Really excellent start to the series! I agree there is an intentional lack of knowledge - or maybe not intentional lack but intentional mis-information - about the "punishment" industry. Keep going!!
I watched this debate and really thought you did a great job of staying constructive. There was a lack of ability to engage from the other debater, to engage with subject matter deeper than the surface. Even insults thrown your way. You did great staying on point with concrete details and positivity. About to jump into this article, but I have been thinking about this interview since the day it was posted on Bad Faith. Keep up the groundbreaking work and I will get back down here in the comments once I read this piece. thanks!
Excellent article. I'm so grateful for your continued work on this crucial human rights issue. Just signed up as a monthly donor to the Civil Rights Corps.
Thx for this video. It surprised me how much Stoller refused to engage with the substance of the issues and how he seems to think shifting resources from kinetic policing to welfare policing is quixotic. And this from someone who seems to think that eliminating monopoly in an oligarchy is a feasible political project! At any rate, the policy proposals you have mooted are old hat even within liberal circles, i believe. Wasnt the Kerner commission centered around reducing crime etc in minority communities by reducing unemployment and increasing welfare. And wasnt this basically rejected because the cost of incarceration was overall cheaper than that of welfare enhancement. It has long been appreciated that shifting funds from policing to welfare enhancement was superior policy. And for preciselythis reason it has been important to make this policy shift sound crazy and impractical. If Stoller is any indication, it seems to have worked.
I always thought the slogan"defund the police" must have been cooked up in some right wing counter propaganda organization because it sounds so perfectly designed to scare the average citizen with visions of out of control crime. The most perfectly wrong slogan ever. Anything would be better - "reinvent the police" "fix the police" "make the police useful" - anything. Everyone who cares to pay attention can see that the police do not work very well. The vast majority of cops to me look miserable and guilt stricken about what an impossible absurd and basically kind of fake job they have, with a huge gulf between what the public assumes they do and what they actually do, which is basically taking the fairly hefty bribe that is their salary and holding their nose until retirement. It's a job that desperately needs to reinvented. This is a little off the main topic of the tragedy and immorality of the prison industrial punishment complex but seems relevant too.
Oh no! Where did you pre-order it from? I'll contact the bookstore and if that doesn't work, I'll have a signed book mailed to you! I'm so sorry about that. Can you send me a DM with your address?
Thx for this video. It surprised me how much Stoller refused to engage with the substance of the issues and how he seems to think shifting resources from kinetic policing to welfare policing is quixotic. And this from someone who seems to think that eliminating monopoly in an oligarchy is a feasible political project! At any rate, the policy proposals you have mooted are old hat even within liberal circles, i believe. Wasnt the Kerner commission centered around reducing crime etc in minority communities by reducing unemployment and increasing welfare. And wasnt this basically rejected because the cost of incarceration was overall cheaper than that of welfare enhancement. It has long been appreciated that shifting funds from policing to welfare enhancement was superior policy. And for preciselythis reason it has been important to make this policy shift sound crazy and impractical. If Stoller is any indication, it seems to have worked.
"Between April 3 and 12, the democracy financing branch of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) paid for a Ukrainian opinion survey. The questionnaire was formulated by the Gallup Organization. The International Republican Institute (IRI) of Washington, DC, an association of the Republican Party also funded by USAID and the State Department, sponsored the polling and published the results on April 24. The full report can be read here. http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=rus&cat=reports&id=245&page=1
According to the report, the poll sampling was 1,200 and the procedure was “face-to-face interviews at respondents’ home.” The response rate recorded was 65%. That means that 35% of front doors were slammed shut in the face of the pollsters. Whether that happened before or after the pollsters disclosed they were paid by the US Government is not known. No regional breakdown is reported for the non-responders.
When regional distributions are reported for opinions towards Russian military intervention, constitutional change, intention to vote in the May 25 presidential election, or preference for candidates, those refusing to express a view from the eastern and southern regions ranged between 9% to 12%, two to four times more than those from western Ukraine. The proportion who said they wouldn’t vote in the proposed election, or refused to say, was 39%. In short, the US poll managed not to record the resistance to participating in the election of a near-majority of Ukrainians in the east and south.
The question on Russian intervention in the Ukrainian survey was worded differently by the American poll. The latter asked: “Do you support the decision of the Russian Federation to send its army into Ukraine under the pretext of protecting Russian-speaking citizens?”
Great piece. Sharing widely. Eager for the next installments.
Thank you.
Stay well.
Merry Christmas.
Really excellent start to the series! I agree there is an intentional lack of knowledge - or maybe not intentional lack but intentional mis-information - about the "punishment" industry. Keep going!!
Thanks for throwing some dust in the air.
I watched this debate and really thought you did a great job of staying constructive. There was a lack of ability to engage from the other debater, to engage with subject matter deeper than the surface. Even insults thrown your way. You did great staying on point with concrete details and positivity. About to jump into this article, but I have been thinking about this interview since the day it was posted on Bad Faith. Keep up the groundbreaking work and I will get back down here in the comments once I read this piece. thanks!
I watched the debate a few weeks ago. I didn't look at every comment. But for the most part you crushed Stoller
Excellent article. I'm so grateful for your continued work on this crucial human rights issue. Just signed up as a monthly donor to the Civil Rights Corps.
Thx for this video. It surprised me how much Stoller refused to engage with the substance of the issues and how he seems to think shifting resources from kinetic policing to welfare policing is quixotic. And this from someone who seems to think that eliminating monopoly in an oligarchy is a feasible political project! At any rate, the policy proposals you have mooted are old hat even within liberal circles, i believe. Wasnt the Kerner commission centered around reducing crime etc in minority communities by reducing unemployment and increasing welfare. And wasnt this basically rejected because the cost of incarceration was overall cheaper than that of welfare enhancement. It has long been appreciated that shifting funds from policing to welfare enhancement was superior policy. And for preciselythis reason it has been important to make this policy shift sound crazy and impractical. If Stoller is any indication, it seems to have worked.
I always thought the slogan"defund the police" must have been cooked up in some right wing counter propaganda organization because it sounds so perfectly designed to scare the average citizen with visions of out of control crime. The most perfectly wrong slogan ever. Anything would be better - "reinvent the police" "fix the police" "make the police useful" - anything. Everyone who cares to pay attention can see that the police do not work very well. The vast majority of cops to me look miserable and guilt stricken about what an impossible absurd and basically kind of fake job they have, with a huge gulf between what the public assumes they do and what they actually do, which is basically taking the fairly hefty bribe that is their salary and holding their nose until retirement. It's a job that desperately needs to reinvented. This is a little off the main topic of the tragedy and immorality of the prison industrial punishment complex but seems relevant too.
I preordered a copy of your book, but it never arrived. What can I do?
Oh no! Where did you pre-order it from? I'll contact the bookstore and if that doesn't work, I'll have a signed book mailed to you! I'm so sorry about that. Can you send me a DM with your address?
Is the Copaganda award like “the fickle finger of fate?”
Thx for this video. It surprised me how much Stoller refused to engage with the substance of the issues and how he seems to think shifting resources from kinetic policing to welfare policing is quixotic. And this from someone who seems to think that eliminating monopoly in an oligarchy is a feasible political project! At any rate, the policy proposals you have mooted are old hat even within liberal circles, i believe. Wasnt the Kerner commission centered around reducing crime etc in minority communities by reducing unemployment and increasing welfare. And wasnt this basically rejected because the cost of incarceration was overall cheaper than that of welfare enhancement. It has long been appreciated that shifting funds from policing to welfare enhancement was superior policy. And for preciselythis reason it has been important to make this policy shift sound crazy and impractical. If Stoller is any indication, it seems to have worked.
The punchline!
"Between April 3 and 12, the democracy financing branch of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) paid for a Ukrainian opinion survey. The questionnaire was formulated by the Gallup Organization. The International Republican Institute (IRI) of Washington, DC, an association of the Republican Party also funded by USAID and the State Department, sponsored the polling and published the results on April 24. The full report can be read here. http://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=rus&cat=reports&id=245&page=1
According to the report, the poll sampling was 1,200 and the procedure was “face-to-face interviews at respondents’ home.” The response rate recorded was 65%. That means that 35% of front doors were slammed shut in the face of the pollsters. Whether that happened before or after the pollsters disclosed they were paid by the US Government is not known. No regional breakdown is reported for the non-responders.
When regional distributions are reported for opinions towards Russian military intervention, constitutional change, intention to vote in the May 25 presidential election, or preference for candidates, those refusing to express a view from the eastern and southern regions ranged between 9% to 12%, two to four times more than those from western Ukraine. The proportion who said they wouldn’t vote in the proposed election, or refused to say, was 39%. In short, the US poll managed not to record the resistance to participating in the election of a near-majority of Ukrainians in the east and south.
The question on Russian intervention in the Ukrainian survey was worded differently by the American poll. The latter asked: “Do you support the decision of the Russian Federation to send its army into Ukraine under the pretext of protecting Russian-speaking citizens?”
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=10640