Really, the UN is kind of useless as it stands, but it is better than nothing. The only reason it's taken seriously is because of our military. Otherwise, it's just a group that sends out harshly worded letters.

If the UN wants to be relevant, they need to have their own source of military and economic might, rather than relying on the generosity of the US. As it stands now, we can do whatever we want wrt the UN, because we are their police, and there is nobody policing us, except the fact that we are a liberal democracy

Wow...just wow...if Romney had any chance of being elected I'd actually be worried about his opinions but he's got that pesky "Not Protestant" thing and a sort of creepy robot vibe.

can they take away a Nobel peace prize? sure the guy discovered the double helix, but I mean that doesn't give you the right to say whatever you want. This is tantamount to winning the Nobel prize for physics then declaring the earth to be flat!

I think the UN is a big waste on the US, to me its just one step closer to a N.W.O.

Dr. Watson didn't win the Nobel Peace Prize. He won the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine. I doubt they can take it away, because despite his bizarre ideas in one area, the accomplishment for which he was awarded the prize, the discovery of the double-helix shape of DNA, still stands.

Edit: Watson's award was actually for his research on the structure of nucleic acids, which includes, but is not limited to, the double-helix.

That's sad to hear the Nobel Prize winner say that. I watched this documentary on Nova about DNA and the Genome project, and the scientists showed that we are all 99% identical to each other at the genetic level. For instance, any two humans anywhere on earth are more identical than two Chimpanzees sitting next to each other in the jungle. Because we are a younger species we have less variations. So, it was kind of weird to hear him say that now we are significantly different.

Also, we are 50% identical to bananas at the genetic level!,. it's all on Nova!

Let's be honest here; the UN is largely hamstrung by the behavior of the most powerful participating nation, the US. The US wields enough power to both subjugate the initiatives put forward by other national bodies while rationalizing the potential effectiveness of the UN.

The UN is ineffective because it cannot act for unified global initiatives proscribed by the US, whose objectives too often oppose broadly acknowledged global opinion.

There is a bully in the UN.

I may be stupid and/or ignorant being that I'm from the south, so you'll have to excuse me...But, isn't the U.N. trying to do something about Myanmar, Darfur, pulling most of it's troops out of Iraq within the next year, etc. etc...?

Are we doing any of this or are we to busy trying to start WWIII by invading the Middle East, being so friendly with China that we overlook the fact that they (which eventually means we) profit off of genocide and other crimes against humanity and having our country run by overly-"religious" prudes that hate anyone/thing that isn't true to the WASP concept?

Do we have a timetable for when the nominee Attorney General has been to the white house, and when he hasn't, and what his answers were at the corresponding times?

It would be an interesting relationship, I think.

I hope you're joking...

The UN is a joke, plain and simple. Russia and China on the Human Rights Commission? The entire Human Rights Commission (which should just be honest and rename itself the Zionist Oversight Commission, since all it ever does is condemn Israel for sometimes illegitimate reasons) is a joke. The Security Council? Whose idea was it to give all five permanent members veto power?

China vetoes any resolution with teeth concerning Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, and the Sudan. So does (for the most part) Russia. Meanwhile, Russia is becoming an authoritarian fascist state, and China is a repressive oligarchy holding on to a failed ideal. Neither one will ever be called to the carpet by the UN because they can veto any resolution that targets them. Just like we can any resolution that targets us (and, believe me, we should be the targets of a few stern letters from the UN).

The UN isn't hamstrung by the US in particular, but by its poor design. If you're going to blame America, make sure that you blame the British, French, Chinese, and Russians as well (and more the Chinese and Russians).

I wish that we had an international treaty organization that worked, but the problem is that no one, especially Americans (and, let's face it, we would have to be on board to give it legitimacy) would want to give up enough sovereignty to make it work. We're stuck with the UN, and I personally think that the money we waste on the UN can be better spent elsewhere...

Average height, weight, build, ability to grow body hair, skin color and shade, shape of the eyes, nose and lips and many other traits can all vary from one racial group to the next. Groups from northern Europe have light skin that soaks up more vitamin D on those cloudy cloudy days. Sherpas can have a chest depth twice the normal average. A handy adaptation when one lives at higher elevations. There is evidence of higher than average memory in tribes and groups with oral histories. Makes it easier to remember everything. Certain racial groups are susceptible to diseases that do not affect others. (ie. sickle cell anemia)

So with so many traits varying from racial group to racial group, why is it so hard for people to talk about relative intelligence varying from group to group as well?

