The decline of the black quarterback?

"Four Vikings Charged in Boat Incident" -- No, it's not a headline from the Northumbrian Times of 860 A.D., but another incident in a big story from the NFL in 2005 that you won't hear elsewhere: the decline of the black quarterback. After years of sportswriters demanding more black quarterbacks, the mediocre performance of black quarterbacks this year, with only Byron Leftwich and Michael Vick having effective seasons, is not exactly Topic A to sportswriters.

Black quarterbacks, with their superior running ability, have added some valuable excitement to the league, but the current NFL game is dominated by passing. Here are the seven black quarterbacks' passer rating ranks so far this season (the passer rating synthesizes yards per attempt, completion percentage, touchdown percentage, and interception percentage):

12	Byron Leftwich	JAC
14	Donovan McNabb	PHI
16	Steve McNair	TEN
22	Michael Vick	ATL
25	Daunte Culpepper	MIN
26	Anthony Wright	BAL
28	Aaron Brooks	NO

Leftwich of Jacksonville has the highest passer among the seven main black quarterbacks, ranking #12 in the league. Vick is only the #22 passer, but he remains a dangerous runner, although not as spectacular as last season when he gained 902 yards with a 7.5 yards per carry average. Other than Vick, none of the black quarterbacks are running well enough to make up for their mediocre passing. The tough veteran McNair has done another admirable job coming back from injuries big and small. Brooks of New Orleans had his city wash away. Wright is just a stopgap. Seven quarterbacks for one season is too small a sample size to draw conclusions, but this year's performance does raise questions that aren't being addressed elsewhere.

Minnesota Viking Daunte Culpepper, who finished in the top 3 in passer efficiency the last two seasons, was indicted yesterday, along with three teammates, on disorderly conduct, indecent conduct and lewd or lascivious conduct for a cruise by 30 Vikings on Lake Minnetonka on which they invited along dozens of prostitutes. It didn't help their popularity that the Vikings were off to a 1-3 start and Culpepper was throwing bushels of interceptions. Culpepper is now out for the season with an injury. He currently ranks 25th in the league in overall passer rating. Culpepper's replacement, Brad Johnson, the epitome of the boring white journeyman quarterback, now ranks 9th in the league and the once-reeling Vikings have won six in a row under him.

Meanwhile, Donovan McNabb of Philadelphia, who was the beneficiary of much praise from sportswriters two years ago when Rush Limbaugh quit his football commentary job after saying that McNabb was overrated because sportswriters had been calling for more black quarterbacks for so long, who is out for the season with an injury, after an adequate season as the #14 passer, has come under increasing criticism, in part for his poor play in last year's Super Bowl. Philadelphia's management suspended their superstar receiver Terrell Owens for criticizing McNabb. The much derided Owens, notorious for his showboating after touchdowns, performed heroically in Philadelphia's Super Bowl loss, garnering over 100 yards receiving despite playing on half-healed broken foot. McNabb, who apparently had been out partying the night before, ran one of the worst two minute drills in history, and was visibly woozy at one point when his teammates had to point him in the right direction.

Now, McNabb has been criticized by the owner of the local black newspaper, who also heads the local NAACP office, for not running the ball anymore. The black journalist attacked McNabb for saying To which McNabb replied, "Obviously if it's someone else who is not African-American, it's racism. But when someone of the same race talks about you because you're selling out because you're not running the ball, it goes back to: What are we really talking about here?... I always thought the NAACP supported African Americans and didn't talk bad about them,"

Indeed, what are we talking about? The black columnist's criticism of McNabb was fairly off-base: It's rational for McNabb to stop running now that he is older and slower and more beat up. By not running last season, he had his best passing season, ranking #4 in the league after many years of mediocrity as a passer. Similarly, Steve McNair led the league in passing in 2003 by not running anymore. He'd had only 138 yards rushing, whereas in 1997 he'd had 674. But, he was voted co-MVP in 2003 along with Peyton Manning.

But, it's not healthy for McNabb to play the race card.

Overall, what we may be seeing is a natural evolution of the black quarterback fad that began about a half dozen years ago. Nothing in the NFL lasts forever. The defenses eventually always figure out how to adjust to a new offensive style, including running quarterbacks. There's probably no effective defense against an unbelievable runner like Vick, but for mortals, defensive coordinators can take steps.

