The new nuclear option: small, safe and cheap

The new nuclear option: small, safe and cheap, by Aaron Patrick.

The next generation of nuclear reactors – the ones that could finally overcome Australia’s resistance to power by fission – are so small they will abide by road regulations.

Rolls-Royce is designing a reactor that will be 4.5m wide to fit under the 4.95m British road height limit. They would be built in a factory and transported to customers by truck or barge.

In the industry they are known as small modular reactors, or SMRs. They may be the most exciting development in the field since August 3, 1958, when the nuclear-powered USS Nautilus became the first sea vessel to reach the North Pole.

As the developed world tries to work out how to power their economies without contributing to global warming – some 75 per cent of Australian electricity came from coal in 2017 – nuclear power is making a comeback among experts after the backlash triggered by Fukushima Daiichi accident in Japan eight years ago.

In Australia, political and public sentiment towards nuclear could be shifted by a parliamentary inquiry initiated by Energy Minister Angus Taylor last week into nuclear as a power source.

“We always approach these things with an open mind,” Taylor said last month. …

The ARC-100’s big selling points would be simplicity and safety. The radioactive fuel would only have to be changed every 20 years. If it starts melting down, the reactor would automatically shut off without any human intervention. Most of the other reactors under development include similar so-called passive safety features.

Despite the notoriety of the disasters at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, where a tsunami knocked out power to the reactor, triggering a nuclear core meltdown, nuclear power’s long-term safety record is strong.

More video:

‘Wall Street Journal Never Saw an American Job It Didn’t Want to Offshore’

‘Wall Street Journal Never Saw an American Job It Didn’t Want to Offshore’. By John Binder.

President Trump’s chief trade adviser Peter Navarro hit back at the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, saying they “never saw an American job” they “didn’t want to offshore.” …

“The question for the Wall Street Journal is ‘Where was the Wall Street Journal beginning in 2001 when China got into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and we watched the exodus of over 70,000 of our factories, over five million of manufacturing jobs,’” Navarro asked. “‘Why hasn’t the Wall Street Journal been editorializing over the last ten years about China’s hacking our computers to steal trade secrets, about stealing our intellectual property, about forcing the technology transfer from our companies, about the currency manipulation that occurred for over a decade?’”

“It’s called the Wall Street Journal for a reason. It represents Wall Street,” Navarro said. “And the Wall Street Journal never saw an American job it didn’t want to offshore.”

Indeed, U.S. free trade with China has eliminated about 3.4 million American jobs from the economy between 2001 and 2017 — costing workers their jobs in all fifty states. The most recent study conducted by the Coalition for a Prosperous America found that permanent 25 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports would create more than a million U.S. jobs by 2024.

Same goes for Australia, with the obvious translations.

hat-tip Charles

“White Supremacy”—the “Devil Term” Invented to Dispossess Americans

“White Supremacy”—the “Devil Term” Invented to Dispossess Americans, by Roger Devlin.

Founding stock Americans are now perilously close to becoming a powerless minority ruled over by aliens who cherish a carefully cultivated resentment—not to say hatred—towards us. If nothing is done to change the trajectory in which our society is moving, it is hard to see how our children can avoid outright physical persecution.

The hostile elites who rule over us, of course, paint a different picture. Even as they triumphantly celebrate America’s growing racial diversity, they are incredulous any whites could imagine their group is being replaced: that is a “conspiracy theory,” perhaps a symptom of mental illness. Nonwhites are, indeed, growing in numbers and power, but somehow, simultaneously, whites are not losing out in any way. Indeed, we enjoy enormous unearned privilege. The real danger to America is white supremacy, a “sinister ideology” (Donald Trump), a “depraved evil” (Ted Cruz) now said to be on the rise.

The two side in America’s looming struggle now live in such different mental universes that communication between them has become almost impossible. …

Just like in Communist Russia:

The fantasy of the Worker’s Paradise quickly gave way to a hellish tyranny accompanied by widespread famine. Since Marxism had to be true and Lenin and Stalin were leaders of genius, someone had to be responsible for this failure. Very soon it was discovered that kulaks, wreckers, and enemies of the people were preventing the success of communism. Thousands of real persons were quickly discovered to be — or rather designated as — kulaks, wreckers, and enemies of the people. Those so designated were either shipped off to Siberia or shot; they were helpless to defend themselves, because they were not being accused of any specific act. Devil terms allow the powerful to victimize the innocent precisely through their failure to denote any specific, objectively definable class of people.

Gulag prisoners at work, 1936. Is this where anti-white racism will lead?

Racists and white supremacists populate the demonology of contemporary multiculturalism. They are the heirs of last century’s kulaks just as Cultural Marxism is the heir of Marxism-Leninism. In the eyes of today’s true believers, only white supremacists prevent the emergence of a happy society in which various ethnic identity groups live side by side in mutual esteem, free of conflict. …

It was in this sense that Tucker Carlson quite accurately described white supremacy as a hoax.

Smart Progressives and the Emperor’s New Clothes

Smart Progressives and the Emperor’s New Clothes. By the Z-Man.

In modern America, it is generally assumed that intelligent people are smart about everything, not just a narrow specialty. It is also assumed, with regards to social policy, that smart people are on the “right side” of the issue. Taken together, smart people are general experts, who agree and amplify the current Progressive fads. Whenever the television chats shows want to add weight to some claim, they roll out credentialed experts to repeat what the left-wing presenter just said.

The flip side to this, of course, is that critics of the current Progressive fads are ignorant and primitive. They oppose the current trends because they lack the intellect or proper education to understand the issue. There is an oriental quality to it. The experts are talked about as enlightened, as if years of focus have allowed them to ascend to a high plane of existence. The critics, in contrast, are unenlightened, unaware there is a higher plane and thus ignorant of their own ignorance.

It is a useful social control mechanism, as it puts a tremendous moral burden on the intellectual class. No one, especially smart people, wants to be considered ignorant, so the natural tendency is to conform to the latest trends. Social pressure is a powerful weapon, as humans are social animals. To live as a pariah is the worst punishment in a status seeking community like academia. The result is the people who know better tend to keep quiet, while the rage heads and cranks run free.

Global warming is a classic example. How else could a modeling error made in the 1960s snowball into today’s free-spending political behemoth of ever-bigger government?

‘Luxury beliefs’ are the latest status symbol for rich Americans

‘Luxury beliefs’ are the latest status symbol for rich Americans, by Rob Henderson.

A former classmate from Yale recently told me “monogamy is kind of outdated” and not good for society. So I asked her what her background is and if she planned to marry.

She said she comes from an affluent family and works at a well-known technology company. Yes, she personally intends to have a monogamous marriage — but quickly added that marriage shouldn’t have to be for everyone.

She was raised by a traditional family. She planned on having a traditional family. But she maintained that traditional families are old-fashioned and society should “evolve” beyond them.

What could explain this?

In the past, upper-class Americans used to display their social status with luxury goods. Today, they do it with luxury beliefs.

People care a lot about social status. In fact, research indicates that respect and admiration from our peers are even more important than money for our sense of well-being.

We feel pressure to display our status in new ways. This is why fashionable clothing always changes. But as trendy clothes and other products become more accessible and affordable, there is increasingly less status attached to luxury goods.

The upper classes have found a clever solution to this problem: luxury beliefs. These are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.

Marriage is increasingly an upper class institution. Do as we do, not as we say.

One example of luxury belief is that all family structures are equal. This is not true. Evidence is clear that families with two married parents are the most beneficial for young children. …

Relaxed attitudes about marriage trickle down to the working class and the poor. In the 1960s, marriage rates between upper-class and lower-class Americans were nearly identical. But during this time, affluent Americans loosened social norms, expressing skepticism about marriage and monogamy.

This luxury belief contributed to the erosion of the family. Today, the marriage rates of affluent Americans are nearly the same as they were in the 1960s. But working-class people are far less likely to get married. Furthermore, out-of-wedlock birthrates are more than 10 times higher than they were in 1960, mostly among the poor and working class. Affluent people seldom have kids out of wedlock but are more likely than others to express the luxury belief that doing so is of no consequence.

Two mass murders a world apart share a common theme: ‘ecofascism’

Two mass murders a world apart share a common theme: ‘ecofascism’, by Joel Achenbach.

Before the slaughter of dozens of people in Christchurch, New Zealand and El Paso, Texas this year, the accused gunmen took pains to explain their fury, including their hatred of immigrants. The statements that authorities think the men posted online share another obsession: overpopulation and environmental degradation.

The alleged Christchurch shooter, who is charged with targeting Muslims and killing 51 people in March, declared himself an “eco-fascist” and railed about immigrants’ birthrates. The statement linked to the El Paso shooter, who is charged with killing 22 people in a shopping area earlier this month, bemoans water pollution, plastic waste and an American consumer culture that is “creating a massive burden for future generations.”

The two mass shootings appear to be extreme examples of ecofascism – what Hampshire College professor emeriti Betsy Hartmann calls “the greening of hate.”

Many white supremacists have latched onto environmental themes, drawing connections between the protection of nature and racial exclusion. These ideas have shown themselves to be particularly dangerous when adopted by unstable individuals prone to violence and convinced they must take drastic actions to stave off catastrophe. …

Ecofascism has deep roots. There is a strong element of it in the Nazi emphasis on “blood and soil,” and the fatherland, and the need for a living space purified of alien and undesirable elements.

Meanwhile, leaders of mainstream environmental groups are quick to acknowledge their movement has an imperfect history when it comes to race, immigrationand inclusiveness. Some early conservationists embraced the eugenics movement that saw “social Darwinism” as a way of improving the human race by limiting the birthrates of people considered inferior. …

Conservationists have a long history of wrestling with questions about immigration and population growth. Some of those on the environmental left have seen the explosion in the human population — which is nearing 8 billion and has more than doubled in the past half-century — as a primary driver of the environmental crisis. That argument has then been adopted by racists.

The alleged Christchurch shooter began his online screed by writing, “It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates. It’s the birthrates,” and then warned of the “invasion” by immigrants who will “replace the White people who have failed to reproduce.”

The document believed posted by the alleged El Paso shooter cites birthrates among the “invaders” trying to enter the U.S., and asserts, “If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable.”

All sentiments much closer to Rousseau than Locke, to collectivism rather than individualism.

People of a collectivist bent just don’t seem to grasp that race realism, color blindness, and treating people as individuals rather than groups is not only more moral but avoids their nasty hangups and contradictions about race — such as race is a social construct, there is no such thing as race, all whites are racist, and treating people of different races the same is “racist,” etc. etc.

St Paul, Israel Folau, Sex, and Slavery — in Context

St Paul, Israel Folau, Sex, and Slavery — in Context, by Michael Dunn.

The Folau controversy prompted me to read a book by Sarah Ruden, a translator of Virgil’s Aeneid, titled Paul Among the People. She examines what Paul said in the context of the customs, the morals and the laws of his time, using relevant texts of Greco-Roman civilisation. She reveals a world of slavery, everyday brutality and prostitution, and a harsh attitude to life. …


For the Greeks, adultery was illegal. In Athens, the household of an adulterous woman would be broken up. The children of her marriage would be considered illegitimate, they could no longer inherit and were no longer citizens. The adulterous man, however, the real guilty party, was despised as are pedophiles today. The full force of public anger and punishment was aimed at him. Adultery was considered all the more licentious because there were so many prostitutes, and there was no shame about using them. Also, men had many opportunities for free sex with slaves and unmarried freed women. The Romans were less severe, although adultery was usually the end of a marriage and the guilty man could be the target of vengeance and perhaps hired killers. …


Paul sees the body as a temple, where flesh and the spirit meet. Fornication, expressed here as sex with a harlot, pollutes and desecrates that temple, making it not worth the price Christ paid for it by his crucifixion.

In Paul’s time, a long-term intimate relationship among slaves, freed people and the poor did not involve an official marriage, a rite normally reserved for the well-off. Therefore, according to Ruden, ‘fornication’ is not the right word to translate porneia which Paul had condemned. This Greek word, which derives from the verb ‘to buy’, meant ‘whoring’. Prostitutes were mostly slaves. Some of the women had to parade naked, and there are Greek vases showing men hitting them. Even in the case of sex without payment, there was frequent brutality and little romance. The author suggests that Paul wished to condemn the use of a person as a mere object. He demanded a new sort of intimate relationship, a true and sanctified union, to which adultery and whoring were utterly alien. …


Paul was Jewish, and Judaism had always condemned homosexual acts. For Gentiles, it was customary to use young male slaves for sex. Paul would have seen, among the prostitutes on the street, young boys. At every slave market handsome boys were sold to pimps who paid high prices. The clients, to demonstrate their masculinity and to preserve their reputation, would often act brutally. The boys were used, humiliated and damaged, morally and physically. Wealthy parents had to employ minders to protect handsome sons from sexual assaults while walking to school or to the market.