Now, before people get their panties in a wad and start flaming me, I don't agree with Dr. Watson, and I have yet to see any unbiased scientific evidence showing that one race is smarter than another. It just seems pretty unscientific to completely deny the possibility.

Nobody gets all hot and bothered if you suggest that different varieties of dogs or other animals demonstrate different levels of intelligence. It's a pretty well accepted fact that certain breeds are smarter than others. So if its possible in one species of mammal, why not in another?

Hell, nobody gets upset if you talk about intelligence on the individual or family level. It's perfectly acceptable to say 'She's got her fathers brains' or 'That whole family is smart is as hell'. We even talk about how we are dumbing down America. How stupid people are out breeding intelligent people and making this country dumber every generation.

With all of this, why do people fly off the handle if you even suggest that intelligence could vary from racial group to racial group? It's just another trait. Why the big hub bub? Science isn't always pleasant. But to censor/stifle/deny out of hand is down right medieval. Dr. Watson's comments about employers with black employees show that he is in fact a racist with some deep seated prejudices. But as long as I have been following this story, nobody has actually tried to refute his evidence. It is just denied out of hand while people call him names. If they really truly believe that there is no difference in intelligence across racial lines, then they should confront his evidence head on and refute it scientifically. Calling him an asshole and chucking his work in the trash doesn't help anybody. And let's knock off the talk about taking back his Noble Prize. He won that award fair and square. Being a racist is grounds enough to be labeled an "Asshole Fuckface", but its still his right to be a racist bitch. Besides, if you took back every award given to racist bitches, there wouldn't be that many awards left.

It seems like it should be noted that you're talking about a series of *physical* characteristics, that were adapted due to the demands of the environment. Intelligence presumably develops b/c of environmental demands as well - the need to get food, to stay safe/warm/dry, and so on. Since most environments share these problems - albeit in very different ways - my guess is that we'd see little intelligence difference across groups of people. You'd really have to prove that "place X is MUCH harder to live in than place Y."

I hate this argument. People always talk about "the science" - when we don't have data, a method, or anything here. Further, if we're going to talk about intelligence, I'd rather here from a psychologist rather than a crazy 80 year old geneticist any day of the week. Every field has its own demands and methods. Just talking about "the science" in the abstract is my new pet peeve.

Decades of selective breeding is *not* the same as the kind of free floating gene swapping that human communities engage in. I'm pretty sure the two are not commensurable.

Do we really have to talk about how individual data is different than aggregate data?

You know why we don't take this seriously? B/c, again, first off - there is no data on hand here. Second, the people who want to argue about how "this is a hard fact" always overlook the fact that we're not even sure how to define or measure intelligence. There are huge debates in the psychology literature over what these terms mean, and how expansive they should be. Also, when we're talking about intelligence - issues of collection (re: are IQ tests culturally biased), and data analysis (re: how are these data compared? are external factors controlled for?) are really pertinent. These are issues for psychologists (folks who think about intelligence and the brain and the mind and how they interact with environment), economists (guys who really know how to handle data), and sociologists (men and women who know how to think more deeply about myriad social processes) - not armchair people who toss facts around (by the way, I think facts are about the thing that science is most NOT).

Man, I wish I had awesome answers like Fuckabee does

Pff. Stupid people. Especially that last one. Massive skillzorz to him. What is wrong with these people?

You should do a companion collumn that has all the good things people do. The opposite of The Asshole Fuckface Roundup. Everyone always reports on the bad things and it would be awesome if someone who was as good a writer as you are also did something positive ^^

That said, amazing article, as always.

I was just happy that my Senator is the one who gave Mukasey a hard time.

All valid points SignalNoise.

But the point I'm trying to make is that whenever this issue comes up, people fly off the handle and label anyone who doesn't toe the part line as a horrible awful bigot without even trying to be scientific about it. I've been following this story since Dr. Watson made his remarks, and every single response has been to name call and refuse to even look at the data he is presenting. If people truly want to put this argument to rest once and for all, look at the data. Examine it. Peer review it. Treat it like any other theory and disprove it logically and scientifically.