One advantage of black quarterbacks has been that they can be fairly effective early in their careers before they've learned how to be an NFL quality passer because of their running ability is at its peak early. In contrast, a classic immobile white quarterback like Cincinnati's Carson Palmer, who won the Heisman at USC in 2002. He didn't play at all as a rookie in 2003, then started but was a detriment in 2004, but now, in his third season, is second in passing only to the great Peyton Manning. And that's fast development. San Diego's Drew Brees wasn't an asset until his fourth year, Brad Johnson not until his fifth season, Trent Green his sixth season. Leftwich, an immobile black quarterback, has had a similar progression, becoming an above average quarterback in his 3rd season.

In contrast, McNabb started six games as a rookie, and in his second season, even though he was a mediocre passer, was an effective quarterback because he ran for 629 yards.

But, what's not clear yet is long they keep it up. NFL running backs take an extraordinary pounding, and their careers seldom make it to age 30. In contrast, QB Brad Johnson is 37.

For example, perhaps nobody in NFL history outright hurt the defense like Earl Campbell of the Houston Oilers in his first three seasons, 1978-1980. Coach Bum Phillips's "offensive strategy," such as it was, consisted mostly of sending Earl slamming into the line, figuring that by crunch time in the fourth quarter, Earl would have bruised the defensive linemen more than they would have bruised Earl. For three glorious years, it worked, but after that, Campbell was never the same.

Turning quarterbacks into part time running backs may work out somewhat similar. Culpepper, for example, has had a lot of back problems.

On the bright side, little Doug Flutie is still getting a few snaps as Tom Brady's backup in New England at 43, and he ran for 476 yards at age 37, but most of his prime was spent in the Canadian Football League (where he was probably the greatest ever in CFL history), where tacklers aren't quite as fast and heavy. But Flutie is something special.

If you want running quarterbacks, and want them to have long careers, and, personally, I think they are more fun to watch, then you ought to think seriously about imposing on team's weight limits, because that's the only way to cut down on the pounding players take. Restrict each team to an average of, say, 215 pounds per player on the field at any time.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Tall Noses Unclear on the Concept!

Yesterday, I cited Accordion Guy's discovery of a Japanese website's how-to diagrams for Santa Clauses on handing out gifts. This one, for example, suggests an overly-literal translation of the English phrase "stocking-stuffer" (along with that faintly fetishistic undertone that seems so common in Japanese culture). Today, a reader writes:

The page Accordion Guy links to is actually a parody. I've posted a rough translation here:

For example, the caption for this diagram reads:

Join the orthodox school of Santas with a traditional stocking stuffer. ... You can stuff presents into the stockings hanging by the bedside, but to avoid any confusion, just put the present inside her sock. Although it might hurt a bit if it's a big present, that is the way to true Santa-hood. Because then you're a Santa-kurousu. [Great pun, hard to translate. "Santa" + 苦労 kurou ("suffering") + すsu (infinitive verb ending) = "Claus."]

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

The American Conservative's December 19th issue

As a Christmas bonus, much of the issue is online, including articles by me, Gary "War Nerd" Brecher, Pat Buchanan, Scott McConnell, John Zmirak, Roger D. McGrath, Leon Hadar, Jim Antle, and Bill Kauffman.

End of the Rainbow
By Roger D. McGrath
Blacks lose the most ground in Los Angeles’ ongoing Hispanicization.

French Lessons
By Steve Sailer
The nation that neocons most love to hate has followed their immigration prescriptions—to devastating results.

Free Vermont
By Bill Kauffman
The Green Mountain State’s secession movement brings together hippie greens and libertarian gun owners.

Diminishing Returns
By W. James Antle III
Tax cuts and liberal-baiting may no longer be a surefire electoral strategy for the GOP.

Innocent Abroad
By Leon Hadar
Karen Hughes brings the gospel of Bush to the heathen masses.

Siberian Shamans at Wal-Mart
By John Zmirak
A blessed Santaclaustide to one and all!

Some of My Best Friends
By Steve Sailer
“Rent” doesn’t pay.

The Worst and the Dullest
By Scott McConnell
The Assassins’ Gate: America in Iraq by George Packer

Dueling Loyalties
By Howard Sutherland
The 50% American: Immigration and National Identity in the Age of Terror by Stanley A. Renshon

Try 5 FREE Issues of
The American Conservative Today

Purchase an online edition of this issue immediately!

It’s All Greek to Victor Davis Hanson
By Gary Brecher
A War Like No Other by Victor Davis Hanson


Who Killed General Motors?
By Patrick J. Buchanan
The Death of Economic Patriotism

The Cost of Sycophancy
By William Pfaff
Once-imperial Britain learns to kowtow.

Princely Advice
By Taki
The president should read The Prince.


