Outrage Over Instagram's Emphasis on Video | Rafael A. Mangual

great show. We internet take you see everybody, Let's do this thing. Who's got a great show. It's ready packed. Nancy Pelosi is kicking off World War three. We sent Runny chat to Idaho, and Kim Kardashian is gonna beat Mark Zuckerberg's ass. So let's do this people. Let's jup straight into today's headlines. Okay, before we get into the big stories, let's catch up on a few other things

that are going on. First of all, President Biden has officially tested negative for COVID and he got his doctor's approval to come out of isolation y S, which is great. It really is great. It's also the only positive approval he has at the moment, you know, But that's a start. That's a start. In economic news, the Federal Reserve has announced that it will be raising interest rates yet again to try and fight inflation. Yeah, so your ability to buy a house has gone from no chance to what

part of no chance? Don't you want to stand? Oh? And in pandemic news, two new studies have concluded that COVID nineteen almost certainly started at the Wuhan markets. Yeah, and I'm so glad we have this information because, I mean, now it's clear what we have to do. We gotta build a time machine and go back in time two years and invest in Peloton because it's gonna blow up when the poll, when the pandemic, it's it gonna be huge, make a lot of money. Since what are we, like,

what are we supposed to do with this information? Now? What are we gonna do with that? It came from the Wohan market? Well, well, I'm not buying my groceries there anymore. Cancel it's the card order. And finally, the jackpots for the Mega Millions lottery is now sitting at over a billion dollars billions, which is like a week's worth of gas and just just by the way, just better way. Can I just say how I love how people hate paying taxes. But if you think about it,

a lottery is really just taxes. All right, we all put our money into a thing, and then it goes to someone, and then everyone's like, yeah, this is fair, this is fair. But then if you if you say to everyone, let's take that money and put a billion dollars into schools, and it's like taxes on bullshit. Oh I don't have back tack, Jack, I don't. Then you're like, okay, let's all put our money, and then one person does, Everyone's like, yeah, this is great. There's just a fantastic

this is a fair system. I don't know why we don't all do it. Oh. Actually, actually there's another thing. The Justice Department is now actively investigating Donald Trump's involvement in the plot to overturn the election. Yeah, another investigator.

And I don't know, guys. At this point, I feel like the Justice Department is just gonna have to dedicate an entire division to Trump, you know, just give him his own one, you know, like they'll have National Security Division, the Civil Rights Division, and then the what the hell did Donald Trump do now? Division? Because you know it's gonna be a high stress environment. It's basically gonna sound

like a fast food joint during the dinner rush. You know, It's just like, we got two tax evasions, we got three witness tamperings, we got a serving of corruption, and don't we get the porn star on the side. Come on, we got crimes. People keeping moving, keeping moving. But anyway, let's move on to some of the bigger news stories of the day, starting with China first name made in For decades now, the world has been worried about if,

oh when China would choose to invade Taiwan. And the reason for this is that China has said that Taiwan is part of China, but they're out there in the streets acting like their single And because China knows that invading Taiwan could spark an international incident, they haven't done it right. But since Russia invaded Ukraine and basically only got canceled on Twitter, it's been reported that the Chinese

government thinks that now might be the perfect time to strike. Yeah, it's the same way I saw my friend Brian telling his mom to go to Hell, and I thought, Wow, that's a cool idea. I'm gonna go tell my mom off. Two. Yeah, that was the day I made the very painful discovery that my mom has a very different parenting style than Baron's mom, very difference. Anyway, Russia is basically Brian right. That's so China is preparing to take what they say

is rightfully this. But it turns out if they want to get to Taiwan, they're gonna need to go through Nancy Pelosi. How Speaker Nancy Pelosi's planned to visit Taiwan has created a stir in both Beijing and Washington. Tensions are running high between the US and China amid talks of a visit by US how Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. US officials are working to convince Pelosi of the diplomatic risks of her potential trip. Beijing is furious over a

potential trip by how Speaker Nancy Pelosi to Taiwan. China sees the self World island as a breakaway province that must be reunified with the mainland. Beijing is against any roote that appears to acknowledge Taiwan as an independent country or makes the US relationship more formal. And just yesterday, China's Defense department urged the US to cancel Pelosi's visit. The department spokesperson said, quote, if the US insists on taking its own course, the Chinese military will never sit idly.

By god damn. Oh. Let make it sound like the Chinese military is just gonna run over Nancy Pelosi with a tank, you know, completely destroy her. I mean, that would be a good preparation for the mid terms. But still, I don't know why she would go there. And I know what you're thinking right now. I know what you're thinking, like, why is Nancy Pelosi trying to provoke a war? Huh? Did she buy stock in bomb shelters last week? Hey,

show some respect. Those other stock traits were just lucky guesses. No, the truth is Nancy Pelosi has been a big champion of Taiwanese independence for decades now, so think but this still is a big headache for Joe Biden. Right between inflation, Ukraine gas prices and the midterms. The man does not have time to get into a war with China. I mean, that's probably the reason COVID left him, so quickly. The virus was like, my man, you're dealing with a bunch

of ship right now. I'm about but I'll be back in a few weeks. I can do that. Now. You gotta handle yourself, you know. You know what Nancy is doing here, because the administration is like, don't do it, Nancy, and she's like, I'm going anyway. She's doing that classic thing where like drunk white women get into a fight on behalf of their men. You know that thing where they're just like, you know what, We're not gonna take this.

