Geoff > Status Update

Troll = blocked

Niklas wrote: "In the government report I linked they claim that the crime statistics can't be fully explained by socio-economic factors. In a previous government report which they cite they found only a minimal reduction when accounting for socio-economic factors. See page 20 -21."

Looking quickly at pages 20-21, I note

a) They say that the differences persist after controlling for socioeconomic status, but are reduced in size. They do not give details of how they controlled for socioeconomic status, or what the reduction actually was. The later study cited by Hadrian, in contrast, gives full details and reaches the conclusion that nearly all the variance is explained by socioeconomic status.

b) This study says explicitly (bottom of p 21) that the greater the length of time the immigrant has been living in Sweden, the lower the probability that they will be registered as suspected of any crime.

The critical question is evidently whether things are "spiralling out of control", as you said in an earlier post, or whether Swedish society is taking effective action to assimilate the large influx of immigrants. Several people have cited statistics saying that the increase in crime actually spiked a few years ago and has since been declining, suggesting that the government's strategies are beginning to work.

Unfortunately, I'm right now on the other side of the planet and in no position to check out the facts for myself. But as noted, we'll probably be in Stockholm this summer, and if so I'll make a point of visiting Rinkeby and finding out first-hand whether it feels like a no-go zone. For example (I lived for several years in Sunnyvale, California), I'm curious to know whether it feels as dangerous as East Palo Alto, a place I was very reluctant to visit.

Nice article by Tim Snyder in the nyrb that touches on the Reichstag fire decree, Putin and related concerns of Geoffistas.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/02/...

"As James Madison nicely put it, tyranny arises 'on some favorable emergency.'"

I love Timothy Snyder, but this article appears to have at least one rather large factual inaccuracy. Yeltsin, not Putin, started the war in Chechnya.

(That was always my understanding, and I just googled it to double check)

David wrote: "I love Timothy Snyder, but this article appears to have at least one rather large factual inaccuracy. Yeltsin, not Putin, started the war in Chechnya.

(That was always my understanding, and I just..."

Fake news!

Edit: Sad!

Yeah, I mean the bigger problem is the implication that Russia in the nineties was in any way a flourishing democracy.

Manny wrote: "a) They say that the differences persist after controlling for socioeconomic status, but are reduced in size. They do not give details of how they controlled for socioeconomic status, or what the reduction actually was."

Here's the previous report they're referring to which goes into more detail:
https://www.pdf-archive.com/2011/05/0...

I'll just quote the English summary at the end: "Immigrant
overrepresentation in crime is caused neither by unfavourable division regarding sex, age nor by residential area. Nor is it caused by any generally lower social economic status (calculated as per SEl code) in Sweden." (p. 120)

If the study Hadrian cited refutes this I have no reason to doubt that that's the case, since I'm not a criminologist.

I'm very sceptical to outright dismissing cultural factors when it comes to immigrant related crime however. Especially considering, for example, how honour killings and honour related violence is rampant in some areas where the immigrant population is high. There seems to be a research gap concerning immigrants' cultural background in relation to crime however, which I think would be worth looking into.

Manny wrote: "Several people have cited statistics saying that the increase in crime actually spiked a few years ago and has since been declining, suggesting that the government's strategies are beginning to work."

Since BRÅ stopped publicizing immigrants' crime statistics since the last report in 2005 there's literally no way of knowing if immigrant related crime has gone up or down or stayed on the same level. The latest crime statistics are for the entire population. So in other words, this could mean that while the crime rate among ethnic Swedes may have gone down, the crime rate among immigrants may have as far as we know gone up or stayed the same. There's no way of knowing.

Manny wrote: "But as noted, we'll probably be in Stockholm this summer, and if so I'll make a point of visiting Rinkeby and finding out first-hand whether it feels like a no-go zone. For example (I lived for several years in Sunnyvale, California), I'm curious to know whether it feels as dangerous as East Palo Alto, a place I was very reluctant to visit. "

On that subject, here's an interview with the head of the Swedish Ambulance Driver's Union where he says that no-go zones are a reality, at least for ambulance drivers trying to work in those areas (Eng subtitles): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta5a0...

howl of minerva wrote: "Nice article by Tim Snyder in the nyrb that touches on the Reichstag fire decree

Snyder's book On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century came out today. There's also this interesting article by him on Donald Trump
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/ti...
(German original)
http://international.sueddeutsche.de/...
(English translation)

Thanks Matt! Interesting interview. Didn't know he has a new book out.

Yeah thanks Matt!

By the way - I'm still waiting for Trump to make some statement of support to ease anxieties in our minority and immigrant populace about the shootings in Kansas City. Just kidding! Haha that's funny that a president might do that.

Come on, that would be like expecting Obama to apologise for blowing the arms and legs off some Pakistani kid.

howl of minerva wrote: "Come on, that would be like expecting Obama to apologise for blowing the arms and legs off some Pakistani kid."

True. Damn this is some bleak stuff here.

Oh and by the way, Trump is now claiming that Obama is personally organizing the world-wide protests and angry town hall crowds. Oh and also the leaks - you know, the ones coming from his own administration.

Obama better get himself to a non extradition country and chill there til this blows over. He might find himself under arrest as an enemy of the people otherwise.

I just wasted 10 minutes of my life listening to a donkey 'interview' Bill Nye.

Anyone have any thoughts on the Democrats? Can they be taken over by the left, or are they irredeemably an organ of the ruling of the ruling class? Their stubborn refusal to learn anything and disregard to popular movements within their own ranks is, uh, disconcerting to say the least.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/02/wh...

(This is essentially the difference in opinion between DSA and ISO, respectively)

Geoff wrote: "Oh and by the way, Trump is now claiming that Obama is personally organizing the world-wide protests and angry town hall crowds."

Also, Jews are responsible for their own bomb threats.

David wrote: "Anyone have any thoughts on the Democrats? Can they be taken over by the left, or are they irredeemably an organ of the ruling of the ruling class? Their stubborn refusal to learn anything and disr..."

I have full faith that the Democrats will do the wrong thing, whenever an opportunity to do so arises.

& if they ever do do the right thing it will only because they've bowed to popular pressure. n + 1 also had a good take

https://nplusonemag.com/online-only/o...

And a wonderful article in the Guardian about Putin. The author's pretty restrained until the end, then he can't quite hold back his ridicule

https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...

Of course the Dems will do the wrong thing. But what are we to do? We have a few miserable choices in our doomed Republic - support the Dems who will be wrong on all but a handful of issues, support Republicans, who would see every last living atom of matter on earth destroyed if they thought it would give them a few dollars more, or retreat from it all - immerse yourself in the personal - art or hermetic interests, religion or consumerism, etc., (hedonistic ignorance?) I guess I'd still choose the Dems?

(And for anyone dreaming of another path, a third party not beholden to the rich, sorry - it's gonna be winter in Pigtown until the day you die - capitalism has won, at least for the span of our little lives.)

David wrote: "Anyone have any thoughts on the Democrats? Can they be taken over by the left, or are they irredeemably an organ of the ruling of the ruling class? Their stubborn refusal to learn anything and disr..."

Re. Dems taken over by the left, see UK Labour Party and Corbyn. Wildly popular with people who hadn't voted Labour for years or at all, or had grudgingly done so during the Blair years, whilst alienating signficant numbers who constitute a larger proportion of the electorate.
However, Corbyn, whilst a nice bloke, is not really leadership material at that level, and Sanders is a stronger figurehead who's proven to have what it takes to inspire millions.
And Trump's flailing and extreme right-wingness means there is more for more people to push against.
On the basis of UK experience, what the Dems need most of all is competence and great leadership. If Labour had a really competent, charismatic leader, they could be capitalising on the current situation a lot more. Instead they are a special interest group for a section of the British left which is nowhere near numerous enough to win an election, and the Tories stay ahead in polls because they are perceived as more competent. (And TBH if you had to choose one of them to organise an event or a company project or something, it's still sadly obvious which would be better at that.)

Alfred wrote: "Yes, do this "I guess I'd still choose the Dems?". And for the right issues, do this too, "support Republicans", but give yourself a break occasionally by doing this too, "immerse yourself in the p..."

These days I'm leaning more toward hedonistic ignorance - fiction and music and microbrews and staying away from news.

Geoff wrote: "These days I'm leaning more toward hedonistic ignorance - fiction and music and microbrews and staying away from news. "

Don't blame ya. I'll drink to that (damnit, and it's only 9:15am in the morning). Just remember to lean back in occasionally to keep the balance (leaning towards anything too much tends have a toppling effect).

Alfred wrote: "toppling effect."

Or a tippling effect! Sorry, I'm reading Rabelais...

See, your humor's intact. That's a good sign. Hangover but in hang in there too. I suppose, that extends to everyone who watched the speech last night and now seriously worry that if he keeps taking this softer approach (and gets kudos that feeds into the narcissism...), he's going to actually get his agenda moving more so than the self-sabotage he's been inflicting on himself so far.

Whoops. Better get back to whatever it is I do in the daytime.

(view spoiler)[I'm a bit miffed at all the anti-Dem stuff I see in this looong comment stream. I've been a Democrat all my voting life (longer than most of these commenters have been alive, probably).

Yes, the Dem party "supports" (without bothering to say it) capitalism. I'm not a big fan of capitalism myself, but I'm realistic enough not to expect that either one of the two major political parties in the country are going to suddenly turn socialist.