Fourteen Days: Murtha-Hagel ’08; Republicans’ loose construction of the Magna Carta; Edwards feels heat, sees light

Deep Background: Businessmen cash out of Syria; Chechen mob supplies al-Qaeda; Argentina’s bungled counter-terrorism

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Holidays

Noah Millman on Hanukkah and Christmas:

Besides being a minor holiday, and far from central to the Jewish religious narrative as Christmas is in the Christian religious narrative, Hanukkah is a decidedly particularist holiday, where Christmas is universalist. Judaism is, ultimately, universalist, but it gets to universalism through particularism. And Hanukkah speaks specifically to that particularism; it's a holiday of national deliverance, about the rededication of our Temple, the liberation of our people. Yes, these events ultimately have universal significance, but you're starting several steps removed. Christianity, by contrast, trumpets its universalism, and nowhere more clearly than in the story of Christmas, about God's presence on Earth becoming material and concrete.

It is a bit ridiculous, then, to see how our culture has on the one hand tried to suppress official recognition of Christmas (not only by the government but by other nonpublic but impersonal bodies; how many corporations send out Christmas cards as opposed to seasonal "holiday" cards?) while on the other hand ostentatiously celebrating Hanukkah alongside what recognition Christmas gets as if the presence of a menorah somehow "kashered" a Christmas tree. A Hanukkah menorah most certainly does not "universalize" a Christmas tree; if anything, the opposite is true: it turns the tree, which symbolizes a holiday whose message is "joy to the world and peace on Earth" into a particularist symbol like the menorah itself.

And it is very strange indeed that, as my boss related to me yesterday, his kids are learning Hanukkah songs at school but no "religious" Christmas songs ("Frosty the Snowman" is OK, but not "Silent Night") or that a lawyer we deal with, a Lutheran, can report that her son came home the other day and announced that he wishes he could celebrate Hanukkah (which he'd been learning about at his public school). Inasmuch as it is a religious holiday, Hanukkah should be just as problematic to the anti-religious vigilantes as Christmas; and inasmuch as it's a holiday with communal overtones, it's a holiday celebrated by the Jewish people, not the American people.

Of course, as a Jew, I appreciate the gesture. Having a menorah in the lobby of my building is nice - it says, in effect, "hey, we know this is your holiday now; have a good one." But I'm not entirely happy with it. Public celebration of Hanukkah distorts the holiday...

If I had to compare Hanukkah to an American and Christian holiday, it would not be Christmas, but rather Thanksgiving. What, ultimately, are we giving thanks for on Thanksgiving? For the fact that the American experiment was going to go forward, apparently with God's blessing.

*

What's wrong with MLK Day: A reader writes:

It's not the weather that makes MLK Day not a fun holiday. Everybody manages to party for the Super Bowl and it's impossible to get dinner reservations on Valentine's Day. MLK Day is boring because it's not associated with any fun activity. Even the serious Memorial Day has flowers and picnics to enliven it. What fun activity could white people participate in regarding this day where we would not be called racist? Let's say that August is the new destination for the MLK Day celebration, as you suggested, and we all have cookouts where we eat fried chicken and watermelon and play basketball. What would Jesse Jackson have to say about that?

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

"The Producers"

I saw a screening of the movie version of Mel Brooks's musical tonight. I sat there with a big dumb grin on my face the whole way through. At least a half dozen production numbers received rounds of applause from the audience. Along with about two-thirds of the crowd, I sat all the way through the credits to hear all the additional songs, such as Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind, lunatic playwright of Springtime for Hitler, singing a mellow Jack Johnson-style ballad version of "Der Guten Tag Hop Clop." And a five second cameo at the very end of the credits by Mr. Brooks himself brought shouts of approval.

On the other hand, the guy in front of me didn't laugh once and left less than a second after the credits started rolling. (He probably liked "Rent.") This is a very old-fashioned musical, both a parody of and a tribute to old Broadway. To my mind, when it comes to musicals, "old-fashioned" is a synonym for "good," but if you don't agree, watch out.

Or if you are the kind of person who can't understand why they remade the 1968 movie version (hint: the new film has lots more singin' and dancin'), then it won't be for you.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

A Christmas present from Steven D. Levitt?

The Freakonomist used his latest column in the New York Times magazine to promote a new unpublished paper by U. of Chicago grad student Andy Francis as:

" ... an empirical argument that may fundamentally challenge how people think about sex."

It turns out that Andy Francis was a research assistant to Dr. Levitt in 2003-2004.

And Mr. Francis describes the paper praised by Dr. Levitt in the New York Times as his “Job Market Paper.”

