Tim Josling retweeted
Mongkol is a 61-year-old former logging elephant. His captive-held life was spent hauling trees in the Thai forest. His body shape is deformed through hard labor, he lost his right eye and tusk in this brutal logging practice. Mongkol was rescued and brought to Elephants World to spend the rest of his days relaxing peacefully in freedom by the River Kwai. Mongkol is extremely gentle, sensitive who enjoys music, especially this slow movement by Beethoven.
🎹❤️Beethoven “Moonlight Sonata” for Old Elephant
Tim Josling retweeted
Replying to @BenCarrollMP
Tim Josling retweeted
Replying to @BenCarrollMP
Tim Josling retweeted
"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible."
— Frank Herbert
Tim Josling retweeted
Replying to @ojblanchard1
1) Of course the money will be wasted; 2) of course the state gov't will come back for more.
Less discussed is: 3) to anyone with a shred of common sense, this is the death knell to CA as a viable place for founders to grow a business. It makes the state totally noncompetitive.
Tim Josling retweeted
Ilhan Omar Says She Didn't Know She'd Married Her Brother As They Were Separated At Birth And Hidden From Their Father, Darth Vader buff.ly/743lbuP
Tim Josling retweeted
The number of people writing dissertations in the humanities has collapses, now the same thing is happening in the social sciences.
I'd wager that we will see a similar trend in psychology and other fields before long. Cuts in funding, the tight academic job market, and AI are rapidly changing the university and cratering graduate programs.
Tim Josling retweeted
We hear about the far right morning, noon and night.
So where's the wall-to-wall coverage of the far left?
Ann Widdecombe is dead. Prosecutors say the man charged with her murder had an "extreme left-wing mindset" and was plotting against Nigel Farage too.
France is on fire. Town halls torched, shops looted, coppers in hospital.
And in Australia, an MP has lost her leg after an eco extremist allegedly rammed her. Twice.
Replying to @TimJosling @P_AOn24
Yes, the Daily Mail Australia report by Peter van Onselen is real. It details a document circulated by Albanese's office to select journalists about a month earlier, after Haines criticised a $6m grant to his local golf course. Metadata names the PM's deputy communications director as creator. It raised questions about her integrity with no evidence of wrongdoing. Haines called it "pretty desperate." The office has not denied it; Marles said he was unaware.
Tim Josling retweeted
"You reduce crime by eliminating poverty."
This is one of the greatest intellectual confusions of our century. It sounds compassionate. It feels obvious. And the moment you actually test it, it falls apart.
Let's look at the data.
First, the correlation is real. Nobody serious denies that poorer areas have more crime. In Sweden, kids from the poorest 20% of families are about 7 times more likely to be convicted of a violent crime than kids from the richest 20%.
But correlation is not causation. So Swedish researchers did something brilliant: they compared siblings. Same parents, same home, same upbringing, but different family income at different points in their childhood, because parents' income moves over time.
Result, on more than 500,000 children (Sariaslan et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, 2014): once you account for what's shared inside the family, the effect of income on violent crime goes from 7x to nothing. The hazard ratio drops to 0.95. No effect.
Finland ran the same test on 650,000 people. Same result: the income-crime link disappears when you compare siblings.
What predicts crime isn't the bank balance. It's what travels inside families.
Second test: what happens when poverty spikes for everyone at once? 2008. US unemployment doubled from 5% to nearly 10%. 15% of Americans officially poor. If poverty creates crime, crime should have exploded. Instead it fell. Year after year. Robbery, the most "economic" crime of all, dropped 10% in 2010 alone. Criminologists literally said they were stumped. Same story in the Great Depression: 25% unemployment, and crime went down in many cities.
Third test: take families out of poverty and see. The US government ran a randomized lottery called Moving to Opportunity. Thousands of families in public housing got vouchers to move to low-poverty neighborhoods. For boys, violent arrests dropped at first, property crime arrests went up, and over time the effects faded. New zip code. Same behavior.
Fourth: the claim that police don't matter. This one is just false. Chalfin et al. (American Economic Review: Insights, 2022): each additional police officer prevents about 0.1 homicides. And per capita, the lives saved are twice as many among Black victims as among white victims. The people who suffer most from "police don't matter" are the poorest neighborhoods.
So what does predict crime? The Dunedin study followed 1,000 children from birth to age 32. Self-control measured between ages 3 and 11 predicted adult criminal convictions, even after controlling for social class and IQ (Moffitt et al., PNAS, 2011). Cognitive ability matters too: across 700,000 Swedish men, lower cognitive scores at 18 track with violent convictions, and the link barely moves when you control for childhood socioeconomic status (Frisell et al., 2012).
And here's the part nobody quotes: in Dunedin, kids whose self-control improved over time did better than predicted. Behavior can change. Which means responsibility is real.
Why does this matter? Because "poverty creates crime" isn't just wrong. It's toxic.
It turns criminals into victims. The man who robbed you becomes a symptom of "the system," and you, the real victim, become a footnote in someone else's narrative.
It merges two completely different things. "You're poor, we'll help you" is one policy. "You're poor and you committed a crime, so we'll excuse you" is another. Fusing them insults the millions of poor people who work, raise their kids, and never hurt anyone. The vast majority of poor people are not criminals. That alone kills the theory.
It removes responsibility. Build a political system on "your circumstances made you do it" and you destroy the one thing that actually changes behavior: the certainty that you own your choices. Every excuse the state manufactures is an incentive.
And it feeds the state forever. If every crime is a social failure, every crime justifies a new program, a new budget, a new agency. Crime becomes the business model of bureaucracy.
The alternative is simple and old.
A lighter state that protects instead of explains. The same rules for everyone, from the projects or from a gated community. Certain, swift punishment for anyone who commits a crime. And never, ever telling someone their crime was written in their social condition.
Treating someone as responsible is respecting them. Excusing someone because they're poor is the most condescending thing you can do to them.
This quoted post is unavailable.

