My boyfriend's gonna kick your ass. And the boyfriends like, no, Nancy, Nazi, Naici, shut up up, Nancy, Nancy, this is China, is like, I don't care. Yeah, my boyfriend knows. Karate is like god damning, and just get in the car. Get in the car, Nancy. No one wants a world war. Oh and speaking of a potential world war, we should definitely talk about the battle that's brewing over Instagram. You know, the best app to see which of your high school

friends are involved in pyramid schemes. If you've been on Instagram lately, you may have noticed that it um it sucks, right, everything is an ad and your feed is full of people you don't follow, which is so confusing. Yeah, because I'm scrolling and I started reading someone's post. Do I know this person? Was I supposed to be at this wedding? And then you look and it says because you follow your friend, we thought you might like a post from

a stranger. No, I don't like secute dress anyway. Anyway, everyone, everyone's been complaining about Instagram. All right, Everyone's been complaining, but they haven't been forced to respond until now, because the royal family of Instagram has stepped into the free. Instagram is defending itself after users started complaining about changes to the social media platform. It all started Monday when Kylie Jenner and Kim Kardashian posted messages on Instagram saying

make Instagram Instagram again, stop trying to be TikTok. Users appeared to have agreed, slamming Instagram for pushing more video content rather than pictures. CEO Adam Mosera responded on Twitter, saying the changes are designed to improve the user experience. I do believe that more and more Instagram is going to become video over time. We see this, even if

we change nothing. Serry said the changes will help people discover new content, but he said users can turn off recommendations for one month if they don't like what's in their feed. Yeah that's right. People. You thought Instagram was for pictures of your friends, Well that's over. Yeah. You always bitching about brunch picks. Now you're gonna be begging to see them and be like, please, was it eggs? Was it avocados? I just want to know what my

friends are eating. Too bad. You ain't never going to see your friends again. And it ready sucks. Man, It sucks because we choose who to follow for a reason. Now they're just gonna switch it on us. You can't do that, you know, like the twelve Disciples will followers of Jesus, right, they chose Jesus. Can you imagine if one day someone was just like today's s amen will

be delivered by jar rule. I'll be like, no, wait wait, I wanted to hear from Jesus like no, no, trusts will better take it away, ja roll now shall always be there when thou calls, Thou shalt always be on time, and gave you my laws. Even worse, it seems like Instagram wants to get into the algorithm game. And that's what I'm worried about because it's gonna change everything because you see the thing as algorithms, they are only about engagements,

all right. The only feed you things that make you angry, make you sad, make you horny. And the problem with that is that roll happens within a few posts. So it's an emotional roller coaster, you know, just like, Oh, I'm so mad about this random racist event, and I'm sad about all the poverty and goddamn that ass is fine, but that ass voted for Trump. All right, that's it for today's headlines. Let's move on to some thing that everyone loves. The stuns to checking on today's lots on numbers?

What do slowing everybody shoulder to see you? How are you doing today? How are you doing? What's happening in the lottery? I'm very confused as to why I'm doing this lot of What What do you mean? There's a billion dollar lot of that somebody's gonna win. Why am I doing this regular ass a lot of? Like you never told me what I'm doing? Like, what do you win in this rinky dink ass lot of? I come in here every couple of weeks, read some American numbers,

and then go to hell on about my business. What am I even here for? Well, the reason you hear because I'm trying to do a billion dollars. It's too much money. That's super filling money. You hold a country ransom and ask for a billion dollars. That's the kind of Monday can ruin your life. You imagine a regular person just going into a seven eleven. They get a hot pocket that's gonna be hot on the outside, a cold on the inside. They already don't make good choices,

and then they walk out a billion that. Do you want hot pocket Kenny to be a billionaire? No, you don't. The best thing they can do is to just give a hundred people ten million dollars. Yeah, that's like I means that what was? What was? Because that's like NFL money. You see what I'm saying. You buy your buy my house, you pay your homeboys rent for a year, and you're done. That's all you gotta do. Because just walking into a

seven eleven and winning a billion dollars is disrespectful to billionaires. Okay, we know what Oprah went through to become a billionaire. She hasn't had bread in years. Pazos worked off the back and bladders of his employees to get to be a billionaire and send it Dick to space. And I'm just supposed to respect somebody who walked into a seven eleven, burned their mouth and a stale taketo and now has more money than the gross national product in most countries.