While this apparent attempt by Dr. Levitt to use his soapbox in the New York Times to help out an old student’s job search certainly reflects well on his amiability, my vague impression is that the NYT prefers that its writers disclose this kind of conflict of interest to readers. Perhaps Dr. Levitt obtained a waiver of the disclosure policy in this case from his editors? Or perhaps he forgot to mention it to them at the same time he was forgetting to mention to his readers that Francis's study was statistically insignificant?

By the way, Francis's paper is really quite good, even though he doesn't come close to proving his theory.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

The Economy of Desire

The Economy of Desire: One of the most difficult questions in the social sciences is what causes male homosexual behavior. Is it innate? (And if it is, how did not disappear due to natural selection.) Is it conditioned by society? Freely chosen? (In contrast, the level of female homosexual behavior is clearly responsive to changes in social attitudes.)

In the New York Times Magazine, Steven D. Levitt writes in his Freakonomics column that a new study by a U. of Chicago grad student named Andy Francis found that:

Not a single man in the survey who had a relative with AIDS said he had had sex with a man in the previous five years; not a single man in that group declared himself to be attracted to men or to consider himself homosexual....

Because the sample size was so small - simple chance suggests that no more than a handful of men in a group that size would be attracted to men - it is hard to reach definitive conclusions from the survey data. (Obviously, not every single man changes his sexual behavior or identity when a relative contracts AIDS.) But taken as a whole, the numbers in Francis's study suggest that there may be a causal effect here - that having a relative with AIDS may change not just sexual behavior but also self-reported identity and desire.

In other words, sexual preference, while perhaps largely predetermined, may also be subject to the forces more typically associated with economics than biology. If this turns out to be true, it would change the way that everyone - scientists, politicians, theologians - thinks about sexuality. But it probably won't much change the way economists think. To them, it has always been clear: whether we like it or not, everything has its price.

Some rather grand claims.

Unfortunately, Levitt didn't bother to inform the NYT-reading public that the sample size of men who had a relative with AIDS was so tiny, only 60 individuals in total, that Francis's study did not attain statistical significance even at the loose 5 percent level.

The percentage of men in the no-relative-with-AIDS sample of 1451 who had engaged in homosexual acts in the last five years was 4.4%. That means that if there was no actual correlation between having a relative with AIDS and sexual orientation, you’d expect only to find 2.64 men having engaged in homosexual acts out of his sample of 60 who had a relative with AIDS. Instead of two or three such men, he found zero.

As reported here in Table 6, the p-value for this correlation was 0.086, meaning that if the relationship between the two variables was purely random, you'd still expect to find that result (0 men out of 60) 8.6% of the time by pure fluke.

Is that 0 out of 60 meaningful? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?

Clearly, this study should be redone with an adequate sample size. Unfortunately, putting together a large enough and unbiased enough sample to do these kind of subtle analyses of male homosexuality has historically proven very difficult.

One major concern over how much credence to put in Francis's result is data-mining, or looking at a lot of relationships and then highlighting the ones that appear statistically unlikely to happen by chance. The 1992 database Mr. Francis used allows a large number of statistical tests to be run. If you looked at 100 different correlations, you’d expect to find an average of five that are statistically significant at the five percent level.

So, one relevant question is whether Mr. Francis started his research in order to test a pre-existing hypothesis that being exposed to people with AIDS would make a man less likely to engage in male homosexuality. I’d never heard the theory before, but perhaps it was going around in some circles. (Apparently, he did not -- he only formulated it after looking at data.)

I don’t have a strong opinion on Mr. Francis’s theory on male homosexuality. (Few doubt that female homosexual behavior is responsive to changing social pressures, but most experienced researchers treat male and female homosexuality as highly distinct.) It sounds modestly plausible in theory, but I can’t think of much historical evidence for it. The only bit of anecdotal evidence for it that I can recall is that singer Lou Reed converted to heterosexuality (and stopped shooting heroin) right after AIDS was discovered. In contrast, San Francisco, for example, didn’t see mass conversions to heterosexuality after 1982. Indeed, AIDS seemed to lead, if anything, to an increased public commitment to homosexuality.

In summary, Mr. Francis has made a worthy beginning, but his hypothesis desperately needs to be retested with an adequate sample size.

Dr. Levitt would have been better advised to publicize this study on this blog, which is the appropriate medium for this kind of Scientific Wild Ass Guess. (In general, a better brand name for Dr. Levitt's version of social science than Freakonomics would be Scientific Wild Ass Guessonomics. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Blogs are fine sites to try out hypotheses.) Unfortunately, Levitt put it in the New York Times and failed to inform the public that the result was statistically insignificant.

Perhaps the correlation will prove to be true. But it may well not pan out. If that's so, it may be too late to recall the Instant Conventional Wisdom that Levitt has generated. "A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on."

Andy Francis replies here.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

The Economy of Desire

One of the most difficult questions in the social sciences is what causes male homosexual behavior. Is it innate? (And if it is, how did not disappear due to natural selection.) Is it conditioned by society? Freely chosen? (In contrast, the level of female homosexual behavior is clearly responsive to changes in social attitudes.)

In the New York Times Magazine, Steven D. Levitt writes in his Freakonomics column that a new study by a U. of Chicago grad student named Andy Francis found that:

Not a single man in the survey who had a relative with AIDS said he had had sex with a man in the previous five years; not a single man in that group declared himself to be attracted to men or to consider himself homosexual....

Because the sample size was so small - simple chance suggests that no more than a handful of men in a group that size would be attracted to men - it is hard to reach definitive conclusions from the survey data. (Obviously, not every single man changes his sexual behavior or identity when a relative contracts AIDS.) But taken as a whole, the numbers in Francis's study suggest that there may be a causal effect here - that having a relative with AIDS may change not just sexual behavior but also self-reported identity and desire.

In other words, sexual preference, while perhaps largely predetermined, may also be subject to the forces more typically associated with economics than biology. If this turns out to be true, it would change the way that everyone - scientists, politicians, theologians - thinks about sexuality. But it probably won't much change the way economists think. To them, it has always been clear: whether we like it or not, everything has its price.

Some rather grand claims.

Unfortunately, Levitt didn't bother to inform the NYT-reading public that the sample size of men who had a relative with AIDS was so tiny, only 60 individuals in total, that Francis's study did not attain statistical significance even at the loose 5 percent level.

The percentage of men in the no-relative-with-AIDS sample of 1451 who had engaged in homosexual acts in the last five years was 4.4%. That means that if there was no actual correlation between having a relative with AIDS and sexual orientation, you’d expect only to find 2.64 men having engaged in homosexual acts out of his sample of 60 who had a relative with AIDS. Instead of two or three such men, he found zero.

As reported here in Table 6, the p-value for this correlation was 0.086, meaning that if the relationship between the two variables was purely random, you'd still expect to find that result (0 men out of 60) 8.6% of the time by pure fluke.

Is that 0 out of 60 meaningful? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows?

Clearly, this study should be redone with an adequate sample size. Unfortunately, putting together a large enough and unbiased enough sample to do these kind of subtle analyses of male homosexuality has historically proven very difficult.

One major concern over how much credence to put in Francis's result is data-mining, or looking at a lot of relationships and then highlighting the ones that appear statistically unlikely to happen by chance. The 1992 database Mr. Francis used allows a large number of statistical tests to be run. If you looked at 100 different correlations, you’d expect to find an average of five that are statistically significant at the five percent level.

So, one relevant question is whether Mr. Francis started his research in order to test a pre-existing hypothesis that being exposed to people with AIDS would make a man less likely to engage in male homosexuality. I’d never heard the theory before, but perhaps it was going around in some circles. (Apparently, he did not -- he only formulated it after looking at data.)

I don’t have a strong opinion on Mr. Francis’s theory (Few doubt that female homosexual behavior is responsive to changing social pressures, but most researchers into homosexuality treat male and female homosexuality has highly distinct.) It sounds modestly plausible in theory, but I can’t think of much historical evidence for it. The only bit of anecdotal evidence for it that I can recall is that singer Lou Reed converted to heterosexuality (and stopped shooting heroin) right after AIDS was discovered. In contrast, San Francisco, for example, didn’t see mass conversions to heterosexuality after 1982. Indeed, AIDS seemed to lead, if anything, to an increased public commitment to homosexuality.

In summary, Mr. Francis has made a worthy beginning, but his hypothesis desperately needs to be retested with an adequate sample size.

Dr. Levitt would have been better advised to publicize this study on this blog, which is the appropriate medium for this kind of Scientific Wild Ass Guess. (In general, a better brand name for Dr. Levitt's version of social science than Freakonomics would be Scientific Wild Ass Guessonomics. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Blogs are fine sites to try out hypotheses.) Unfortunately, Levitt put it in the New York Times and failed to inform the public that the result was statistically insignificant.

Perhaps the correlation will prove to be true. But it may well not pan out. If that's so, it may be too late to recall the Instant Conventional Wisdom that Levitt has generated. "A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on."

Andy Francis replies here.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Every man a king!

The Irish Genghis Khan has been discovered. In northwestern Ireland, one out of every five Y-chromosomes appears to be descended in the direct male line from from the early medieval Uí Néill dynasty. I wouldn't be surprised if actor Sam Neill ("Jurassic Park"), who was born in Northern Ireland, is a direct descendent. (He's not as kingly as Sean Connery, but he'd do.)

