prime example

A prime example of a third-world person living in a first-world country:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=217841112

We get enough of these, and we'll BECOME a third-world nation.

mtv

MTV:  Espousing third-world values in a first-world country.  Miley Cyrus at the VMA awards.

the crux of the matter

Here is the crux of the matter:  I'm very right-wing on issues of crime and law and order, but very left-wing on environmental issues.  Yet I see no contradiction here.  The reason is that they both further the main goal I have in mind:  making sure that the United States remains a first-world country.

On crime and law and order:  The left maintains that the way to combat this is through poverty amelioration, affirmative action quotas, etc.  As far as I can see, the main cause of poverty in this country is people having children they can't support.  Even if they're working at jobs that should pay more-- and I'm a strong proponent of unions-- they still shouldn't have children they can't support.  It seems as if these people do things the other way around, though:  They have the children first and then try to figure out how to support them, through government handouts if possible, through working for a living if necessary.

On the other hand, I do think the government should be the employer of last resort.  Sure, many of these jobs would be 'make-work' to some extent, but make-work is still work.  It beats having these kids hanging out on street corners waiting to get into trouble.  Idle hands are the devil's playmate.  The older I get, the more accurate that piece of folk wisdom seems to me.  It's a hell of a lot cheaper than warehousing them in our prisons, and at least it puts them 'on the ladder' in life, even if it's on an artificially created lower rung.

And having a government-created job would not be Club Med.  I see it as similar to the military, something people would sign up for for two or three years, with the possibility of 're-upping' when one's 'tour' is up.  It might even involve a military-style barracks-type living situation.  But it would be a job, and a life of sorts.

As for environmental issues:  A first-world nation is one in which science and technology are integrated into the popular culture.  As far as I can see, the evidence for man-made global warming is now overwhelming.  As a nonscientist, I have some idea of the basic science involved.  I rely most heavily though, on studies showing that articles dealing with the subject in peer-reviewed scientific journals are something on the order of 97% in the 'warming' camp.  That's about as close to unanimity as you're going to get in science, and that's good enough for me.

So I don't see these right-wing views (on crime and law and order) and left-wing views (on environmental issues) as being at all contradictory.  They are two sides of the same coin, of assuring that the United States remains a first-world nation.  And that's the coin of the realm.

third world

 If you accept the premise that first-world people are characterized by three major characteristics: they are civilized, educated, and responsible;

Then third-world people are characterized by the obverse: they are uncivilized, ignorant, and irresponsible. The high crime rate in the ghetto-- particularly violent crime-- is uncivilized. The high dropout rate and low academic achievement level are evidence of ignorance. The phenomenon of young girls getting pregnant, of males refusing to accept the responsibilities of fatherhood, and of a huge proportion of the inhabitants being supported by the taxpayer are overwhelming evidence of irresponsibility. This is why I say the ghetto is a third-world enclave in a first-world country. People with third-world values will create a third-world society.

science and technology

We need to move science and technology more to the center of our educational system and our culture generally.  Everybody should have some general acquaintance with the scientific method.  Everybody should have a basic grasp of quantitative methods and of statistics specifically.  'Math anxiety' is a psychological state that can probably be overcome.  Having basic mathematical skills give one a basic confidence in life and opens up an understanding of all sorts of other fields.

a republican case for climate action

I think this is huge news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/opinion/a-republican-case-for-climate-action.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&seid=auto&_r=2&

Four former EPA heads-- all Republicans appointed by Republican presidents, going back to Nixon-- have come out with this statement affirming the reality of climate change:

"There is no longer any credible scientific debate about the basic facts: our world continues to warm, with the last decade the hottest in modern records, and the deep ocean warming faster than the earth’s atmosphere. "

It's hard to see how this statement could be ignored in future FEP (Flat Earth Party) primaries and national elections.  In the face of this, candidates will no longer be able to sluff this issue off as some kind of leftist hoax meant to 'take away our freedoms.'

the ghetto

It may be useful to think of blacks as just another immigrant group-- just that they're internal immigrants, moving from the South to the North. In that sense, 'the ghetto' could be thought of as just another 'immigrant neighborhood,' like the Lower East Side of New York, the North End of Boston, etc.

These neighborhoods typically were populated by people of the same ethnicity or nationality. As the immigrants moved into the second and third generations the more talented and energetic moved 'up and out.' What remained was a kind of 'left-behind' subculture. The South End of Boston, if you've ever been there, is a fairly depressing area. It's odd to see white people living in housing projects and youth loitering on streetcorners, but there it is.

Now there is an educated, somewhat affluent black middle class, although my sense is that it's somewhat smaller than that of other groups (and consists almost entirely of public-sector employees). Yet this population seems dwarfed by the 'left-behinds,' and what gets me about this latter group, compared with other immigrant groups, has been their stubborn unwillingness or inability to assimilate into the larger culture.

Granted-- and I shouldn't underestimate this-- blacks have faced unique obstacles in this country, right from the beginning, and those obstacles persist today. Yet I find myself increasingly of the feeling that 'That was then and this is now.' Why don't these people just get with the program?

I'll be blunt. I think of 'ghettoes'-- meaning the non-middle-class, welfare/underclass areas as basically third-world enclaves in a first-world nation. I'll go further than that: I think of them as cancers that shouldn't be allowed to metastasize.

What are the things that set 'the ghetto' off from the rest of society, or even from other traditional immigrant neighborhoods? The most obvious thing is the level of crime, and of violent crime in particular. And there are two other factors, directly related to crime but only slightly less obvious. The first is the near universal illegitimacy of the children, which is to say the nearly universal unwillingness of black men in these areas to accept the responsibilities of fatherhood. The second is the inability to use the public schools as a means of getting 'up and out.' Not only is the dropout rate extremely high compared to that of other groups (with the exception of Hispanics), but the performance of those who do remain in school is extremely low.

Add to this the Hip-Hop youth culture, which, again, I view as espousing a basically third-world set of values. First-world nations are created by first-world people, people who are civilized, educated, and responsible. Many, if not most, denizens of this underclass ghetto are none of these things, and that is why ghettos appear to me to be third-world enclaves in a first-world country.

detroit

The media is doing everything it can to avoid the obviously racial nature of Detroit's 'decline.' They put it in terms of industrial decline, the Rust Belt, etc. But the auto industry didn't really decline, it just went elsewhere. And Detroit made no serious effort to create a new economy. Compare to Pittsburgh, where the steel industry was in genuine decline. That city has made a successful transition to an IT/healthcare economy (thanks in no small part to the presence of a top research university, Carnegie-Mellon). I put the word 'decline' in quotes because it really doesn't do justice to the spectacular nature of Detroit's descent. 'Nosedive' would be more like it.

The fact is, the riots of the 1960s drove the productive, tax-paying white working and middle classes out of the city-- and amazingly quickly. Black hoodlums then proceeded to burn down vast swaths of it in their annual Devil's Night festivities. This is why there are thousands of vacant lots in this city that encompasses over 140 square miles. The houses, apartments, and other buildings that used to sit on them didn't just magically disappear one night.

The result is the Detroit of today, 'the hole in the doughnut': a vast urban wasteland surrounded by prosperous, orderly suburbs.

rachel jeantel

I hesitate to say what follows, but what the hell:

I found this woman so depressingly inarticulate. Granted, she didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight this way, yet she opens a window onto a world few of us see or hear from directly-- what I think of as, frankly, the barbarian, third-world 'culture' of the inner city.

She is a product of 11+ years of public education there at the taxpayer's expense yet can barely form words into sentences. She's got to have a very low IQ. I think we need to try to bring such people up to some minimal level of literacy and numeracy so that they can more or less function in daily life and maybe even hold down some kind of job. But don't expect miracles-- and don't bet the farm on it.

I gather this woman has now been offered a college scholarship by radio host Tom Joyner. We'll see.  Perhaps Pygmalion lives.

vigilantism

The question I ask about this Zimmerman verdict is, 'Has justice been served?'  The answer is unquestionably, No.  The thing that gets me about this whole affair is that there were things going on at both a micro- and macro- level.  The jury verdict had to do with the micro-level stuff-- the actual scuffle that took place between Martin and Zimmerman.  Given the eyewitness testimony that Trayvon was on top, there's essentially no doubt in my mind that the bloodcurdling screams for help on the 911 tape were indeed Zimmerman's.  And on the basis of that, it's hard to believe that he didn't genuinely fear for his life.  Hence the acquittal.

However, at the macro-level, Zimmerman did things that he shouldn't oughta done and created the situation that resulted in Martin's death.  Hence it seems to me that the prosecution should have looked for charges against Zimmerman at this macro-level, where they probably would have stuck.

But first, let's take a slight digression and talk about this 'neighborhood watch' business.  I've heard two versions of this, and I don't know which is correct.  One version is that Zimmerman was a member of an 'official,' police-sanctioned group, along with other people.  The other version is that, no, he just took this upon himself and simply became the 'neighborhood watch guy.'  This makes a difference, because I believe that a police-sanctioned group would have certain rules, and primary among them would be that neighborhood watch people ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ARMED.  They are not surrogate policemen; they are just the 'eyes and ears' of the police.  If they see something suspicious, they report it to the police, and at that point their job ends.  The police take it from there.

And that was precisely the position Zimmerman was in when he called 911.  The dispatcher basically told him that his job was over, that the police would take it from there.  This is the point at which the situation changes totally.  Zimmerman not only disobeys this order, he goes back out into the night, and HE HAS A GUN.

At this point, was he not taking the law into his own hands?  Isn't that called vigilantism, and isn't that a crime in itself?  Indeed, given that he was armed and that this fact resulted in the death of an innocent person, couldn't he be charged with something called 'reckless' or 'aggravated' vigilantism?  Aren't these crimes punishable by long prison sentences?  I really don't know.  But if Zimmerman could have been charged with something like that, a jury would undoubtedly have found him guilty and put him away for 20-30 years.  Justice, then, would have been served.

IQ

Although many on the left want to deny its validity, IQ has stubbornly retained its usefulness as a predictor of achievement-- particularly academic achievement.  The 'nature/nurture' question of whether heritable or environmental factors dominate remains open, but few doubt that both factors are significantly at play.  The latest research seems to indicate that heritability sets a 'floor' for IQ but that environmental factors can add as much as 15-20 points to adult IQ-- which is quite a lot.

First-world societies are, it seems to me, relatively high-IQ societies.  As a society, therefore, we should aim to increase average IQ over time through both its heritable and environmental factors.

immigration

Immigration reform needs to concentrate on bringing in high-skills people who will benefit the overall economy.  The low-skills illegals who would benefit most from current proposals should not be the focus of reform.  The problem with this latter group is not themselves, but rather their children:  1.  There are too many of them, likely to be a drain on government  services and benefits.  2.  They don't do well in school, which means they'll just produce another generation of low-skills people-- or more welfare recipients and criminals.

get with the program

Hello again.  I've been offline for almost a month, but now I'll resume this blog.  It would be helpful to get some feedback comments, though.

Third-world people living in a first-world country:  They have three alternatives:

1.  Leave.  There are plenty of third-world countries they would find more accommodating.

2.  Get with the program of becoming a first-world citizen-- Civilized, Educated, and Responsible (CER).

3.  Stop reproducing.  Women on welfare, in particular, shouldn't be bringing more children into the world while they're being supported by the taxpayer.  For whatever reason, these are people who can't figure out how to put one foot in front of the other in life.  Their children are likely to be similarly encumbered.

hmmm . . .

Hmmm . . .  Well, I seem to be getting a few more pageviews, but still no comments.  Sometime in the next few weeks I should be back online at home and will be able to start paying more attention to this.

return

I haven't been able to post here for awhile, but I'm beginning to think it's pointless anyway in the abence of any comments.

il duce

On issues ranging from global warming to Keynesian economics, I consider myself on the progressive left.  But there is one issue on which I stand somewhere to the right of Benito Mussolini:  In general, people shouldn't have children they can't support, and in particular, WOMEN ON WELFARE SHOULDN'T BE REPRODUCING at all.

There is no point of view from which this is a good idea.  Not from the point of view of the women and her child themselves.  They're already in a hole; they shouldn't be digging any deeper.

Not from the point of view of the taxpayer, who doesn't want to be shelling out even more to support the idle poor and their broods.

Not from the point of view of society as a whole.  For whatever reason, these are people who can't quite figure out how to put one foot in front of the other in life.  We should not be subsidizing the least successful people in our society to reproduce.  Moreover, it is the progeny of these people who cause problems in the schools, making it hard or impossible for others to learn.  The boys drop out and join gangs; the girls get pregnant, drop out, and continue the cycle.

There should be no additional benefits for having additional illegitimate children.  Rather, there should be a stipend for each month the mother remains un-pregnant.  If she becomes pregnant and gives birth again, she loses the stipend.  And this stipend should be significant-- a quarter or a third of her basic check.  This should be one of a set of carrots and sticks designed to SUCCESSFULLY discourage these women from reproducing.