Now the disrespect because that man is not gonna do classy billionaire ship like put a boat in a boat. No, he's gonna what's that's classy billion that ship? You ain't in the picture of the man parking a boat in his yacht christ one of the things. You know, you know what he's gonna do. He's gonna put a trailer in a trailer. The rich don't need this, The illuminati don't need this. The illuminati don't need broke Dick showing up to the Illuminati sex party. Okay, do say please

just just read my lots of numbers, please eleven. Listen. You know I'm glad Biden is not sick anymore. Two. But what I want to know is what happens to the good old days when your president was sick and they didn't tell you didn't. We have a president with polio? Do you know which one it was? Exactly? You're not supposed to know that the president has the debilitating disease. Okay, we're the most powerful country in the world. Everybody hates us,

and we have all the guns. Right, So if the man with the nuclear codes has his wife Robbin vicks vapor rub on his chat, we're not supposed to about that. Two and seven, Okay, don't say where are you getting these numbers from, Travlor, Where are getting the money from for this lot of Don't ask questions if you don't want to answer questions now, Travil, should you be saying thank you? Dul say sloan, Thank you, du Say sloan. All right, don't go away, because when we come back,

Randy Chang is going to harder either hole. Does he come back, we'll fight it off. Your broke Welcome back to the Day Show. We all know that America is divided into red states and blue states. But what happens when there's a red and blue division inside estates? Well, Ronnie Chang went to find out. America is becoming more and more politically divided every day. But I found an answer to this division. Right here in the heart of wait,

where the hell are we again? Deep in eastern Oregon, one patriot has come up with an ingenious plan to fix his state's political gridlock. My name is Mike McCarter on the President moving against Border citizens for Greater Idaho. Okay, so what is move Oregan's border? We want to adjust the border, taking eastern Oregon shifting to Idaho to help maintain the conservative values that Idaho has over there. You're like the first guy I've ever men who wants to

go to Idaho. For decades, Oregon has been a blue state, with most of his population concentrated around Portland and the Northwest. But the conservative eastern counties of Oregon are sick of this liberal won't but re stop bullshit and are ready to gpf oo, get the other Oregon and become part of greater Idaho. There was just one thing that didn't make sense to me. Okay, this might sound crazy, but

why don't you just move to Idaho. By moving the border, we're changing who governs us without having to pull up our steaks. You want the Idaho without having to be in Idaho. Absolutely, it's ingenius. I want a better government over me, but yet not have to live in Idaho. No, not have to living I don't not have to move, can stay where I live exactly. It's great, yes, and it's non idahol right. And as crazy as this idea

might sound, this movement has momentum. Nine Oregon counties have already passed ballot measures to explore joining Idaho, with two more voting in November. So what exactly do these people hate about that neighbors in the Northwest. It's pretty much the same stuff all Fox News beers hey about whatever city they live next to. I grew up around Portland, used to be able to watch the streets and stuff. Now you get shot, racial riots, just a reason to

write breaking free TVs. You know they voted in for the more marijuana plants. Now they're going to put in the mushroom plants. I hear you. But it's not moving to Idaho. Was bringing the border over, of course, Like you don't want to move to Idaho. That would be crazy, you want to bring Idaho. Yes, these cultural differences are tearing Oregon a pot, but not everyone thinks divorce is the answer. Constitutional laws called Norman Williams. This is not

going to happen. Moving a state border even five or ten yards is tremendously difficult. South Carolina and North Carolina did this just in Okay, Well it's been done before. Just doing more. If you look at the statutes that both states had to do to just deal with nineteen homes being moved, you moved the Oregon Idaho border by three hundred four hundred miles. The complexity of that is just overwhelming. Man. You would have been such a bumba on the Oregon trail. You have been the guy who's like,

what about typhoid, what about ditheria? What about the cost of oxen cock the wagon or get the out. Turns out there's a ton of obstacles on the trail. Out of Oregon liabilities, they get pension obligations and a long list of incompatible laws, especially recreational marri on us legal in Oregon, not in Idah. But luckily Mike has those answers. I don't have those answers, and I shouldn't answer those

questions because I'm not in the decision process. They're just the ideas guy like walking into your house and going, hey, let's get a divorce or let's sit down and talk about Let's put it into the legislator's hands, because they're they're the decision makers. To leave it to these politicians and the same politicians you want to secede from. Just let those guys handle this. Yeah, but will this idea even make it to the state house? Picky Norman says,

no way. The people aren't going to vote for it once they know the costs. What caused, Idaho is going to have to pay Oregon for the value of all the land and buildings that the state of Oregon owns in Eastern Oregon. I've been there. It's it looks virtually woeless. A very conservative estimate of the cost would be somewhere between ten and fifteen billion dollars or what? Do you think Idaho is not good for it? Do you know how my potatoes? These guys sell a lot. Still? He

had a point. Eastern Oregon wasn't just trying to divorce portlands. They also wanted to marry Idaho. Was Idaho ready for that level of commitment. I headed for downtown uh Idaho to find out. I think they're they're welcome, and I don't see right now, I mean Eastern Oregon is pretty much just like Idaho anyway, welcome to open arms. Yeah, just wait until they hear about the price tag. How much would you personally pay for Eastern Oregon to join Idaho. Well,

