Chicago started with similar conditions as NYC (30 murders per 100000 in 1991), but they didn't have no-nonsense mayors like Bloomberg and Rudy. So its murder rate now is still 5 times that of NYC.
Broken window policing and stop-and-frisk absolutely worked. Stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional, but it also was highly effective.
CPD generally does whatever NYPD does. The difference is that New York isn't Chicago. Different geography, different forces at work. Peter Moskos wrote a whole book about how NYPD turned things around in the 1990s, and "stop and frisk" and "broken windows", whatever Malcolm Gladwell wants you to believe, don't feature prominently in it.
Chicago had tried Chicago Alternative Policing Strategy (CAPS) in 90-s it was so famous that even I heard about it during my lessons on urban planning. In Russia.
And it was not entirely unsuccessful, but definitely much less effective than policing in NYC.
I read multiple articles from both conservative and progressive sources about the drop of crime in NYC. The evidence is decidedly mixed. "Broken windows" policies probably helped a lot during the 90-s but lost their efficacy by the early 2000-s. Stop-and-frisk probably reduced the rate of serious crimes, mostly through incidental arrests but undermined some of the community trust. It also was unconstitutional.
I obviously haven't read it completely yet, but I read the parts that mention "Broken Windows". So far they seem to basically affirm everything I said:
> Now Bratton had some success in Transit, and well-publicized success, because he decided to stop people from jumping over the turnstiles. It was rampant. They wound up locking up some guy who had like $10,000 and a gun and couldn't be bothered to pay the dollar subway fare. The idea was, if I keep these guys out of the system, crime will go down. And crime went down in Transit, which is why Bratton got Boston and why he got back here. It was like, "This guy might be on to something."
> Operation Alternative
> But you can use the Broken Windows theory. Stopping a guy for drinking beer gave you a chance to run him for a warrant. Is he wanted for a violent crime? Stopping a guy for pissing in the street gave you a chance to issue a summons. Which meant if he couldn't produce ID you could bring him into the station, run his prints, and then find out he was wanted for one of last week's shootings.
Chicago was run by Richard Daly 2 for 20 years during the Guliani era. I’m not sure what a no-nonsense mayor is but Daly resolved a dispute over an airport by having the runway jack hammered over night in the middle of negotiations.
During the 80s CPD ran a torture warehouse. They are currently operating under court direction for their mass use of pre textual traffic stops.
I’m not buying your “just so” story about mayors or hard nosed policing being the difference.
Or… criminals were caught and remained incarcerated leaving rates low. A large part of crime is committed by repeat offenders. Catch and imprison them and crime drops. This is well supported by data.
As you said, a large part of crime is committed by repeat offenders. Enough time has passed that those people are back on the street. If crime rates have remained low after the end of S&F, then it can't be that.
An unmarked car pulls alongside you, all men are masked inside and the windows tinted. You're ready to fight back or run, but then it turns out it's the police attempting to harass and bully you. Wonderful.
Look up Sean Bell - not a stop a frisk, just an open fire.
Once, my wife and I were stopped, but not frisked, and cited for riding bikes, on a sidewalk at 2AM on a stretch of Atlantic Ave that would kill you to ride on. It made no sense, until I found out that my neighbor and his friend had been murdered at a street party. There was a drag net out trying to find the killer and they stopped anyone for anything.
I had the same issue after college. I joined a meetup group and made lots of friends over the course of a few years. It's been over a decade now, and I'm still friends with many of them.
More so that the 1% have fewer loopholes, not the other way around.
Regular folks filing taxes don’t have particularly difficult returns, but if the government already knows what you owe/get back, why waste everyone’s time? Obviously deductions exist for a reason, but standard deduction folks shouldn’t have to file to confirm that their number matches what the IRS already calculated.
Stuff like this is common in states with no income tax. If public services in two states are equivalent and one has income tax but one doesn’t, the latter state residents pay the same total tax burden through property tax, tolls, and sales tax.
Yep, people really think they've hacked America when they move to states with lower/no income tax. Meanwhile they pay 5-figure property taxes on a house they've paid off until the day they die.
I'm on the "outside" of this argument - never owned a gun yet and not in the US, but the right to life (not to be shot) can be exercised by protecting oneself from guns, with a gun.
Here we're discussing how attacks against privacy are totalitarian and how more and more governments are on their way to become totalitarian regimes, but we don't agree that people having guns is a good defense against a totalitarian government. We talk about police or ICE overreach, but don't talk about what would happen if that overreach expands even more.
That's kind of a jump. The 2a is cool, but gun deaths outpace car deaths now and 2a people refuse literally any of the protections we have against car deaths. Whereas a 15 year old jerking it to a pornstar hurts no one and these people want to completely ban the 4th amendment.
