(It took me forever to find that site when I was first looking. I don't Swanwick was making a prescription version then. Or maybe they were, but I didn't like the style.)
No, he's implicitly claiming that the crimes are disproportionally committed by immigrants and refugees, who are disproportionally not Christian. The following article (note the URL), after mutch hemming and hawing, manages to spit out the sentence:
According to the most recent study, people from foreign backgrounds are 2.5 times more likely to be suspected of crimes than people born in Sweden to Swedish-born parents.
Rapidly qualified by statements about income of course: In a later study, researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden.
Crying RACIST! at everyone who points this out may be effective in silencing them but it doesn't make it any less true, and it doesn't make the pro-immigration side any less obligated to explain why Sweden is obligated to accept this. It may well be that it's the right thing to do, but using accusations of racism instead of actual moral reasoning, such as, "if we didn't accept them they would be persecuted" is intellectually dishonest.
Classes of firearms were made illegal. Do you mean the newly illegal classes were grandfathered and those owned before the ban could be legally kept by their owners?
It's frustrating to keep seeing people use the phrase "buyback" when they mean "confiscation". In the US, at any rate, a "buyback" is voluntary. For linguistic comparison, the taking of land by eminent domain includes compensation, but one certainly would not say the government "bought" the land.
This system is also why I didn't get much from my grants because the university took out the "tuition".
I don't know the particulars of your situation so I can't comment specifically. But the grants in questions are primarily from the federal government and they are sized with the understanding that universities will deduct this "tuition" from them. If you're talking about a typical NSF, NIH, or DOD grant made to a typical research university, then the "tuition" portion of that money was intended to go to the university all along.
just because everyone knows it and has been around is not a good enough reason to keep it around. With that approach nothing would ever change.
Scott's counterpoint to this view is that destroying something that has problems doesn't mean something better will pop into existence. Destroying the way scientific research is funded in the US will not make a better system appear out of thin air, and it's hard to believe these changes are intended to help rather than to hurt.
Paying students $10-$30k a year doing cutting edge research is not what I call "working as designed"
That argument supports "the system is bad" but that doesn't mean it wasn't designed to work that way. I don't know how much the cost of research would increase if grad students were paid more. If it were practical to raise their stipends I would be for it. But the changes discussed in the post will not help grad students, even if the universities stop charging the fictitious tuition.
This is often coming from institution with billions of dollar in endowments.
Addressed in the post: "except for the richest few universities, they’d have to scale back research and teaching pretty drastically" yes, some universities could afford to continue doing research. Most couldn't, because research in basic science is expensive.
Actually, he addresses it quite clearly, and points out that there are also attempts to reduce universities' other source of income, the "overhead" portion of grants.
FTA: Note that the Trump administration has already ("already" links to: https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/22/trump-budget-research-gr...) made tightening overhead rules—i.e., doing the exact opposite of what would be needed to counteract the new tax—a central focus of its attempt to cut federal research funding.
The point is that this is the system and it has been for decades, and everybody involved knew it and knows it. And the tax changes are a deliberate attack on the system i.e universities.
If you think the system should be attacked and US research Universities defunded and destroyed, well, you're free to believe that, but this is not some kind of swindle universities have been getting away with, it's the system working as it was designed to work.