I wouldn't want to pay anything. Well yeah, but I mean, you know, or Idaho would have to buy Oregon state assets to move it over. It's not just as simple as you know. I don't know. Ten million, probably gonna be closer the ten billion. Then that's a hard Now, this is what Idaho again, a seaport, maybe eight hundred thousand angry gun toting conservatives and a ton of empty, desolate land. I mean, Idaho has already got, however, many angry gun own and truck driving people. So I think

we're we're about captain. That would you guys be okay with having to drive and extras? Six hours for legal weed? Oh? Sorry, I said six hours? But really six hours there in these six hours back? That's yeah, No, it doesn't sound good. I mean, at that point, might as well drive to Mexico and get some fresh cocaine. Even if you paid us,

you wouldn't let you come in. Even Eastern Oregan paid you to joint I know you'd be like, no, yeah, exactly, and you're telling Eastern Oregonist not tell us what today. With a heavy heart, I drove the six hours back to Mike to give him the bad news. It looks so Idaho said no, But let me just pitch you some other states here to join. Okay, Washington not as conservative as at home, so that's a noe. Okay, what about California, that's a definite no. Okay, how about Nevada?

Northern Nevada would like to be part of Idaho? No, would you like to join Nevada as it is right now? No, Look, Goldilocks, I'm trying to help you here. Okay, Successionists can't be chooses. Yes we can. Who knows, maybe someday Idaho is the biggest state in the Union. Why can't part of Oregon, part of Kentucky, part of Iowa? What about coming together even though we don't share a common border. Why can't we just become the state of Idaho? Maybe Mike has

a point. I can't we all just declare which state we want to be a part of, regardless of which state we actually live in. Forget jerrymandering and redistricting. Let us figure it out ourselves, by the power invested in me by nobody hereby I declare you a man in Idaho. No one's gonna check your business reel. It's kind of like vaccine. Thank you so much about Rning chating. All right, stay chune, because when we come back, we'll be chatting

to an author who believes American needs more policing. So long, go away, Welcome back to the Day show. My guest tonight. My guest tonight is Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Rafael Manguel. He heads research for the Institute's Policing and Public Safety Initiative, and he's written a new book called Criminal Injustice, What the push for decarceration and deep policing gets wrong and who it hurts the most. So please welcome Rafael Manguel. Welcome, Roful,

Welcome to the show. Thank you so much for having me. This is a real honor and exciting. Oh yeah, this is this is great. I'm glad glad to have you here because you've you've written a really interesting book that in many ways argues, you know, decarceration and de policing is leading America down the wrong pot. So I'd love to know. Just off the bed, what do you think people who want to defund the police and reallocate the

resources or reducing conceration, what do you think they're getting wrong? Well, I think they're getting a couple of things wrong. One is that I think they misunderstand what the causes of crime are. Right. The defund movement is kind of built around this idea that if we just divert this funding away from policing and incarceration and prosecution and give it to other community programs, social spending programs, that we can

reduce crime that way. But this assumes that the causes of crime, the root causes of crime so to speak, or socioeconomic in nature. I don't think they are. I know it's counter to the sort of conventional wisdom. But if you look at New York City, for example, where we all are one of the safest cities in America, our poverty rate was actually slightly lower than it was

in two thousand six. Team. Why do I pick those two years because those are the years that preceded the peak number of murders of two thousand, two hundred and sixty two and the value number of murders two hundred nine two in two thousand seventeen. So we were able to get crime drastically down without doing anything about poverty. We don't see violence sort of track with other you know,

socio economic problems, unemployment, etcetera. You know, So that I think is a major pillar of what they get wrong. The other thing is is, frankly, that I think they misunderstand what the research says about police, which is that more policing means less crime. And the people who benefit are the people who are dealing with the biggest crime problems. And that's really who I wrote the book for. It. Well, let's let's jump into that. Because you know you are

a data person. Yes, that that is something that you know. Even your your critics don't detract from me. They say you are a data person. And many of the statements you make in the book are supported by data, or you argue based on the data that you've received. But there are a few things that I find confusing. You know, the one that you just said is more policing equals less crime, right, But in America you see policing increase.

By your arguments, why is it that any number would go up from one previous year when the policing has only increased from your to your How do you explain that? So, you know, there's there are a lot of reasons, uh for for why that's so. One is that the effectiveness of police has a lot to do with other things

that are going on in the criminal justice system. Right, So, when police officers make an arrest and they take a criminal off the street, the benefits associated with that arrest are going to be different if you're talking about a jurisdiction in which the prosecutor isn't going to bring charges which we see much more often now, in which a lengthy sentence is less likely, which we see much more often now, or in which the punishments on the table

are no longer going to incapacitate the individuals and take them off the street. So, in a lot of cities, despite this fact that spending on polices has remained steady or even gone up, we have seen crime go up. But the reasons for that is not because policing is ineffective.

