charwin95 In any event, yes AK has an issue with domestic violence, and while I'm sure some will call me a racist for saying it, the truth is that it's the Native Alaskan's, it's part of their culture for whatever reason and they are self-governing bodies. I don't deny it, however I do argue that /if/ we were to instill the laws, rules, and culture of Anchorage/Fairbanks with the natives their crime would be far less. You have to understand that in the villages, we are typically talking about a number of families (from 1 to 50) who are managing their own affairs, so, for example, when the son beats his wife he gets away with it many times before it's even brought to the attention of the troopers (it's pretty much the same thing that happens in ghetto communities; let it go, let it go, let it go, until it gets out of hand and someone gets seriously hurt) - well that "when someone gets seriously hurt" is when Anchorage ends up taking over (because we have the prisons for the state) and we deal with the criminals that the villages can't handle (aka gave up on dealing with,) which puts a crime number on our national ratings. Worse these folks even after their stint in jail are then stuck in Anchorage with no finances, nor welcome, to go back home - so we have this homeless population that drinks heavily and (helpfully/unhelpfully depending on how you view it) are used to living off the land to a great extent so have little desire to work. These now "ousted" natives tend to form quasi-village communities and continue their, what city folk would call "barbaric," behaviors. In fact, on crime maps you can see exactly where they set up camp; around beans cafe and around the native hospital - [another group of stranded folks]) It is what it is. Even so, there really isn't that much crime and given the choice between Alaska and what I've seen of the lower 48, I firmly believe that Alaska as a shit ton safer, and pretty much anyone who's been up here would agree without question, regardless of what the national stats reflect.
As far as the IQ thing, you miss the key element which is a desire to learn things. IF said persons /wanted/ to learn in college yes, if they are the typical student who doesn't put in the effort the obviously they're not going to increase their IQ. Also college learning isn't designed to build IQ, in fact, not much of it has nothing to do with IQ increases and has more to do with 'conformity to rules' which is an antithesis to 'curiosity' that drives IQ growth. But as you said, you can believe what you want. Also, I'm pretty sure I noted that getting over 125 IQ was meaningless as far as jobs were concerned; 125 is said to be the level at which you can do any position in the world. If I left that off this particular post of that issue, well, there it is.
Anyway, so basically your answer to my question is that you think California would not have trade agreements with the US.