Ruden presents Paul not as a Puritan but as a man fiercely angered by debauchery and sexual violence, a man who wanted Christians to live differently in faithful intimate relationships, abandoning selfishness, violence and all trace of exploitation. …

Folau’s selective list of sins and sinners to be warned about the torments of hell is blind to the historical context. It sells Paul and Christianity short: ‘just avoid these sins, and you won’t go to hell when you die’.

Now that the left is busying unraveling the Christian basis to our society, positively encouraging previously illicit sex, and creating a global elite who look down on the rest of us — what is there to look forward to? It’d be like a return to old times.

Boris Johnson: The man who invented himself

Boris Johnson: The man who invented himself, by Toby Young.

I first set eyes on Boris Johnson in the autumn of 1983 when we went up to Oxford at the same time. …

I still wasn’t prepared for the sight (and sound) of him at the dispatch box of the Oxford Union. This was the world-famous debating soc­iety where ambitious undergraduates honed their public-speaking skills before embarking on careers in politics or journalism, and Boris was proposing the motion. …

With his mop of blond hair, his tie askew and his shirt ­escaping from his trousers, he looked like an overgrown schoolboy. …

He began to advance an argument in what sounded like a parody of the high style in British politics — theatrical, dramatic, self-serious — when, a few seconds in, he appeared to completely forget what he was about to say.

He looked up, startled — Where am I? — and asked the packed chamber which side he was supposed to be on. “What’s the ­motion, anyway?” Before anyone could answer, a light bulb ­appeared above his head and he was off, this time in an even more orotund, florid manner. Yet within a few seconds he’d wrong-footed himself again, this time because it had suddenly occurred to him that there was an equally compelling argument for the opposite point of view. This endless flipping and flopping, in which he seemed to constantly surprise himself, went on for the next 15 minutes. The ­impression he gave was of someone who had been plucked from his bed in the middle of the night and then plonked down at the dispatch box of the Oxford Union without the faintest idea of what he was supposed to be talking about.

I’d been to enough Union ­debates at this point to know just how mercilessly the crowd could punish those who came before them unprepared. That was particularly true of freshmen, who were expected to have mastered all the arcane procedural rules, some of them dating back to the Union’s founding in 1823. But Boris’s chaotic, scatterbrained ­approach had the opposite effect.

The motion was deadly serious — “This House Would Reintroduce Capital Punishment” — yet ­almost everything that came out of his mouth provoked gales of laughter. This was no ordinary undergraduate proposing a motion but a music hall veteran performing a well-rehearsed comic routine. His lack of preparedness seemed less like evidence of his own shortcomings as a debater and more a way of sending up all the other speakers, as well as the pomposity of the proceedings. You got the sense he could easily have delivered a highly effective speech if he’d wanted to but was too clever and sophisticated — and honest — to enter into such a silly charade. To do what the other debaters were doing, and pretend he believed what was coming out of his mouth, would have been patronising. Everyone else was taking the audience for fools, but not him. He was openly insincere and, in being so, somehow seemed more authentic than everyone else. …

My uncle had described him as a “genius” and as a boy he’d been regarded as something of a wunderkind. There was the occasion when he was holidaying with his family in Greece, aged 10, and asked a group of classics professors if he could join their game of Scrabble. They indulged the precocious, blond-haired moppet, only to be beaten by him. Thinking it was a one-off, they asked him to play another round and, again, he won. On and on it went, game after game. …

Our mutual friend Lloyd Evans, who knew Boris better than me at ­Oxford, put it well. “He’s a war leader,” he told Gimson. “He is one of the two or three most extraordinary people I’ve ever met. You just feel he’s going somewhere. People just love him. They enjoy going with him and they enjoy being led.” …

Boris is often described as a “Marmite figure”, a reference to the British version of Vegemite. You either love Marmite or you hate it, and the same goes for Boris. Just as some sections of America’s coastal elites suffer from Trump derangement syndrome, large swathes of Britain’s intelligentsia are afflicted by Boris derangement syndrome.

Hong Kong: Like frogs in a boiling pot

Hong Kong: Like frogs in a boiling pot. By Greg Sheridan.