Every single econometric analysis that's worth itself that's actually looked at the impact of policing on crime finds that you get less crime when you increase policing and that that those benefits are sort of disproportionately enjoyed by lowing minority communities, which is a really important point because again, that's who I wrote this book for. That's it's interesting that you say that because you know, you you talk in the book about mass and concerations. You're talking the book about

things like stopping first, you even talk about victimization. What I find um confusing in the book is you will talk about stopping first, you know, and from from what I get in the book, you're pro stopping first, right, or you're not against it. Maybe I'm not against Okay, it's a tool that should be on the table. Okay, So now now what's confusing in the book is you make an argument that seems like you are blaming the people who are being disproportionately stopped and firsked for how

they act. You know, there's a part in the book where you say, and i'll paraphrase you don't don't you know, don't get me wrong, as you say, it's because they act streets or they look criminal, and so the police stopped them when they shouldn't stop them. So my question to use this, like what what is acting streets or acting criminal? And who gets to define that? So you know,

there's that chapter you're talking about. Is the chapter on false positives right the as positive as the kind of situation which a cops stops somebody based on suspicion and it turns out that person doesn't have any contract um.

The chapter is based on a really important sociological work by a kind of left of center sociologist named Elijah Anderson called Cod to the Street, and it's an ethnographic work that's based in North Philadelphia in the early nineties, late eighties, and what he finds is that there is a kind of street culture of where people adopt an outward facing posture that's been well documented in research across uh the years, where you know, you kind of one

example I give the book actually is from my personal life. I didn't always look like this. I didn't always stress like this. When I was a kid, I you know, corn rolls and that was sixteen, and you know, had that kind of thug attitude and hung out with some bad kids. And I tell the story about one day being in the wall and Long Island, walking down the corridor. We all kind of got our thug walks going on, and we walked past a group of white kids and they kind of diverted their eyes and we all got

off on it. We all thought it was like, we're real, these tough guys, and you know, we we we we got a sense that this was something good. A few days later, I was in my local Delhi and online behind a white woman who kind of noticed me behind her and turned around very discreetly clutched her purse, and I remember feeling offended, saying, like, you know, what's what's

this lady's problem? I've never thought about robbing anyone a day in my life, And what I realized in that moment was that she was picking up on the very same signals that we were perfectly happy for those other kids to pick up. And Elijah argues, Yeah, but before

you go shoot it on this. So the issue I have with this argument is, in many ways, it sounds like what you were saying is that the way of being is what people should change, because the way of being is what determines whether you are perceived as a criminal or not. Right, they thought, But like, listen to what you just said. You just said I had the corn rows and all kinds. I was, I was in the thugging What does corn rows have to do with

being a criminal or not? Like this? This is the problem in America, right, No, I'm just saying, so what what? What I What I noticed in the book is it seems like you make an argument that without explicitly saying it, and maybe you're not even saying that, it's almost like you're implice saying what we need to do as people of color, it is just be a little more white,

just be a little more. Let's get a little No, no no, you're saying a little less of the bagging and the walk and the talk, and let's be a little because that woman who clutched the person that has nothing to do with you, that's clutching her exactly that. In fact, if you read the chapter and its entirety, you'll see that I very explicitly say that it would be entirely wrong to blame people for these things, that these interactions

are incredibly embarrassing, infuriating, they shouldn't happen. And so it's not an excuse for bad policing. What it is, it's an explanation for why some of these mistakes maybe happens the way. Wait, here's the thing. Here's the thing. For give me for interrupting. Here's the thing. I understand that you say it's a mistake, but at the same time you say that it is not a mistake because the person is making an active decision. It doesn't seem like

a mistake. It seems like an active discrimination. And so let's let's think of it like this using a stupid analogy. Right, you have police, who you are arguing in the book, and we've seen this in society, are not able to discern. They just go like, well, those black people who walk like this must all be criminals. I'm going to search all of them on spoil all of their days. Right, But isn't that then a sign that the police need to be reformed because they are the people who are

making this decision incorrectly? Right, if we had a bunch of pilots are if we had a bunch of pilots who there's there's a bunch of pilots who crash all the time. A bunch of plots of crash all the time, and it's like, oh, why why do they crash? Oh? They contelt the difference between mountains and the runway. We wouldn't say like, well, the mountains are going to change how they look because they look like the run where we like the pilots need to learn how to be

better pilots. When you say that's absolutely the a chapter, it's it's really really important to you understand that chapter is not about excusing false positives are saying that they are, that they're good things, or that people somehow deserve them. It's an attempt to explain what's going on in a way that I think lowers the temperature of our rhetorical debate, because evidence of false positives is taken to be prima facial evidence of racial bias on the part of the

police officer. But saying it's not not necessarily what they may be picking up on our out refacing postures that have been assimi, but what are the postures and how are they associated? The same ones that I quote Nipsey Hustle talking about in that very same chapter where he says, when I was in a gang and we were going out looking for an op, we weren't looking for somebody

who was dressed square. We were looking for someone who looked like us, who walked like us who had the attitude that we had and it was wrong in that context. But you but do you hear what he said as well? Us, Yes, there is a key element that is missing here, and you're neglecting the fact that people are able to understand within their communities who the US is and who the US isn't. Black people can walk through a community, see a bunch of black people and go like, oh, that person.

I know they might be shifting off, but it's not because they're black, is not because their pantsil sagging, It's not because you understand how someone may be moving in your hood. Right. So it's different when Nipsey Hustle says, us, what you're talking about is a police going them they are criminals, They are all suspicious because they are. I don't think so. I don't think that's how I put it.

