Nicholas Kristof sounds offabout our absurd priorities that funds incarceration instead of school and health care.
Did you know a black boy born today has a one-in-three chance of serving time in prison? That’s right, not arrested, but prison. It wasn’t that way a generation ago. It’s not crime. Crime hasn’t gone up (it’s gone down). It’s the war on drugs.
If one-in-three-white men served prison time, the war on drugs would have ended yesterday.
John Tierney writes:
Treating hard-core heroin addicts with their drug of choice seems to work better than treating them with methadone, according to first rigorous test of the approach performed in North America. In the study, the addicts who went to a clinic to receive injections of a heroin compound were more likely to remain in treatment and to refrain from illicit activities than were the addicts who were given methodone. The results are being published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
“Methodone works decently well,” Ben told me, “but a lot of addicts just don’t like it, so they don’t go in and get treatment. The advantage of prescription heroin is that they’ll go in because they want it. It attracts a whole group of people who wouldn’t get treatment at all, so the likelihood is there’s less street use and crime as a result.”
I’m not certain what I think about this. But I’m not fan of methadone. In fact, I’ve often said, “Why not just give them heroin?” It certainly would cut down on crime. I don’t think legalheroin would increase use. But what about free heroin?
The “most significant drug importation conspiracies ever charged in Chicago” says the US Attorney.
Federal authorities have disrupted a massive cocaine operation that was bringing 1,500 to 2,000 kilos of cocaine a month to Chicago from the most powerful drug traffickers in Mexico, in what law enforcement is calling the most significant drug conspiracy ever to be broken up in Chicago.
Thirty-six people in Chicago and Mexico were indicted.
…
Authorities, led by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, are seeking to seize $1.8 billion in cash.
The whole story by Natasha Korecki in the Chicago Sun Times.
And so what? This will result in: 1) More money spend on prison (and yes, I see how this is not a good example of my general position on immigrants), 2) more violence (and police death) in Mexico, and 3) somebody else bringing in the drugs to supply the heroin and cocaine needs of Chicago and the Midwest.
Notice how there isn’t even talk about this 1) will make our streets safer, 2) lower drug use, or 3) increase the street prices for the drugs. The last point is downright bizarre, because no drug bust everseems to increase price (except in the very shortest of terms). Even I can see how if you disrupt a major supplier, supply should go down, and prices up. But that never needs to be the case.
In my gut I know that immigrants make neighborhoods safer (at least in this country). I also happen to live in and love a county where 46% of everybody is born in another country. That figure always amazes me… and when you consider the kids of immigrant parents, well, there’s just not too much else left.
I get kind of patriotic and sentimental when I think of immigrants and America. My mom is an immigrant as were my dad’s parents. Immigrants, past and present, are what makes New York City great and what’s made America great. Compared to other countries (the Netherlands included), this is something the US does right. Relatively open borders, a laissez-faire attitude toward immigrants after they’re here, and a constitutional right to citizenship for anybody born here (a response to white racism after the Civil War) seem to work pretty damn well, Nativist protests notwithstanding.
The latest issue of Homicide Studies is dedicated to immigration and the evidence, at least judging from this abstract and this one, too, if pretty clear. Immigrants do indeed make neighborhoods safer.
Today was my third time on TV. I loveradio interviews. TV? I’m still not comfortable with it. Radio is kind of like real life. TV is a bizarre and totally different creature.
In case you’re going on TV, here are a few things I wish somebody had told me before my first time.
1) Make sure you’re going to be introduced in the way you want to be introduced. If you have a bio online, make sure there’s a concise correct version. Often they’ll take your info straight from your website, if you have one. Make sure they say the name of your school. That’s important to your school. Author of [your book] is also good. (But do not expect any notable increase in book sales no matter how much media attention you get.)
2) Make sure you have a contact name. And there’s a good chance it won’t be the person who contacted you. Make sure you have a photo ID. Once you get past the front desk (today this was at 30 Rock, which is kind of cool because there really are little tour groups being led around just like you see in… 30 Rock!), you enter the TV studios and it’s never obvious where to go. You’re likely to pass at least a few people walking around. But they’ll all avoid eye contact because they don’t want to get stuck helping you. It’s nice to be able to actually ask for somebody by name.
3) While you don’t want to be late, there’s no advantage to being early. There’s a “green room” to sit in while you wait. Bringing something to read is a good idea. In a big building you probably won’t get phone reception or public wifi. Of course it’s a good idea to watch the show if you never have before so you know what style of host it has. But don’t worry if you don’t know. For what it’s worth, they haven’t read your book, either.