Here's the abstract from American Journal of Human Genetics:

A Y-Chromosome Signature of Hegemony in Gaelic Ireland
Laoise T. Moore et al.

Seventeen-marker simple tandem repeat genetic analysis of Irish Y chromosomes reveals a previously unnoted modal haplotype that peaks in frequency in the northwestern part of the island. It shows a significant association with surnames purported to have descended from the most important and enduring dynasty of early medieval Ireland, the Uí Néill. This suggests that such phylogenetic predominance is a biological record of past hegemony and supports the veracity of semimythological early genealogies. The fact that about one in five males sampled in northwestern Ireland is likely a patrilineal descendent of a single early medieval ancestor is a powerful illustration of the potential link between prolificacy and power and of how Y-chromosome phylogeography can be influenced by social selection.

And here's a 2003 article, "The Norse Code," by Neil Macphail:

Are you a MacDonald herding sheep on your lonely croft? A MacDougall commuting home from your office job? Or even a MacAlister living a quiet but humdrum life?

If so, there is every possibility that lurking in your body is the genetic fingerprint of one of Scotland's greatest warriors - a fearsome man capable of tearing the heart out of a Viking foe.

An Oxford University scientist has traced the Y-chromosome, which determines maleness, of the founder of Clan Donald - the great Somerled of Argyll, who was born around 1100 and drove out the Viking invaders.

Geneticist Bryan Sykes says this microscopic fragment of the fearsome fighter still lives on in the DNA of half a million clansmen throughout the world. Indeed Professor Sykes says the Y-chromosome of the Gaelic warrior, who it seems had Norse blood himself, is so prevalent it could be among the most successful in the world.

Prof. Sykes and his team made the discovery almost by accident while they were researching genetic links between the Scots and the Vikings and looking for Norse Y-chromosomes. He and researcher Jayne Nicholson had taken thousands of DNA samples from men in the Highlands and Western Isles, and spotted a group that stood out.

They were at first puzzled, then Miss Nicholson looked at the donors' names. These revealed that among the men with the identical Y-chromosomes were MacDonalds, MacAlisters and MacDougalls. Prof. Sykes said: "There didn't seem all that much in it until Jayne said quietly that these clans were related. "The possibility that this Y-chromosome was inherited from the common ancestor of the MacDonalds, MacDougalls and MacAlisters was incredibly exciting.

They wrote to dozens of those clansmen throughout Scotland, enclosing a sampling brush for them to collect DNA from inside their cheeks. In the samples of those who replied, they found a single common Y-chromosome. To be double sure this was Somerled's, Prof Sykes embarked on a sensitive piece of research involving the living chiefs of the Clan Donald and their septs.

He said: "I wanted to see if the clan chiefs still alive, whose recorded genealogies descend from Somerled, also shared the same chromosome. This was a delicate task. We might find one or more of the chiefs did not have it - meaning one of their paternal ancestors might have been adopted, or had not been the biological father of his heir.

He approached Lord Godfrey Macdonald, Sir Ian Macdonald of Sleat, Ranald MacDonald of Clan Ranald, William McAlester of Loup and Ranald MacDonnell of Glengary, enclosing a DNA brush. The result was conclusive: 'They all shared the same chromosome. There was now no dought we had identified the legacy of Somerled.'

Now the only one whose lineage is in doubt is Somerled himself. Tradition says he descended from the ancient Irish kings - but Prof. Sykes says the chromosome proves his Norse ancestry.

Gregory Cochran emails:

The MacLeods have a similar story, and there are a zillion other such Y-chromosome studies in progress.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Even the Japanese love Christmas!

Although, judging by these faintly disturbing diagrams of the proper methods for how a Japanese Santa is supposed to leave presents, they aren't quite clear on the concept. Accordion Guy adds appropriate captions here.

A reader writes:

Those Japanese Christmas how-to's reminded me of the old story of the Japanese department store that reportedly made a life-size display of Santa crucified for Christmas.

I always thought it was true but apparently there is no documented evidence of this. It's evidently an urban legend.

Well, Christmas is the season for believing, and doggone it, I want to believe in this tale of the Japanese department store with the crucified Santa.