He basically got the other side to admit that European healthcare, which has always been used as an argument as 'better' than US care, is actually not as good.
He can intentionally start supporting things he hates at this point, and academia and the media will write articles and release research papers as to why it's actually bad.
During Covid, it was pretty dangerous when the federal government started intentionally limiting usage of things like Monoclonal antibodies in states like Florida, which was shown to work after someone already had Covid. This most definitely killed people and I really can't listen to anti-science liberals that make decisions based on politics and feelings and not actual science.
Hell, they told us that trying to limit flights at the beginning of Covid was 'racist' and that we should 'hug an Asian'. Does this sound like the party of 'science' to you?
The 'conspiracy theorists' were even right about the Covid vaccines: it's now shown to cause blood clots and it definitely resulted in deaths. There was also no testing with pregnant women and we still don't know the long-term effects.
I don't see how we can just move on with these things or how we can ever believe the medical community run by liberals again. We need trials and people need to go to prison responsible for these deaths.
Big pharma companies that don't have any accountability aren't going to care if they kill people. I used to live in a college town around 2007 or so. Anti-big pharma was a normal platform in the liberal community. It only turned to licking the assholes of the big pharma companies and anyone who supported them after Republicans were apprehensive about untested vaccines being forced onto them.
> He basically got the other side to admit that European healthcare, which has always been used as an argument as 'better' than US care, is actually not as good.
This is a lie. The article literally argues that European countries in question have better healthcare, less disease and therefore can afford less vacciness.
The medical community realized early in the pandemic that blood clotting was an “extremely rare” side effect of Covid vaccines. Nobody tried to hide that. Also, monoclonal antibody treatments were limited because 99% of Covid infections were of the Omicron variant and it was clinically demonstrated that monoclonal antibodies were entirely ineffective against that variant.
"I only date liberal men.” Politics is not her only concern. She is also looking for someone ambitious, with a stable career, who is Jewish and, perhaps most important, shares her desire to start a family."
The reality is women now have options (besides being a stay at home mom) and single, childfree women are the happiest cohort based on the data. Women are totally fine being single and economically independent, and if they want kids, they can go the single parent and IVF route. The article addresses this “excess men” issue, while the unfortunate reality is there is no solution. Same deal with women who want to marry up with a limited pool of such partners. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and there is, broadly speaking, an expectations reality disconnect at scale. An equilibrium will be found, but it will take a generation or two at least (imho).
TLDR People in the dating marketplace will all need to be a bit more humble and realistic, but I think it’s unlikely to occur due to inertia and mental models.
> “But there is always going to be a group, probably growing, of women who have decided that they, for all sorts of reasons, are not going to have children. And in a way, we’ve got to accept that and work with that.”
Well, if you listen to any radio station, you also hear the same songs on rotation. It's not much different. I feel like music stopped being unique after 2010 or so.
"My daughter followed the playbook everyone here recommends. MIT. Programming olympiads. Strong internships. No shortcuts."
I never had any of this and I managed to find work in tech in 2000, 2008, and even now (during the worst down markets in my lifetime), when everyone says that 'nobody is hiring', I had 5 interviews (I only applied to 10 or so jobs) and an offer in less than a month.
Education has never guaranteed you a job. The key is to be able to stay positive, even with rejections. I've never had the luxury of having an internship or network at a well-known university.
Getting a job is all about getting yourself in reduced in a smaller pool of candidates that the company will choose from. Education, experience, being personable can all do this.
The economy is rough right now. You also have do things that can set yourself apart from the rest. I got my latest offer by calling the person that posted the job directly and had a second interview by the end of the week.
"She spends most days in her room applying, "
Mass applying will almost never get you the job. She should be focused on customizing her resume and trying to get in touch with the person posting the job and getting face time.
"It’s Christmas and we aren’t celebrating. No decorations. No pretending things are okay. I’m completely shattered as a parent, mostly because I don’t have answers. I told her for years that merit would protect her. It didn’t."
This is an odd response from a parent. Why are you wallowing in her sorrow? You should be showing her that life can still be good and she will eventually find work again.
This isn’t about you, someone with years of experience. I also found a job within a month a year ago. Why? My experience.
My brother in law is experiencing the same thing as his daughter. He graduated with a 4.0 in computer science but couldn’t find a job to save his life. Why? It’s hard to customize your resume when you have no relevant experience. What’s he doing now? Getting his master’s. Piling on more debt. Hoping. Working on random projects, just like everyone else. Getting the occasional interview where they ask questions he has no idea how to answer because he’s never been in the situation to learn or develop a way to formulate an answer. Unprepared, despite preparing every single day. Why? Because teams have lost people due to layoffs, offshoring, etc., and now expect more from potential junior positions.
Reaching out to recruiters, hiring managers, people who work in the company/department isn’t some new thing. It’s just not working like it used to.
reply