Makeup takes about 5 minutes. And right before you go on you’ll get mic’d and given an earbud, with batteries clipped on the back of your pants. The audio person will come over your earbud and do a quick sound check. If you need water, make sure you have it. Don’t be afraid to demand water, even on set. If you start yelling for water, it will appear. Bright lights and nerves will cause dry mouth.
4) It’s always best to see your interlocutor. But there’s a good chance you’ll be sitting at a table, staring at a not-in-use teleprompeter with an ear bud in your ear. You don’t see the host.
Today they put me at the kids’ table when the host was standing all but 10 feet away from me. I have no idea why. But it makes for worse TV. It’s hard to have a “natural” conversation when you’re on camera but only have the verbal cues of a phone conversation. And think about it, who wants to be filmed when they’re on the phone?
5) You can’t see the host… except there is a little monitor in view. Youcanlook at the monitor… but don’t. Because if you do look at the monitor, you look all shifty eyed on camera. And then people think you’re a lying bastard.
But it’s hard not to look at a monitor with your picture on it. And when I look at the monitor, all I can think of is how fat and squinty eyed I look. I mean, my eyes are kind of squinty. But I’m not *that* fat. So if you’re not next to the person you’re talking to, ask one of the tech guys (like the guy who mic’d you) to point out exactly where the camera is. (It’s at the top of the teleprompter box.) Look at the camera, even if you can’t see it. And don’t be afraid to ask the same guy to turn off the monitor, if it’s distracting. Ironically, on TV, the odds are slim that there will be anything on that screen you actually need to see.
6) Once your segment is on. Always assume you’re on camera. Because you might be. In a big studio the “on” camera will have a lit-up red light. In a remote studio, you’ll have no clue. I would say act natural… but when I act act naturally I roll my eyes, pick my nose, avoid eye contact, and get easily distracted. You can’t do any of that on TV. Or pace. Or lie on a bed. The last time I did a studio radio interview I had paper towels stuffed in my wet jeans, homeless-guy style. But nobody could see that over WGN radio!
You don’t have to be perfect. And it doesn’t matter if you’re nervous (you never look as nervous as you feel). My own thinking is not to obsess with being as “polished” as a professional newscaster. It’s futile. They got that job because they’re good at looking polished. You’ll look like yourself when you’re comfortable. So I think not caring too much is a better strategy than, say, trying not to blink too much. So what if my jacket is bunched a bit? (Though guys could remember the pro-tip of sitting on your coat tails).
So sit there and try to look, if not exactly natural, comfortable. Keep staring forward, even though there’s nothing to stare at. And smile a little as you’re introduced. It will make your image on screen look less like the mug shot of a serial killer.
7) Unlike longer radio interviews, you don’t actually have a conversation on TV. It’s a strange medium. Roger Ebert said, “When writing you should avoid cliché, but on television you should embrace it.” Unfortunately, that’s true. There are some exceptions, of course. But generally you’ll be “on” for about 5 minutes and in that time you’ll get one or two or at most three bursts of speech. That’s it.
There’s no point to those notes and things you were planning on saying. Make sure you’ve got something to say right off the bat. And while it would be ideal to answer the question asked, it’s better to answer the one you wanted them to ask than get pulled to place you don’t want to be. While their show isn’t about you, your presentation is. If there’s something you don’t feel comfortable talking about: don’t. You don’t owe them anything. It’s not like they’re paying you.
But keep in mind that the show is generally on your side. The show wants you to do well. So be energetic without being hyper. You are there because you’re supposed to be the expert. Be confident. You’re there because you know more than your host. But don’t talk down to the viewers. But in the end the show isn’t about you; the show is about the show.
8) When you’re done, you may get a handshake from somebody who will probably tell you that you did great, whether or not it’s true. The mic person will un-mic you. And that’s it. And don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Nobody will see you out. Go back to the make-up room and grap a wetnap to wipe off your makeup. Take a snack from the Green Room, if there are any. Go to the bathroom.
9) And then as you leave you’ll wonder how you did. Sure, you could have done better. But you did good enough. Hopefully somebody who watched you will call or text and say something nice. And then hopefully you can find whichever black car is supposed to take you home. And then, days or weeks later, don’t be afraid to watch yourself. Learn from it. You may not want to. But remember, what you’re watching has already happened. It’s history. It is what it is. Learn from it. Of course you’ll look fat. (TV really does add pounds. People who look skinny on TV look bulimic in real life… and probably are). Yes, your voice really does sound that funny (and probably always has).