A reader writes:

Nearly every supermarket, restaurant, and big box store in Japan has Merry Christmas signs this time of year ... despite the fact that very few people in Japan are Christian. Most conspicuous is the blaring Christmas carols coming from every direction. Silent Night, The First Noel, and Jingle Bells seem to top the list, but, unfortunately, so does Wham's "Last Christmas." The Japanese are utterly shocked when I explain to them that this song was popular for only a brief time in the 1980s in America. I don't really know if that is true, as I have never even heard the song before coming to Japan, and, since I am only 23, I am not exactly old enough to recall the tune. I think that the true spirit of multiculturalism is about celebrating other people's traditions too; in Japan, the attitude seems to be, "If it is a reason to party, let's party!" rather than the American attitude of "Keep your parties indoors lest you offend my hypersensitivities." As a person who loves Christmas, it is very nice living in Japan, sans "Last Christmas."

In America, St. Patrick's Day is an ethnic holiday to which everybody is invited, as is Cinco de Mayo, although that is mostly a synthetic holiday invented by American liquor companies. (Real Mexicans are more excited by Mexican Independence Day in September.) Columbus Day is both an ethnic (Italian) and patriotic holiday.

I'm not sure exactly what Martin Luther King's Birthday is -- exclusive or inclusive -- because the public suffers from holiday boredom by the middle of January so it passes without much notice. My suggestion has always been to move MLK Day to August, where it would be much more popular.

But Kwanzaa and Hanukkah appear to be anti-inclusive holidays, the opposite of St. Patrick's Day.

Christmas, of course, is extremely inclusive, with something for all men of good will, which, I suspect, is why it is now so resented. The impressive, globe-spanning richness of "Christmas culture," the countless songs, the movies, the old legends, the literature, the recipes, the customs, the art, the decor, the costumes, and, worst of all, the genial benevolence of Christmas when compared to the cultural paucity of Kwanzaa and Hanukkah drive some people up the wall. The fundamental psychological issue is that Christmas is an all-around better holiday than its rivals, and in our status-hungry world, Christmas' superiority makes some people very angry.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Tookie v. Ah-nold:

A reader writes:

There is an irony here, in that both Tookie and the Governator are arguably in the position they are today [well, yesterday for Tookie], due to their superior physiques. Williams used his to dominate the thugs around him and become their leader. Given that he has at least two kids, he also parlayed his muscles into reproductive success. Schwarzenegger used his to dominate other bodybuilders in relatively effete contests of manliness; then to achieve stardom in movies, marry a Kennedy, then to become the governor. But: why would a guy who is governor based fundamentally on his hardman appearance want to tarnish his image by being perceived as merciful? Of all people, Tookie should have understand that - his murders appear to have been in part done for the purpose of demonstrating to his buddies how badass he was.

Live by the Big T, die by the Big T.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

There's something strange about the soon-to-be late Tookie's anti-gang oeuvre:

I realize that the Nobel Peace Prize-nominated Tookie Williams, the co-founder of the Crips and murderer of four innocent people, is now (was then? time is getting late) a sincere anti-gang crusader who has kept millions of impressionable children like these from joining criminal street gangs like his Crips, but there's just something about these cover pictures from his anti-gang books that seems a little, well, irrelevant. Let me ponder this more deeply and perhaps I'll deduce what seems a bit off...

Dennis Dale writes:

By now you’ve seen the two more heavily circulated photos of Williams, one apparently from the cover of his book showing him stripped to the waist and flexing body-builder style (Williams is said to weigh about three hundred pounds and has a body-builder’s physique), and another of him in a similar stance, wearing prison issues and bearing a massive afro, the very image of a hardcore gangsta. These are pinups for the adoring. While Tookie’s famous gang protocol and his children’s books are lauded as, it would seem, Herculean efforts to save the nation’s youth from gang culture (150,000 lives saved and counting, according to the “Tookie Fact Sheet,” based on “emails and letters”) what actually evokes all this adoration is his impressive physical stature and the same brutality (inferred by the thinly veiled braggadocio of his oft told history) that makes Tookie’s ilk so dangerous, necessitating their removal from society.

You see, there isn’t one of us who, at one time or another, hasn’t wanted just once to be Tookie. Tookie wants to be Tookie. Tookie has cultivated his image as the hulking brute more than anything else, and had he never been caught and convicted of his crimes he would no doubt have gone on being Tookie for as long as he could have pulled it off before death or incarceration put a merciful end to his tear. Physical prowess and emotional detachment combine to make a powerful intoxicant, in the bearer and in the beholder. Just witness the continuing fascination with all things gangster, from The Sopranos to Fifty Cent.

Just beneath the thin veneer of our socialization, deep in the base of our brains, on the wrong side of the tracks from our still developing prefrontal cortexes in the amygdala where our fear resides, we not only reflexively defer to physical superiority; we revere it. Brute force and the audacity to use it are, deep down, considered values unto themselves, even if we don’t like to admit it. So when the celebrants make the pilgrimage to the shrine of Tookie it is hardly a handful of children’s books or some ridiculous contractual form legitimizing street gangs that brings them there. They are there to pay homage to the undeniable value of brute force.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Springtime in Sydney

Summer is a coming in Down Under and spirits are high. Joe Strummer has finally gotten his wish.

First, a Lebanese Muslim gang beat up people on the beach in the Sydney suburb of Cronulla. In response, a mob of 5,000 drunken Australian whites attacked Muslims.

So, how long until we read articles blaming discrimination, lack of affirmative action, unemployment, and/or Le Corbusier's soulless architecture for the white riot?

Oh, wait, that's odd, in this case the media seem to be blaming the riot on the rioters. What a novel concept! I wonder what's different between the French and Australian riots? Hmmhmmhm, it's puzzling ... I just can't put my finger on the difference...

Unfortunately, the Riot Porn blog doesn't have any Australian pictures up yet, but they do have a "Burning Tire of the Day" and, of course, lots more South Korean riot pictures. This time it's the South Korean dump truck drivers versus the Orc-like riot police in a well-organized donnybrook that is nominally supposed to have something or other to do with "labor rights for non-regular workers."

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Uh-oh

From 1992 onward, only 1% of the new enlistees allowed into the U.S. military came from Category IV -- the 10th to 30th percentiles on the Armed Forces Qualification Test, the military's main IQ test. People who score from 80 to 92 in IQ were just more trouble than they were worth in today's high tech military.. Recently, however, the Army announced that due to recruiting difficulties, it would boost the Category IVs to 4%, which didn't sound too worrisome.

But what's happening in reality? The US Today reports:

The Army met its recruiting goals in October, the first month of the 2006 fiscal year, but 12 percent of its recruits scored in the lowest category on military entrance tests on science, math and word knowledge, “The Sun” of Baltimore reported this month. That was triple the number - 4 percent - that the Army expects in 2006.

Rep. John Murtha, the 37-year Marine veteran, who apparently drinks beers with the top brass regularly, claims it's worse:

They have lowered the standards. They're accepting 20 percent last year in category four. Now, this is a highly technical service we're dealing with, And yet they lowered the standards to category four, which they said when we had the volunteer army, that would eliminate all the category four.

So, what's really going on? I don't know. And I don't expect the media to cover this important national security issue in any depth, because if they did, they might have to admit that military puts tremendous weight on IQ, which the press has been denouncing as racist pseudoscience for decades.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

Sign of hope in Compton

Having outlined last week the lurid history of Compton, the home of the Bloods and of West Coast gangsta rap, I want to point out a sign of social reconstruction in that blighted municipality between Los Angeles and Long Beach.

I recently went to a high school championship football game between a Compton school and a higher ranked private school. One little remarked development in recent decades is that the best high school football programs are now typically predominantly white schools, either exurban, or private. The leading football schools will now generally feature a few black stars at running back, receiver, or cornerback, but will be otherwise white, with a sprinkling of Hispanics, Asians, American Indians, and (most hoped for) huge Pacific Islanders. For example, the private school in last night's game featured a miniature version of Reggie Bush, an elusive black back who had run for over 2000 yards at 11 yards per carry, but was otherwise mostly white. Add in a terrific white quarterback averaging over 10 yards per both pass attempt and carry, a highly trained and motivated defense, and sensational special teams, such as a kicker who has made 26 of 33 field goals and 100% of his extra points over the last two years, and that combination had been good for three straight championships.

Physically, the mostly black Compton team looked much more impressive with a gigantic offensive line, including a 6'-5" 319 pound tight end, made up largely of Samoans and other Islanders, and a lot of strong, fast black running backs in the 200 pound range. But the fans of the private school were confident, since in recent decades in high school ball, black teams have tended to lack the militaristic discipline that football requires. Most of the student enthusiasm in places like Compton has gone into basketball, which reflects contemporary African-American culture's obsession with superstars. Football teams, with their scores of necessary but anonymous spear-carriers in helmets cloaking their individuality, have a hard time competing with the glamour of basketball, where the potential for showing off is so much greater.

Well, the underdog Compton football team just went out and dominated, and in a manner that coach Vince Lombardi himself would have admired. Most notably, they refrained from what you see in the NFL where black players celebrate every tackle and first down like they had just won the Super Bowl. They focused on the job at hand and didn't waste time and energy showing off for the crowd until late in the 4th quarter when they had the game more than wrapped up.

This is a real tribute to the coaching staff, and a sign of hope for Compton that its youth might be waking up from its catastrophic two decade-long obsession with the values of gangsta rap.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer