians, however, seem to enjoy themselves.

I suspect the future will look more and more like a combination of Brazil and the old Ottoman Empire.

From The Atlantic, an anonymous article by a Professor X, who teaches English 101 at a couple of unselective colleges to people who can’t learn to form coherent paragraphs:

In the Basement of the Ivory Tower

The idea that a university education is for everyone is a destructive myth. An instructor at a “college of last resort” explains why.

Much of modern higher education today has many of the hallmarks of a pyramid scheme–Elite English professors were paid by Professor X. (via grad school tuition) to get his Ph.D. which is only good for teaching the unteachable–except that nobody’s getting rich.

The latest issue of National Review has a cover story by Jim Manzi on the “fallacy of genetic determinism.” [Undetermined, June 2, 2008 (Pay archive| free version) ]Contrary to what some people may think, I personally do not have a huge interest in genetics or intelligence testing. I do, however, have some interest in what Bill Buckley called “the prevailing structures of taboos.”

Regardless of what Manzi thinks about race, genes, and intelligence; he certainly has no idea about what the bien pensants think about said structure.

The piece begins with Manzi showing examples of the mainstream media trumpeting stories on the genetic basis of human behavior

within the past few months both Time and The New York Times Magazine have had cover stories on the evolutionary roots of morality; Time has had a second cover story on the biological basis of romance; Newsweek has had one article on the genetic explanation of psychological resilience and another arguing that varying incidences of disease-causing pathogens explain the degree to which different countries’ policies are individualist or collectivist; NBC News has broadcast a story on the genetic basis for smoking addiction; ABC has had a story on the evolutionary origins of the incest taboo; and CBS has run a story titled “Eureka: Happiness Gene Found.” Mass media are inundated with this biology-explains-all ideology.

Manzi proceeds to briefly write about why he thinks there are limits to this type of thinking, and then spends the rest of the article giving his opinion on the validity, or lack their of, of looking for genetic differences in intelligence and its implications. Sure enough he eventually gets to how these theories were used to justify forced sterilization and Nazi eugenics.

Then Manzi states,

It was, in fact, the conflagration of the Holocaust that made human eugenics a more or less forbidden research topic for decades. But this halt has proved temporary. As the Holocaust passes from living memory, and biology makes enormous advances, the human inclination to intellectual vanity is reasserting itself.

The piece starts off by mentioning Watson and Crick’s discovery of the Double Helix, but does not mention the issue of the discoverer of DNA having his reputation nearly entirely destroyed and getting kicked out of the lab that he created over stating that he believed that their were genetic differences between the races. Whatever one thinks of the issue, it is certainly still quite a “forbidden topic”

Looking for the “Gay gene” or “happy gene” or even things like “designer babies” and “Cloning” may have been objectionable to many on religious grounds, but has rarely been taboo from a “this type of thinking led to Hitler” standpoint; and certainly nowhere close to that of looking at the issue of human differences.

The real “forbidden topic” is questioning racial egalitarianism–an issue National Review obfuscates rather than breaches.

For various reasons that I won’t get into now, I have been generally pessimistic about the likelihood that there will be real reductions in legal immigration and that something will be done to make sure all the illegal aliens in this country leave and stay out. Of course, I love to be proved wrong.

While it is encouraging to witness the grassroots shutting down the congressional phone lines whenever an amnesty gets debated, I get frustrated when voters develop amnesia about what the politicians tried to do shortly thereafter. That John McCain could win the GOP nomination for president just months after he became a pariah for being the leading immigration enthusiast in the country sends a clear message: “We may call your office and complain when you propose amnesty, but you can still count on our votes come election time.”

Whatever success the patriotic immigration movement has had; it is difficult to find just one case where an open border incumbent was defeated by a challenger who was running on immigration. One example is Chris Cannon of Utah. While conservative on most issues, he has been one of the most vocal open borders advocates in Congress. He managed to win awards from both La Raza and MALDEF where he told the audience, “We love immigrants in Utah. And we don’t oftentimes make the distinction between legal and illegal.”
In 2004 and 2006 he has faced primary opponents who ran against his record on immigration. Although they scared him both times, he survived the challenges.

After each victory, the open borders lobby gloated that this proves Republican voters really don’t care about amnesty. You can bring up a dozen of very good retorts. The two biggest are that Cannon wouldn’t have had any trouble to begin with–let alone needing the NRCC to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and have President Bush campaign for him– if it wasn’t for his support of amnesty. Furthermore, if the voters supported amnesty, Cannon would not have needed to back track and hide his past record on immigration.

But the politicians do not care about what the voters think, they care about whether or not they can get reelected, and Cannon’s victories certainly give them some reassurance.

Now for the third straight election, Cannon faces immigration based primary challengers. One was David Leavitt, the brother of popular former Governor Michael Leavitt. Leavitt was well funded, but wasn’t much better than Cannon. His platform called for “implementing a worker-visa program which will provide a transition period where those who are here illegally can voluntarily leave the country and apply for a temporary work visa.” His other challenger is Jason Chaffetz who was chief of staff for former Governor Jon Huntsman, but had not electoral experience and very little money. In contrast to Leavitt and Cannon, Chaffetz got a 100% on Numbers USA’s candidate survey for his opposition to both legal and illegal immigration.

For Utah Republicans, there is convention and then a run off. If a candidate gets 60% or more of the Delegates they automatically win the primary (and in Utah, they are pretty much assured to win in the general election.) If no candidate gets above 60% the top two candidates face a runoff election.

Chaffetz received 59% of the delegates and came within nine votes of winning the primary outright.
That an underfunded political novice can beat two establishment candidates in a convention and has a great chance to unseat an entrenched incumbent shows that that the grassroots opposition to amnesty is still spilling over into the elections.

The British have been known as beef-eaters for centuries, and the fact that roast beef is an important part of the traditional American meal is another example of our nation’s British heritage.
British Airways, on the other hand, has taken beef off the menu for economy passengers. According to this recent article :

For decades the national dish has been a staple meal on the national carrier.But now British Airways has taken beef off the menu for economy passengers amid concerns about its “religious restrictions”.
The airline has instead switched to a fish pie or chicken dish option for the so-called “cattle class” passengers.

BA says it’s not because of cost:

In the past three months world beef prices have risen from about £2,500 a tonne to more than £4,000 a tonne, largely because of the weakening dollar and rising feed costs. BA also said that cost is not a reason for the decision to stop serving beef.

Here’s why:

BA’s second-biggest long-haul market is to India, where the majority Hindu population do not eat beef because of their beliefs.

The British beef industry doesn’t like the change, of course:

The decision to scrap the nation’s favourite fare was described as a “great shame” by the English Beef and Lamb Executive, formerly part of the Meat and Livestock Commission.
A spokesman said: “It is regrettable that Britain’s flag carrier is not proposing to serve Britain’s national dish.It is a meal we are rightly proud of. Roast beef and beefeaters are symbols or Britain used to promote tourism.Our beef is also much in demand overseas. It is predominately grass fed and highly praised for its flavour. It is obviously up to British Airways to decide what they serve on flights, but beef is an ideal meat for making into airline meals.”

Beef is not the only meat to get cut from the menu:

A BA spokesman said the it stopped serving beef to economy class passengers last month. He added: “We can only serve two options and beef and pork obviously have religious restrictions.
We have to try to use two meals which appeal to as many customers as possible. This summer season we are offering customers in World Traveller on most longhaul flights a choice of chicken and tarragon or fish pie. We also look at trends from major supermarkets to see what types of meals are popular and fish pie style meals are selling well at the moment. These two meals proved popular in tasting tests and are also proving popular on board.”

But don’t get the wrong idea, says BA :

“It has nothing to do with the fear of causing offence - we always offer alternative meals for people with special dietary requirements if they order in advance.”

You can still get beef if you’re not in economy class though :

“We are still serving beef based meals on certain menus in First Class and Club World and are currently deciding on whether or not to use beef on the menus for World Traveller customers for the winter season.”

Here’s the response of the Hindu Council UK

The Hindu Council UK said: “The Hindu community will welcome this decision and the news it has been made partly because Hindus don’t eat beef. Hindus have a great deal of respect for British culture and are well integrated into the British way of life, so it’s good to see evidence of how they are literally flying the British flag by choosing British Airways.That said, Hindus are tolerant of the beliefs of others and do not expect everyone to stop eating a food because they do not eat it.”

In recognition of Richard Wagner’s birthday, (born May 22nd, 195 years ago) Wagnerians will appreciate forthcoming releases this year of more rare Ring recordings. Coming off the widely acclaimed historic first stereo recording of the complete Ring cycle at the 1955 Bayreuth under conductor Joseph Keilberth, the Testament label will release two more complementary recordings—performances of Die Walküre and Götterdämmerung—from 1955 (same year but different performances of these operas from the Ring cycle).

Keilberth’s 1955 Bayreuth Ring (Testament SBT141412), according to music critics, ranks as one of the all-time great recordings. Michael Kennedy, writing in London’s Sunday Telegraph, lists Keilberth’s Ring in his choice of 100 essential classical recordings. A team of Decca sound engineers recorded the live Bayreuth performances but they remained unavailable until Testament issued the remastered recordings.  The New York Times accurately describes the sound quality of Keilberth’s Flying Dutchman, also recorded during the summer of 1955 and released by Testament in 2006, as having “body, richness, and detail.”

Testament has just released the full Ring cycle under the baton of Rudolf Kempe from 1957 at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. The fully remastered recording of the complete cycle will feature Birgit Nilsson, Hans Hotter and Wolfgang Windgassen along side a stellar cast in what is considered to be an outstanding performance of Wagner’s Ring.

As the allmusic.com website notes, Kempe, an accomplished conductor, is “One of the great unsung conductors of the middle twentieth century, Rudolf Kempe enjoyed a strong reputation in England but never quite achieved the international acclaim that he might have had with more aggressive management, promotion, and recording. Not well enough known to be a celebrity but too widely respected to count as a cult figure, Kempe is perhaps best remembered as a connoisseur’s conductor, one valued for his strong creative temperament rather than for any personal mystique.”

2008 is shaping up as a promising year for Wagnerites.

Okay, everybody, it’s time to all act as if we’re shocked, shocked to hear that rich kids have higher IQs than poor kids on average. From the U.K. Guardian:

Student union rejects academic’s IQ claims

· Paper suggests class is key to academic ability

· Findings dismissed as wrong and irresponsible

Polly Curtis, education editor

Elite universities are failing to recruit working-class students because IQ is, on average, determined by [I think they mean "correlated with"] social class, according to an academic.

Bruce Charlton, a reader in evolutionary psychiatry at Newcastle University, claims that the greater proportion of students from higher social classes at highly selective universities is not a sign of admissions prejudice but rather the result of simple meritocracy.

Student union leaders responded angrily to his claim, which was also dismissed by a minister.

Charlton’s paper, reported today in Times Higher Education, says: “The UK government has spent a great deal of time and effort in asserting that universities, especially Oxford and Cambridge, are unfairly excluding people from low social-class backgrounds and privileging those from higher social classes.

“Evidence to support the allegation of systematic unfairness has never been presented. Nevertheless, the accusation has been used to fuel a populist ‘class war’ agenda. Yet in all this debate a simple and vital fact has been missed: higher social classes have a significantly higher average IQ than lower social classes.”

He argues: “The highly unequal class distributions seen in elite universities compared with the general population are unlikely to be due to prejudice or corruption in the admissions process. On the contrary, the observed pattern is a natural outcome of meritocracy. Indeed, anything other than very unequal outcomes would need to be a consequence of non-merit-based selection methods.”

The National Union of Students described the paper as “wrong-headed, irresponsible and insulting”.

Gemma Tumelty, NUS president, said: “Of course, social inequality shapes people’s lives long before they leave school, but the higher education sector cannot be absolved of its responsibility to ensure that students from all social backgrounds are given the opportunity to fulfil their potential … many talented individuals from poor backgrounds are currently not given the same opportunities as those from more privileged backgrounds. This problem will not be addressed as long as academics such as Bruce Charlton are content to accept the status quo and do nothing to challenge the inherent class bias in education.”

So, it’s all Bruce’s fault. Him and James Watson’s.

Sally Hunt, of the University and College Union for acedemic [They don't call it The Grauniad for nothing!] staff, said: “It should come as little surprise that people who enjoy a more privileged upbringing have a better start in life. However, research has shown that students from state schools outperform their independent contemporaries when they reach university.”

Bill Rammell, the higher education minister, told the Times Higher Education that Charlton’s arguments had a definite tone of “people should know their place”.

Here’s Bruce’s homepage. I don’t think his article is online yet.

Here’s something Steven Pinker told me when I interviewed him in 2002 and it’s truer than ever:

Q: Aren’t we all better off if people believe that we are not constrained by our biology and so can achieve any future we choose?

A: People are surely better off with the truth. Oddly enough, everyone agrees with this when it comes to the arts. Sophisticated people sneer at feel-good comedies and saccharine romances in which everyone lives happily ever after. But when it comes to science, these same people say, “Give us schmaltz!” They expect the science of human beings to be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational sermonizing.

Snug in her privileged berth in the MSM, Bloomberg columnist Margaret Carlson has arrived at the same conclusion Peter Brimelow reached months ago: James Webb is easily the best VP choice for Obama. (Webb’s Just the Reagan Democrat Obama Needs Margaret Carlson Bloomberg.com, May 22 2008)

But at least she has the integrity to be candid as to why:

After another drubbing at the hands of Senator Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, to say that Obama lacks appeal among non- college-educated, working-class Ronald Reagan Democrats — the voters Clinton calls “hardworking white Americans” — is to call the Grand Canyon a hole in the ground.

Webb fits the bill:

What makes Webb the perfect fit for a party desperately in search of Reagan Democrats is that Webb IS a Reagan Democrat. He left the party in disgust when Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to draft evaders and later went to work for Reagan as secretary of the Navy

No mention of immigration of course (on which, sadly, Senator Webb has been unsatisfactory). Clearly the policy aspect of Webb which appeals to Carlson is his staunch anti-war line. Not VDARE.com’s line of country, although we know it would appeal to most of our readers.

Increasingly, the 2008 presidential race looks to be between McCain and Obama.

McCain’s choice of VP is especially important because McCain’s age and health make it rather likely that he won’t serve two terms. McCain thus needs a running mate who is presidential enough that he’ll be able to step into the presidency rapidly. According to Intrade, the leading GOP VP possibilities are Gov. Pawlenty of Minnesota, Huckabee of Arkansas and Romney of Massachusetts. Pawlenty is an especially interesting case, because he endorsed McCain early on-but has also spoken out against illegal immigration. Basically McCain’s choice comes down to whether he wants to appeal the nationalist, religious or corporate factions in the GOP and independent voters.

The Democratic choices are a bit more complex as this table shows:

Basically Obama has shown he can appeal strongly to black voters and the group Pew Foundation called the “liberals”(largely urban professionals). The two questions for the Democrats are who would help them win the presidency in a year when it is theirs to loose-and who would be a strong candidate in 8 year after Obama has completed a second term.

Jim Webb, Ted Strickland and John Edwards all have some possible political credibility-and all could plausibly run for president in 8 years. Some of the other candidates, like Al Gore or Sam Nunn are simply too old for that to be realistic. Jim Webb is interesting because he is the only Democratic VP possibility other than Al Gore who has resisted H-1b donations successfully. Strickland would have some appeal to religious voters–but I suspect that the oratory of Huckabee would simply prove superior in that respect. Overall, Webb is the man who really would add something to the Democratic ticket.