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.