Originally the protests were about a plan by the Hong Kong government to introduce a law that would have allowed Hong Kong citizens to be extradited to mainland China to face the legal system there. The problem is that everyone in the world knows the Chinese legal system is no good. With its conviction rate of more than 99 per cent, the Chinese legal system has no credibility with anyone. To routinely expose Hong Kong citizens to its vagaries would have been a severe blow to the rule of law and to their legal rights.

Hong Kong is an amazing place. It is often rated the most economically free jurisdiction in the world, yet it sits as part of the sovereign territory of the biggest socialist nation in the world, ruled by the biggest Communist Party in the world. …

China has steadily reduced freedoms since taking over:

Three separate dynamics have collided like billiard balls in this Hong Kong controversy.

The first is the growing sense of the Hong Kong people that they are the metaphorical frog in the slowly boiling pot of water. They realised the temperature was getting too hot. The extradition treaty made them understand that. … Extradition treaties have been a central tactic by Beijing in recent years to increase its leverage over the Chinese diaspora. In any event, the extradition treaty convinced a lot of Hong Kongers that they had to take a stand now for the rule of law and for the preservation of some level of democracy. …

China recently changed, big time:

Which brings us to the second big dynamic at work in Hong Kong, and that is the personality and leadership style of Xi. At a recent Australia America Leadership dialogue, Kim Beazley shattered the silly, lazy rhetorical equivalence some commentators engage in. Trump’s departure from the American strategic mainstream, he rightly said, was as nothing compared with Xi’s utter demolition of the old Chinese model, characterised by Deng Xiaoping’s famous formulation “hide your strength, bide your time”.

Under Xi, China … has become instead a one-man dictatorship with soaring power ambitions, resting on three pillars — strongman leadership, economic growth and virulent nationalism.

It is impossible now to sell to anyone, least of all the people of Hong Kong, the idea that the People’s Republic of China will gradually become a kinder and gentler nation, that it is on a long, slow road to a more liberal and representative future. …

One of these ambitions is to subjugate all of what it considers to be the Chinese universe — mainland China including Tibet and Xinjiang, Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan and the vast Chinese diaspora, into one multinational entity called China and ruled by the Chinese Communist Party.

Enter Trump:

Which brings us to the third powerful dynamic at work in Hong Kong, and that is Trump. …

His language, perhaps governed by his deep prudence in a situation of real danger …, was consistently low-key and, as Scott Morrison would say, “de-escalatory”. But Trump also urged Xi to meet the Hong Kong demonstrators personally and expressed confidence that Xi could sort the matter out humanely.

This was a kind of humiliation for Xi, as if he needs advice from Trump on an internal Chinese matter. But also, the fact Xi never could take such an initiative points up a weakness for a dictator compared with a democratic ruler. Trump went further and suggested the two leaders — Trump and Xi — meet personally to sort the Hong Kong situation out.

Again, this is a kind of intense, polite humiliation of Xi. It’s polite, but it implies Xi cannot handle his own country. It injects Trump into the middle of the psychodrama. Yet Xi can hardly spit in Trump’s face over the suggestion. I think Trump drives the Chinese half crazy.

Trump’s on-again off-again tariffs on China are disruptive to international business. But Trump’s complaints about Beijing’s trade practices, cyber thefts and security attacks under the guise of free trade are completely justified. It is certainly maddening for international business that Trump announces tariffs on China, then partly relents, post­pones some of them, cancels others, goes ahead and implements some. But the hard-headed net assessment must be that Trump has so far had huge success in his trade war with Beijing.

Trump’s actions and words have already resulted in a significant diversion of supply chains away from China, especially in hi-tech areas. They have also resulted in significant diversion of foreign investment and manufacturing facilities to other destinations such as Vietnam. Trump has also produced a pretty much global consensus, even among his enemies and critics, that Beijing’s actions in trade, cyber theft, etc are unacceptable. He has comprehensively convinced the American public and his political opponents, the Democrats, of this.

As unpopular as Trump is, he has therefore been much more effective in mobilising strategic public opinion on China than Barack Obama ever was.

It is also the case that Chinese economic growth has slowed markedly in the face of Trump’s actions. Trump has imposed a price on Beijing for its behaviour, again in a way that Obama never did.

Fake Chinese police car is spotted driving around Perth: Chinese pressure on students?

Fake Chinese police car is spotted driving around Perth: Chinese pressure on students? By Nic White.

A Land Rover painted to look like a Chinese police car is cruising around the streets of Perth, terrifying local expats.

The white 4WD had Chinese characters reading ‘police’ on the bonnet, and ‘public safety’ on the side along with a police badge.

Police vehicles in China commonly have the same markings and colour scheme, right down to the stripes on the side.

Chinese expats were fearful that their former country could be monitoring them, particularly with the ongoing protests in Hong Kong.

Here is the car in Perth:

And here is a Chinese patrol car in China:

How do we feel about a foreign power policing its citizens in our country? Hmmmm.

via Australian Political Skeptic

Greta Thunberg – Patron Saint of the Age of Stupidity

Greta Thunberg – Patron Saint of the Age of Stupidity, by James Delingpole.

St Greta of Thunberg has made it into the cover of GQ and is now on her way across the Atlantic in a $4 million yacht to lecture Americans about climate change.

Could there be anything more emblematic of the stupidity of our age? …

What is a 16-year old autistic school drop-out who has done nothing of note in her life other regurgitate climate propaganda doing on the cover of a men’s magazine? …

Consider an opposite sort of case:

To appreciate just how irrational it all is, consider, by way of a thought experiment, if a 16-year-old autistic kid with pigtails just as fetching as St Greta’s were to organise a global school walkout in protest at mass immigration; or the oppression of women in the Middle East; or the destruction of rainforest to grow palm oil to make biofuels; or the devastation caused by wind energy to birds and bats; or China’s abuse of Hong Kong.

How many politicians do you think would be giving that child an audience? How many millionaire yacht owners would be offering her free trips across the Atlantic? How many newspapers and TV channels would be giving her coverage of any kind?

The answer is none. …

I’m sorry, but “Let’s bomb Western Industrial Civilisation back to the Dark Ages because a 16-year-old climate activist with cute pigtails made the cover of GQ and is now travelling across the Atlantic on an expensive sailing boat” is not an argument. Really it isn’t. And the gullible grown-ups who think otherwise should be ashamed of themselves.

Immigration as Punishment

Immigration as Punishment, by Steve Sailer.

Should Harvard be required to accept the wretched refuse of its applicant pool even though they are likely to flunk out?

Should the Golden State Warriors be forced to draft the huddled masses of short and slow college basketball players who are likely to get torched in the NBA?

And should the United States government be mandated to let in immigrants likely to go on welfare?

Well, obviously, the answer to the first two questions is “No.” Americans care intensely about sports drafts and college recruiting, rightly sensing that who your team acquires is more important than how they are coached. So colleges and sports franchises work intensely to acquire the best talent.

Americans used to be more innocent about this. In the 1960s, a sportswriter asked UCLA basketball coach John Wooden why he’d gone all the way to New York to recruit 7′ 2″ Lew Alcindor (now Kareem Abdul-Jabbar) instead of just finding some local boys and coaching them to the national title. Wooden replied, “You can’t coach quickness.”

Kareem won three NCAA titles for Wooden and then six NBA titles.

This exchange sounds archaic today, but Wooden’s predecessor as the top college coach, University of Kentucky coach Adolph Rupp, imposed a rule on himself that he’d have only three out-of-state recruits per team. Those were different times…

PC immigration is now about selecting the worst people for your team. Virtue signaling at its most dangerous.

Increasingly, we are told, the worse the immigrants the better. Immigration policy isn’t supposed to benefit you, it’s supposed to hurt you. It should hurt so good. The madness of this masochistic logic is seen as proof of its holiness. …

In reality, of course, preferring immigrants who are less likely to need welfare has multigenerational benefits. To take a crude measure, look at third-generation immigrants by ethnicity. Jason Richwine … found that the average grandchild of European immigrants compared to the average grandchild of Mexican immigrants:

  • Is 119 percent more likely to have graduated from college;
  • Scored at the 61st percentile of the military’s AFQT cognitive test compared to the 41st percentile for the Mexican descendants;
  • Earns a 32 percent higher income.

These are not huge gaps, but even after about 75 years, the grandchildren of European immigrants pay more in taxes than the grandchildren of Mexican immigrants.

As John Wooden might say, you can’t coach quickness.

It’s all so obvious when you put it in sporting terms.