In the end only two things matter: A) Did you manage to not look a fool? And B) did you get to say some of what you wanted to say? And hopefully you had some fun.
As silly as TV can be, you may never have another chance to say so little to so many.
[updated in 2015, based on a bit more experience]
Stanford Franklin and I will be on MSNBC’s Conversations with Carlos Watson tomorrow, Wednesday. We’ll be talking about drug legalization and our op-ed. The show is from 11am-12 noon, Eastern Time. I think we’ll be on from 11:15 to 11:45. Check us out!
Here’s a good example:
The Netherlands has about 120 drug overdose deaths per year. This is a rate of 0.75 per 100,000.
Meanwhile the US, with all our money and prisons and police and people who wish to “send the right message” has this problem:
The mortality rates from unintentional drug overdose (not including alcohol) have risen steadily since the early 1970s, and over the past ten years they have reached historic highs. Rates are currently 4 to 5 times higher than the rates during the “black tar” heroin epidemic in the mid-1970s and more than twice what they were during the peak years of crack cocaine in the early 1990s. The rate shown for 2005 translates into 22,400 unintentional and intentional drug overdose deaths. To put this in context, just over 17,000 homicides occurred in 2005.
That’s a rate just under 7 per 100,000. So if we adopted dutch policies toward drugs (the dutch rate wasn’t always so low, by the way) and could get our rate down to that seen in the Netherlands, we could save close to 20,000 lives per year. But we choose not to.
Somehow, according to prohibitionists, saving lives sends the wrong message. “If drugs don’t kill, how will people know they’re bad?!” I’ve heard the argument many times. It’s pretty dumb. First of all, if drug don’t kill, they’re not so bad. Second, since our drugs do kill, why do we still lead the world in drug abuse?
How do you save lives? Some of it is shockingly simple. For starters:
1) Give out Narcan.
2) Pass good Samaritan laws protecting those who call ambulances for people who overdose.
3) Treat drug abuse like a health problem.
In America, Crazy Is a Preexisting Condition
So the birthers, the anti-tax tea-partiers, the town hall hecklers — these are “either” the genuine grass roots or evil conspirators staging scenes for YouTube? The quiver on the lips of the man pushing the wheelchair, the crazed risk of carrying a pistol around a president — too heartfelt to be an act. The lockstep strangeness of the mad lies on the protesters’ signs — too uniform to be spontaneous. They are both. If you don’t understand that any moment of genuine political change always produces both, you can’t understand America, where the crazy tree blooms in every moment of liberal ascendancy, and where elites exploit the crazy for their own narrow interests.In the early 1950s, Republicans referred to the presidencies of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as “20 years of treason” and accused the men who led the fight against fascism of deliberately surrendering the free world to communism. Mainline Protestants published a new translation of the Bible in the 1950s that properly rendered the Greek as connoting a more ambiguous theological status for the Virgin Mary; right-wingers attributed that to, yes, the hand of Soviet agents. And Vice President Richard Nixon claimed that the new Republicans arriving in the White House “found in the files a blueprint for socializing America.”
…
The instigation is always the familiar litany: expansion of the commonweal to empower new communities, accommodation to internationalism, the heightened influence of cosmopolitans and the persecution complex of conservatives who can’t stand losing an argument. My personal favorite? The federal government expanded mental health services in the Kennedy era, and one bill provided for a new facility in Alaska. One of the most widely listened-to right-wing radio programs in the country, hosted by a former FBI agent, had millions of Americans believing it was being built to intern political dissidents, just like in the Soviet Union.
Read the rest of Rick Perlstein’s article in the Washington Post.
The Washington Post has an op-ed written by me, Peter Moskos, and Stanford “Neill” Franklin.
It’s Time to Legalize Drug
Drug manufacturing and distribution is too dangerous to remain in the hands of unregulated criminals. Drug distribution needs to be the combined responsibility of doctors, the government, and a legal and regulated free market. This simple step would quickly eliminate the greatest threat of violence: street-corner drug dealing.
We simply urge the federal government to retreat. Let cities and states (and, while we’re at it, other countries) decide their own drug policies. Many would continue prohibition, but some would try something new. California and its medical marijuana dispensaries provide a good working example, warts and all, that legalized drug distribution does not cause the sky to fall.