There are some very progressive Democrats in my state (Maryland) and elsewhere in the country. The main issue that I see needing addressing is income inequality, not specifically a complete renunciation of capitalism - that is, getting rid of this growth-forever-greed-is-everything-me-first brand of extreme capitalism which seems to typify the view of the top .1%, and which (because of their money) has come to push aside much more moderate views.

But that type of capitalism CANNOT be associated with the Democratic party. If that's what you think, you're very very wrong.

Anyway, I guess it's obviously a generational thing. That being the case, I would think it makes sense for you younger radicals to either find parts of the Democratic party (or the other one, if you can), or join the socialist party (as some have), and then try to work in that area and grow it. If you're unwilling to do anything, and just give up, well of course your pessimistic views will be borne out.

I'm not sure, however, just how MANY of this younger generation are really so radical. I know my kids aren't, and not because of me. I'm more radical myself than they are. So maybe all you can do is turn on, and drop out. Good luck to ya!(view spoiler)[ (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

Ted wrote: "I'm a bit miffed at all the anti-Dem stuff."

I can appreciate that it feels miffing to older Democrats, and I think there is a generational divide. To me, at least, it seems this kind of stalwart faith in the Democratic Party is in reality a nostalgia for a Democratic Party that no longer exists. Caveats re Lesser-Evil &c notwithstanding, it's pretty clear by now that the Democrats' formula for opposition to Capitalism and its many woes is just so much posturing. Worse, their long-professed concern for the environment has proved to be a cardboard cutout in the political shop window. On the surface, of course, the Democrats try to appear as leftists, but evidence to support this, especially from 16 of the last 24 years, is rather sparse.

Canada is catching up fast...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montrea...

Ted wrote: "I'm a bit miffed at all the anti-Dem stuff I see in this looong comment stream. I've been a Democrat all my voting life (longer than most of these commenters have been alive, probably).

Yes, the ..."

My pessimistic views are being borne out despite my level of willingness to participate in the process. I was more politically active this election than in any previous one, and it had historically horrific results.

Just look at the pundits' response to last night's bullshit parade in front of congress. Mainstream media is now totally on board the Trump train. We're all doomed.

Where do you see the generational divide as appearing? Is it a generational one?

Antonomasia wrote: "Where do you see the generational divide as appearing? Is it a generational one?"

I'm not sure it is. Among my circle of friends I'm among the most radical. Most of them are my age or younger, and they still have faith in the Dems, I would stay to a ridiculous degree, almost a blind faith.

Geoff wrote: "Just look at the pundits response to last night's bullshit parade in front of congress. Mainstream media is now totally on board the Trump train. We're all doomed."

I don't think that they are on board. if you read the Washington post. but you could be right, we could be doomed anyway. we have this crazy steve bannon that seems to want ww3, according to The Nation, and I guess I am too tired to write anymore. I have had to back away from the news once in a while just to get over not being so demoralized from it.

Geoff wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Where do you see the generational divide as appearing? Is it a generational one?"

I'm not sure it is. Among my circle of friends I'm among the most radical. Most of them are my..."
Yeah, I'm not sure what it's based on - my impression is that recently people whose views were to the left of mainstream Democrats or Labour, regardless of age, are feeling more potential for involvement in mainstream party politics. And then it gets back to the economic conditions that created the need for that, and online communication that meant they got a sense of there being a movement, but the latter also contributed to polarisation on both sides...

Geoff wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Where do you see the generational divide as appearing? Is it a generational one?"

I'm not sure it is. Among my circle of friends I'm among the most radical. Most of them are my..."

my closest friends are socialists at heart; others are democratic, and some that I dropped were for Trump and had made racist comments that they didn't even know where racist. And we are all old.

Jessaka wrote: "Geoff wrote: "Just look at the pundits response to last night's bullshit parade in front of congress. Mainstream media is now totally on board the Trump train. We're all doomed."

I don't think tha..."

Well the Post has been a bastion of reason throughout this whole debacle - I'm very proud of my hometown paper. But CNN and NBC and virtually every other major news organization are just lapdogging it up.

I think I basically agree with Ted as well. If I get the gist of it, the Democrats are better than nothing, fine to try for more radical alternatives, but the Democrats have the best chance electorally and therefore are worth backing. It's the same path that everyone who reluctantly voted Hillary took... just needs a better candidate next time to appeal to more voters in the key areas,

Antonomasia wrote: "Where do you see the generational divide as appearing? Is it a generational one?"

I think it is to some degree. Bernie's strongest supporters were men and women in their twenties.

People sometimes talk like the youngs are just being starry-eyed and idealistic, but I think it's actually more complicated than that. Young people are an economically vulnerable population, entering the workforce after the economy collapsed and so on.

And unfortunately it is true that Dems have been fully complicit in neoliberal capitalism, as well our country's destructive foreign policy. Inequality grew under both Clinton and Obama. Clinton set the blueprint for the invasion of Iraq, Obama bombed more countries than Bush.

Grassroots activists - old and young - have been trying to get more involved with the Democratic party, and have been treated rather rudely by the party's leadership. See last year's primary, as well as this weekend's DNC debacle.

Of course the Dems will still get my vote - there is no other realistic way to go. But I do sometimes think with envy of those wonderful species of people who are capable of existing in their own apolitical dream-realm of fantasy, art, and creation and have no concern for such low worldly affairs... (where the opium dens at?)

Antonomasia wrote: "I think I basically agree with Ted as well. If I get the gist of it, the Democrats are better than nothing, fine to try for more radical alternatives, but the Democrats have the best chance elector..."

Since we will all be in need of humor by the time we get rid of Trump, I am all for voting for Al Franken.

ATJG wrote: "Ted wrote: "I'm a bit miffed at all the anti-Dem stuff."

I can appreciate that it feels miffing to older Democrats, and I think there is a generational divide. To me, at least, it seems this kind ..."

I reject completely what you save about the Democrats & the environment. Of course to use a term like "the Democrats" is at once completely stupid - as if all "Democrats" have the same views and commitments on subjects.

And as far as Democrats "opposition to capitalism", I would never even suggest that that exists at all. Really, why should it? It's the EXCESSES of capitalism that need to be addressed. Not even the socialist democracies of Europe have rejected capitalism, with perhaps some very narrow or local exceptions. I mean, what sort of socialism (?) are you advocating? All corporate entities to be owned by the state?

Geoff wrote: "Ted wrote: "I'm a bit miffed at all the anti-Dem stuff I see in this looong comment stream. I've been a Democrat all my voting life (longer than most of these commenters have been alive, probably)...."

Well, tough. I've voted for the Democratic presidential nominee every election that I've been old enough to vote. My list of winners is Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama. And if you don't think those were "leftist" enough for your tastes, if I'd voted for someone more "leftist" I would never have voted for a winner.

Geoff wrote: "Antonomasia wrote: "Where do you see the generational divide as appearing? Is it a generational one?"

I'm not sure it is. Among my circle of friends I'm among the most radical. Most of them are my..."

As I said. Many of the commenters here are really radical leftist as far as I can tell. Not sure what country of the world they would be happy in nowadys. There must be someplace.

Who gives a fuck about the goddamn pundits? Look, there's no doubt that Trump had a different tone last night (not that I watched, but it is a fact as far as I can tell). To think that "the media" are now all "on board" is ridiculous.

Well the mainstream media actually have been on board the entire campaign and election - they gave him an outlandish, preposterous amount of free coverage, wall-to-wall, the entire campaign, because it was good for ratings - treated his flaws as equal to Hillary's and normalized his nonsense all the past two years - the only thing wrong with what I said is that they were on board after last night - they're one of the main reasons, if not the main reason we have Trump.

Geoff wrote: "Well the mainstream media actually have been on board the entire campaign and election - they gave him an outlandish, preposterous amount of free coverage, wall-to-wall, the entire campaign, becaus..."

You are so correct. The news gave him too much free press, and it is still all they talk about.

Ted wrote: "Of course to use a term like "the Democrats" is at once completely stupid - as if all "Democrats" have the same views and commitments on subjects.."

Ted, I really hate the game of gottcha vis-a-vis semantics. Clearly you are a valuable individual member of the Democratic Party with complex idiosyncratic beliefs and so on. Christ.

With respect to the elected mainstream Democrats in office roughly between the years 1984 and present and environmental policy, you and I will just have to agree to disagree. I certainly wasn't attacking you and wasn't trying to put you on your back foot by any means, but perhaps your distemper mirrored my own.

Lastly, re "opposition to Capitalism", this was another lazy and imprecise generalization on my part: my bad. The intended meaning was of course that I, personally, am dissatisfied with the weak-ass ways the elected mainstream Democrats in office roughly between the years 1984 and present have dealt with the "excesses of Capitalism" in the U.S. and abroad. The intention was not to take issue with, say, private property, but broadly an expression of a widely-felt anger at the erosion of essentially every social program and safety net, the nurturing of neoliberal economics, &c &c

Aaaaaand Sessions didn't disclose during his confirmation hearings that he met twice with Russian officials during the campaign, once in an extended private meeting in his office. I'm guessing there won't be any consequences from this, but Hillary should be executed for treason cuz she put emails in the wrong place.

Geoff wrote: "Aaaaaand Sessions didn't disclose during his confirmation hearings that he met twice with Russian officials during the campaign, once in an extended private meeting in his office. I'm guessing ther..."

I've never been a fan of Sessions. Always rubbed me the wrong way. I was not in favor of his appointment to AG.