« Straw: statistics & bias | Main | Sophie & Mario: some economic aspects »

January 10, 2011

Comments

nm

Surely the likes of Krugman are basing their conclusions about this shocking incident on an observable deterioration in the debate in the US rather than just one incident. The "we are mad and we are armed" tendency in the US has seemed quite threatening for some time with the "Kill him" shouts about Obama at Palin rallies being a rather chilling example.

chris

Yes - it might well be that the nature of political discourse in the US has gotten more violent, at least relative to the 80s and 90s (though not the 60s - civil rights and Vietnam provoked strong comment).
But whether this is a cause of political violence is moot. I mean, we have (for now) only one instance of this.

FDUK

"If it can be shown that disproportionate numbers of right-wingers attack left-wingers, or that disproportionate numbers of Pakistanis are sex offenders, then Straw and Krugman might have a point"

Try looking here to see that this is not a one off incidnet

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

BenSix

I'd bet criminal psychologists get really narked at times like these. I mean there they are, desperately trying to map the psyches of these murderers and yet, with little more than someone's reading list and a bone to pick, commenters from Krugman to some bloke on a U.K. weblog know the score before the gun has even cooled.

Ourben

"If it can be shown that disproportionate numbers of right-wingers attack left-wingers, or that disproportionate numbers of Pakistanis are sex offenders, then Straw and Krugman might have a point"

To compare what Krugman and Straw said is a shocking false equivalence. Jack Straw drilled down to a quite specific demographic. Straw referred to specific mores of a specific sex in a specific town.

Pakistanis are not all men. They're not all in Blackburn. They're not all unmarried and expected to marry a girl from Pakistan.

I'm having a hard time reconciling the differences in editorial standard between this article and the last...

"Straw sees a few sex offenders and links them to the “Pakistani community.”"

No he did not. The truth is, we do not know what he's seeing. It is you that is making the link to Pakistani community. I understood immediately that he was referring to a very specific group perpetrators and a very specific group of victims.

Your mind. Not his words.

All we know is that the data on public record doesn't support his hypothesis. There may be undisclosed data that explains his concerns, there may not be.

People used to talk about a specific problem within the Catholic church. The abuse of especially vulnerable young boys. The Vatican refused to release documents from internal investigations. For years people speculated with no evidence. After time many victims have come forward.

Would things have been different if we had given more credence to the allegations, asked the Catholic church to be open and we'd all made an effort sooner to talk about it?

It's not a difficult question.

Laban

To be fair to Jack Straw, the existence of grooming seemed to be a shock to him in 2006.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/819890.girls_groomed_for_sex/

Blackburn MP Jack Straw today expressed his deep concern and said he would be raising the matter immediately with the Home Office.

He said: "I was frankly unaware of the scale of this problem until the Lancashire Evening Telegraph highlighted it but it is one that we all must now address including the Asian community."

The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad