Sam, the author of "Dreamland," is out with another book about the explosion of hard and dangerous drugs, "The Least of Us: True Tales of America and Hope in the Time of Fentanyl and Meth." His reporting was an indispensable part of my big magazine piece on the opioid crisis, and we go into great detail on the pod.
Thank you for introducing Sam Quinones to those of us who haven’t read his books. You and Quinones shed so much light on the relationship between the large and ever expanding encampments and meth and fentanyl use. Quinones was able to explain the rapid expansion which had been the most mysterious aspect of the issue for me. We have always had homelessness, but not like what we see today. It’s a different thing altogether. I wish it were a call-in podcast because I think there is so much more to explore. I would like to hear his opinion about the drug and violence problem in the cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. Is that a different problem requiring different solutions? I used to think taking the profit motive out of drugs and decriminalizing them would reduce the problem, but I think I heard the opposite from Quinones. I also was unaware of the meth issue among gay men. The gay men I socialize with don’t talk about it, but maybe they are not having the problem (we are boomers). So much to learn and I do think it is among the top three social issues we must solve. It crosses all races, genders, and sexual orientations so maybe a good problem to work on together outside of the political tribalism we are so easily swept up I.
The left is pursuing their signature tactic of what I call ‘rhetorical douchebaggery’ to the bitter end. The strategy is simple: say something insulting and untrue, and when someone takes the bait and objects, insult them a second time by condescendingly explaining that they’re too stupid to understand what you really meant. All men are rapists. Intent doesn’t matter. All cops are bastards. America is only about white supremacy. Silence is violence. Homosexuality is transphobic. Objectivity is racist. Biology is a Western construct. Just kidding! We’re trying to shock people out of their complacency through provocative thought experiments! (Repeat).
This immoral motte-and-bailey game is a cover for the true prize: an opportunity to berate and punish with a clear conscience. To paraphrase Alan Turing, people like cruelty because it feels good. That simple spiteful pleasure of getting the best of someone, of insulting them and getting away with it, is profoundly addictive, and as with all addictions we find rationalizations to get the rush without admitting what we’re doing. The left relies on the dual meaning of ‘racism’ (deliberate antipathy versus simple unawareness) to play this game, but they run the risk of getting their wish: the second meaning may be embraced as acceptable, robbing the first of its sting.
Your comparison of the new left with the old religious right is very apt. So much of human history has involved this ethical hypocrisy, the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” way of splitting our soul, with one half a brittle parody of righteousness and the other a smoldering, smug sadist. I fear we’ll never be free of it.
The last listener commentator who say he/she lived in W Europe in the 2010s and that not much has changes has for sure missed my country of Sweden - it has been trandormed by mass immigration from the Middle East. We now have a greater share of foreign born residents (20% and rising) than the United States has ever had in its entire history as an independent nation. I can tell you that that has a lot of impacts on a country and a great deal of them are negative (increased welfare dependence, dilution of welfare services) to very negative (rising violent crime, religious extremism resulting in violence and even terrorism).
The kinds of legal immigrants the US attracts form a very different cohort from the refugees that Sweden attracts. The former not only do not pose a burden on the exchequer but also contribute to the US economy and to innovation that helps everyone in the world, little by little.
But people like Ann don't even like such people on the grounds that they change (possibly contaminate) American culture, and not just that they take "American jobs". She and people like her have succeeded in conflating illegal and legal immigration to the extent that problems faced by the latter bear no recognition, let alone sympathy in the media and among politicians (like the huge visa backlog that high-skilled high-earning Indians are faced with in the country).
In the interview, she talked disparagingly about lots of Indian CEOs in the tech industry (a Steve Bannon talking point), which Andrew didn't feel the need to challenge. As if the stockholders of Google and Microsoft and IBM (not to mention Citibank or Pepsi) would surrender their companies to "incompetent foreigners" on diversity grounds. If someone doesn't match her desired cultural and ethnic profile for immigrants (generic Europeans), she tries to portray them as unnecessary at best and leeches at worst.
You could be right that the economic impact of immigration is different in the US than in Sweden. I don’t know enough about that.
However, I don’t see why the cultural impact(s) of immigration would not be a legitimate part of the evaluation as a basis for a policy decision. Immigration changes a country’s cultural make-up. In Sweden it certainly has and I don’t see why the US would be any different in that regard. Why shouldn’t current US citizens have a right to decide how the cultural make-up of their nation changes (or if it should change at all)?
Sure, cultural concerns ought to be a factor as long as the debate is framed honestly. But people on Coulter's side of the debate blend all immigrants (legal or illegal) and all kinds of concerns (cultural changes, fear of competition in the job market) into one big basket in order to maximize the fear factor. Some citizens may be concerned about the cultural impact of immigration while others may not; don't both get a democratic say in how immigration policy ought to be framed, or should policy be biased towards restrictionists?
Also, claims about particular immigrant groups harming either the economy or the culture ought to be evaluated in a transparent manner. But partisans tend to cherrypick evidence and theories (like restrictionists using George Borjas who has a minority view among economists on the economic impact of immigration), and inflating anecdotes that bolster their case (like how BLM activists use George Floyd, Michael Brown, etc.)
Crt can can be turned around with the institutions we have. It slipped in and it will be kicked out. It's fixable as we now are. Success for the forces behind 1/6 , the consequences of unaddressed climate change; these things are not fixable and are far clearer dangers
Thank you for introducing Sam Quinones to those of us who haven’t read his books. You and Quinones shed so much light on the relationship between the large and ever expanding encampments and meth and fentanyl use. Quinones was able to explain the rapid expansion which had been the most mysterious aspect of the issue for me. We have always had homelessness, but not like what we see today. It’s a different thing altogether. I wish it were a call-in podcast because I think there is so much more to explore. I would like to hear his opinion about the drug and violence problem in the cities like Chicago, Baltimore, and Detroit. Is that a different problem requiring different solutions? I used to think taking the profit motive out of drugs and decriminalizing them would reduce the problem, but I think I heard the opposite from Quinones. I also was unaware of the meth issue among gay men. The gay men I socialize with don’t talk about it, but maybe they are not having the problem (we are boomers). So much to learn and I do think it is among the top three social issues we must solve. It crosses all races, genders, and sexual orientations so maybe a good problem to work on together outside of the political tribalism we are so easily swept up I.
The left is pursuing their signature tactic of what I call ‘rhetorical douchebaggery’ to the bitter end. The strategy is simple: say something insulting and untrue, and when someone takes the bait and objects, insult them a second time by condescendingly explaining that they’re too stupid to understand what you really meant. All men are rapists. Intent doesn’t matter. All cops are bastards. America is only about white supremacy. Silence is violence. Homosexuality is transphobic. Objectivity is racist. Biology is a Western construct. Just kidding! We’re trying to shock people out of their complacency through provocative thought experiments! (Repeat).
This immoral motte-and-bailey game is a cover for the true prize: an opportunity to berate and punish with a clear conscience. To paraphrase Alan Turing, people like cruelty because it feels good. That simple spiteful pleasure of getting the best of someone, of insulting them and getting away with it, is profoundly addictive, and as with all addictions we find rationalizations to get the rush without admitting what we’re doing. The left relies on the dual meaning of ‘racism’ (deliberate antipathy versus simple unawareness) to play this game, but they run the risk of getting their wish: the second meaning may be embraced as acceptable, robbing the first of its sting.
Your comparison of the new left with the old religious right is very apt. So much of human history has involved this ethical hypocrisy, the old “love the sinner, hate the sin” way of splitting our soul, with one half a brittle parody of righteousness and the other a smoldering, smug sadist. I fear we’ll never be free of it.
The last listener commentator who say he/she lived in W Europe in the 2010s and that not much has changes has for sure missed my country of Sweden - it has been trandormed by mass immigration from the Middle East. We now have a greater share of foreign born residents (20% and rising) than the United States has ever had in its entire history as an independent nation. I can tell you that that has a lot of impacts on a country and a great deal of them are negative (increased welfare dependence, dilution of welfare services) to very negative (rising violent crime, religious extremism resulting in violence and even terrorism).
The kinds of legal immigrants the US attracts form a very different cohort from the refugees that Sweden attracts. The former not only do not pose a burden on the exchequer but also contribute to the US economy and to innovation that helps everyone in the world, little by little.
But people like Ann don't even like such people on the grounds that they change (possibly contaminate) American culture, and not just that they take "American jobs". She and people like her have succeeded in conflating illegal and legal immigration to the extent that problems faced by the latter bear no recognition, let alone sympathy in the media and among politicians (like the huge visa backlog that high-skilled high-earning Indians are faced with in the country).
In the interview, she talked disparagingly about lots of Indian CEOs in the tech industry (a Steve Bannon talking point), which Andrew didn't feel the need to challenge. As if the stockholders of Google and Microsoft and IBM (not to mention Citibank or Pepsi) would surrender their companies to "incompetent foreigners" on diversity grounds. If someone doesn't match her desired cultural and ethnic profile for immigrants (generic Europeans), she tries to portray them as unnecessary at best and leeches at worst.
You could be right that the economic impact of immigration is different in the US than in Sweden. I don’t know enough about that.
However, I don’t see why the cultural impact(s) of immigration would not be a legitimate part of the evaluation as a basis for a policy decision. Immigration changes a country’s cultural make-up. In Sweden it certainly has and I don’t see why the US would be any different in that regard. Why shouldn’t current US citizens have a right to decide how the cultural make-up of their nation changes (or if it should change at all)?
Sure, cultural concerns ought to be a factor as long as the debate is framed honestly. But people on Coulter's side of the debate blend all immigrants (legal or illegal) and all kinds of concerns (cultural changes, fear of competition in the job market) into one big basket in order to maximize the fear factor. Some citizens may be concerned about the cultural impact of immigration while others may not; don't both get a democratic say in how immigration policy ought to be framed, or should policy be biased towards restrictionists?
Also, claims about particular immigrant groups harming either the economy or the culture ought to be evaluated in a transparent manner. But partisans tend to cherrypick evidence and theories (like restrictionists using George Borjas who has a minority view among economists on the economic impact of immigration), and inflating anecdotes that bolster their case (like how BLM activists use George Floyd, Michael Brown, etc.)
Crt can can be turned around with the institutions we have. It slipped in and it will be kicked out. It's fixable as we now are. Success for the forces behind 1/6 , the consequences of unaddressed climate change; these things are not fixable and are far clearer dangers
Mindblowing it was...
Would it be worthwhile to have someone on that could speak to Portugal’s methods of addressing drug use?