The other point I make, too, is that in a lot of cities, the majority police officers, like in New York, are not white. Right, So these are people who live in these communities who come from these same communities. Um, and I think they understand. I think they understand these points. I understand they understand these distings, right. But I think there we get into a different issue, which is about, you know, how are police incentivized to make that And

that's separate. You're not arguing that, So let's not get into that. How are they incentivized to make their money. Let's let's talk a little bit more about um, the decarceration and the d policing. Here's something that a lot of people find confusing. When crime goes down, people argue that the police should get paid more. Makes sense. When crime goes up, people say, well, the police should get

paid more. It seems like policing is one of the few jobs or areas where, whether the outcomes are good or bad, more funding should go. And Joe Biden just announced that they're going to be pouring money into getting more and more and more police onto the streets. And my my only question to use as a data person, what data is there to support that? Then, like growing the police force more, putting more money into it is

actually giving us the result that we're looking for. The trove of study showing that when you increase police presences, you reduce crime, and that you do so disproportionately in the neighborhoods with the biggest crime problems. Right, So, there have been studies very sample, uh you know, random analysis that look at They looked at policing presence on along the National Mall in DC shortly after nine eleven. Right. What this study did was it looked at when the

terror alert level changed. Right. That was kind of a random thing that happened that you couldn't predict the police presence would change. When the police presence increased, they found massive decreases in crime along the National Mall, which is

where the presence increased. Every single study of policing that's been you know, there there's a study of out of UPEN that looked at expanding patrols of private police forces from the University of Pennsylvania Police Department outside the campus and they found it when they did that crime went down in those areas. Right. So every time that this analysis is done, it shows the same thing that we can argue about whether the costs associated with policing or

worth the benefits. But one thing we know is that we haven't yet really figured out a way to produce the same kind of crime declines the policing has has has produced, particularly in the communities in which it's produced it. And and I think That's a really really important point because when we argue about defund the police were not arguing about ourselves. Right, I live in a really good neighborhood. I'm sure you do too. We're arguing about people who

have a very, very different day to day life. And one thing that it's important to understand is the crime is very concentrated. It's not something that's equally distributed across the country. In New York City, about five percent of street segmentcy about fifty percent of all crime, About three and a half percent see about fifty percent of all

violent crime. Every single year for which we have data going back to at least two thousand eight, a minimum a minimum of ent of all shooting victims in the city or either black or Hispanic, almost all of the mail. Right, that's one of the starkest, most persistent racial disparities in the data. We don't talk enough about it, and we don't talk enough about what it means to get crime down for those communities that are really dealing with it on a data DA perspect You think we do talk

about it. Those communities talk about it all the time. The people who have involved in these shootings talk about it. All the time. Oftentimes it just doesn't become a conversation and ask them what they want. They don't say less policing. Eighty one percent to black Americans in in the United States told Gallop last year that they want as much if not more policing that occurred. But I think if you're going to be fair to black Americans, what they're

also looking for is equal policing. They want the protecting and the serving part as well. Right, So here's here's here's where I find an issue with the data. I would not disagree with you. Having a police presence probably does mean that there is going to be a reduction in crime. However, it doesn't seem like a sustainable way to ensure that there is no crime, because all you're doing is saying, like, when a policeman is there, there is no crime. However, soon as the police moves, the

crime might come back. And then you're like, well, then we need more police, and then we need more out there the end of the day, the whole country just police then, and then we all are the police. Right. What I'm no, no, what I'm saying to you is this is it seems to ignore the fact that crime comes from somewhere. And you you talk about this in the book, right, you talk about this in the book. You say that you know, according to the data you've seen,

you don't believe that crime is caused by poverty. You don't believe that crime is caused by a lot of the things that people you you, in fact, believe that crime is caused by trauma. You know that crime is caused by what is happening in these commun unities. It's

a vicious cycle. My question to you, then, is if you believe those things, and in the same book you talk about you know, kids or just members of communities who are traumatized by these police, is it not then true that the police themselves are causing more of the crime because they are traumatizing the very communities they're supposed to be policing when they when they actually traumatize these communities. Absolutely.

The questions is how often does that happen, particularly compared to the sort of trauma that's associated with serious crime and witnessing that crime, and being abused as a child, and and and and being violently victimized. Right these the argument is not the policing is perfect. Right, if you're looking for someone to sit here and say that there's no way that we can learn the criminal justice system, that there's no room for improvement, it's not me right.

That the reality is is that, yeah, these are human endeavors. Any human endeavor is going to be imperfect. People are gonna make mistakes, people are going to be malevolent, they're gonna be evil, They're going to exercise the powers that they're given, and they're going to abuse them. That happens. I acknowledge that, But we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water because when we do that, can real people suffer real harm. And it's hard for I think a lot of people, um, you know, to

to to just internalize what that's like, right. I mean, you know, the every year for the last few years, the national homicide rate is kind of hovered around five or six per one hundred thousand. There are neighborhoods on the West side of Chicago, West Carfield Park, for example, where the homicide reads a hundred and thirty one and so and so. Here's the thing that I find interesting in America. People will often argue about policing in those neighborhoods.

People don't seem to talk enough about over policing and under policing. You know, your dad was a police officer. And one thing I think everyone knows, you know, whether you are on the police force or whether you are a person who is in a community experiencing high crime, is that it, particularly in America, the over policing and the under policing give you a strange world where they present you a world where you you you don't know

which is better for you. People often call the police, the police don't show up, or they show up many hours after the incident has taken place place, or when the police do show up, they show up to terrorize the very communities that needed them for something else and now don't need them. But then now treat them as the criminals, right, And so what I what I find

interesting in this conversation. People always bring up Oh, Chicago, and they bring up these places the South Side, and they bring us up, but they don't bring up the correlation of spending in these places. They don't bring up how much the government puts into these places, the parks that are in these places, the schools that are in these places, the off the care programs that are in these places, the money that is put into these these places.

You get what I'm saying. People always make it seem like, oh, the Hampton's has no crime, probably because of the cops. It's like, well, how much do they put in? You know, where do the taxes get allocated? Where does the money go? And I think sometimes it's a strange. I'm not saying you're wrong, by the way, I'm just saying, do you consider that correlation as well? And in the book, I

go through some of the data. You know, out of cities like Chicago, Rey saw massive increases for example, and prayer people spending on public education where over you know, just a handful of years two thousand and fourteen, two and sixteen, you go from about fifteen percent over the national average per people to about the national average for people in Chicago. Murders why not, they didn't go down. But but but you see, look at that time period. What

are the time period that you're measuring the sofa two years? Yeah, But I'll give you an analogy. When we look at building a soccer team anywhere in the world. I know Americans hate soccer whatever, When we look at building a soccer team, do you know when you have to start when their children. Sure, and you know when you look at the success is when they're old enough to play in the national team. And that's literally what we do.

We go, Okay, we want to win the World Cup in You don't go, I want to win win the next World Cup. It's impossible. You go, We're going to start a program where we will only see the results when this generation is old enough. What I feel like happens in America is every program that comes in, people go, oh, we we raised, we got we got schools two years ago, and look, crimes went up. However, they don't use that same argument for police. We gave police money two years ago.

How are crimes were still? People like they, we gotta get more to thee but they don't say, we gotta get more to the schools. How come that doesn't happen. Well, I'm all for giving as much money like I'm not again, So you're not and you're not, you're not. I don't, I'm not. I'm not saying you know. What I'm saying is that the relationship between these kinds of factors and violent crime is not consistent. It's not clear. What we do know is that we can reduce violent crime by

taking violent criminals off the street. I mean, I frankly, for when I'm tired of reading stories of really heinous crimes homicides. I write in the book about a woman murdered in Chicago in two thousand nineteen um by a guy who had nine prior felony convictions, one for a second degree murder. What was he doing out on the street. I'm tired of reading stories about people raped, robbed by That happens a lot. You're a dates a guy, right, and now you're using anecdotal none in Chicago, the average

homicide suspect that's twelve prior arrest, more than twenty prior. Okay, So now again I'm not saying any of this is wrong. What I'm arguing is you're your your The thesis you put forward in this book is that we need to get more police, we need to get more incarceration. Is these is of the book. I think the thesis of the book is more so that the calls to radically defund police and radically reducing car for the Okay, So that's okay, fine, So would you argument against the program not?

You don't believe that we should have more incarceration than I think. Actually in some places we do. Yeah, we have both. We have an under incarceration problem. We also have an over incay. So so now let me ask you this question again. This is what I just go to is oftentimes I find America is intent on solving the symptom but not the cause. Okay, let's talk about incarceration. Let's talk about incarceration. I don't understand this, and and I don't see any of the data about this in

the book. America is a country where people say you serve the time right. It implies that you pay the price for what you have done. However, once you have paid that price, you are not a functioning member of society. You do not come back into society. You're not allowed to get many jobs in many places, you're not allowed to vote. You're not allowed to be a functioning member of society. And then people are surprised when those members now go into a certain society that we don't want

them to be into. Oh, it's the recidivism rates. Whether the people are going back to prison, they're getting back into crime. But crime is an industry that accepts them regardless of what they've done ironically right. And so the thing I don't see in this book that I would love to know if there's any data on it, is what is the difference when people are actually given the opportunities. You know, you go to other countries around the world, they don't see prison as punishments. They look at it

as rehabilitation. They go, we're gonna take you up the streets. So I agree with you on this same thing we've been doing before police, we've been invented in African village. We'd go, you are going to be taken away from the situation you've created. However, the purpose is rehabilitation. We're either going to make you change or if you won't, then we'll work from there. But American prisons don't change people for the better, and they don't give them an

opportunity to come out being a better person. Oftentimes, and then they get surprised when the people do what they only now have options to do. Oftentimes they make people worse. Right, I mean, I am not a person who believes that the experience of incarceration is one that should be inhumane. It's one that you know, people should suffer. I'm not a rich to this thing, and you don't. You don't like that. I think that to me, the main benefit

of incarceration is incapacitation. It's taking people off the street so that the communities can have room to breathe. As maybe something we we actually can't agree on is you do talk about how the court system is underfunded and overrun. And I will say one thing I did agree with you on is if we can get a better system that's more efficient, you won't have people who are stuck in the system who have done nothing wrong and shouldn't be there now. I argue a lot of that has

to do with bad policing. But we won't go back into that. We won't go back into what we we we we we agree on the cold things, so glad we found something, but no that we we I think we agree on a lot. We're only talking about really like the final details of what we don't but one creaking on the on the rehabilitation point. You know, one of the assumptions underlying your argument is that we have figured out how to reliably rehabilitate people, particularly at scale

across the prison population of nearly two million people. We haven't. We don't, we don't have the infrastructure in place to do that, and we don't really know how to do that rely. There's some programs that show some success, there's some that don't, some investments that pay off, some that don't, some programs that show success. You extend the observation period of four or five, ten years, and you see a

reversion back towards the mean. I am all four, by the way, reducing the barriers to re entry, I think that's a huge problem. I've written this in the past. You know, the idea that you can't get an occupational license to be a barber, you know, a cosmotologist because you have a criminal record is absolutely ridiculous to me. There's no reason why we should make it more difficult for people to reintegrate back into society. So I'm not for usin so what you're saying, I'm I will even

agree with you, and that I'll go. Let's say we agree that the programs that we have aren't working, or you cannot guarantee that they work. You do not know if they work, you uncertain, But we do know that the current system doesn't work. Well. It doesn't work to do one thing, which is rehabilitate people that it does work. It does work to to incapacitate people, and to how long and to what effect? The question that's the question,

right is how long? Right? So right now, the media, at some point you realize America just locks up everybody, and then what no one doesn't on the rust of one percent of people. And you know of the population is in prison, but how much is that? Say that as a number we want, it's in prisons. It's about seven hundred thousand people in prisons, in prisons versus jails, right, so that you have got some people in jails. Total total in cars rated population about one point nine million people.

And then how many people are going through that prison system, people getting arrested, and then how many you know, but not like people get arrested go to prison. There's this sort of there's this narrative in our country that we systematically deny people second chances. Right, we have second chance a month in the United States, the typical person who gets released from prison had more than ten prior arrests before they were before they entered prison their most recent time,

and more than five prior convictions. Um, it's it's just it's just not true that we deny people second chances only of state felony convis typically because you said the typical person. There are certainly you can you can dig into the data and I'm sure find anomalous situations where people have been absolutely re eroded by the system. We should identify those people and released them. I say that in the book right there, there is a subset of

our incarcerated population that shouldn't be there. What I think people have failed to appreciate is there's a subset of our general population that should be incarcerated that shouldn't be on the street. And the costs associated with the failure to do that are real. They fall disproportionate and the most vulnerable communities in America, and it takes an incredibly gut wrenching effect on I saw a video on Twitter the other day of a kid running on the West

Side of Chicago. He just happened to be walking home from school with his backpackers about half the size that he was, and he's walking past a group of kids who were targeted in to drive by. He takes off running and you can see the bullets still following him along the wall as he runs. They thought he was with them. His only mistake was walking past the wrong

kids at the wrong time. And a huge part of the root of that problem in cities like Chicago and Baltimore and Philadelphia and Louisville is the systematic failure to take people who don't belong on the street off the street. I don't want to see any more of that. I don't think anybody wants to see more of them. And I'll say two things before I let you go, because I'm loving this. By the way, thank you for the conversation.

The first part to that point is this, you know, the history of America is an interesting one in that people often talk about criminals as if there is no part to redemption and they are innately bad, when in fact, if you read through all of American history, oftentimes the people who become the families who are respected, oftentimes people who become the lawmakers come from a history of crime.

You know, you can go back all the way to the Boston tea party, so the smugglers who are creating what they were, you know, who would smuggling the tea and they were, you know, breaking the law. You can move forward, you know, you go to the whether's the Kennedy's, the Rockefellers, whatever you want to be. One thing that I find interesting in America is, you know, it doesn't depend on whether or not you've done crime. It's whether or not you get the opportunity to turn that crime

into a legitimate business. That's the first thing I find right, Um, the I I just want to talk about the video things to what you're saying, because that reminded me of a part in your book where and please correct me if I'm wrong. It seems like you argue the videos we watch of police brutality make it seem like the situation is worse than it actually is, and you're saying it is not as bad as we think. Is that correct? Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean, people think that police use

force on a very very regular basis. I think they'd be very, very surprised to learn that studies have shown, for example, the police use force unless than one percent of arrests that police fire their weapons, and less than zero point zero three percent of arrests, again in the aggregate in the country of three thirty million people, that's a lot, right, It's a big number, but as a percentage of total interactions, of total arrests, of situations in

which force might be used, But isn't. It's actually a very very rare phenomenon, and thank god it is. Again doesn't mean we shouldn't try to reduce it further, but but it is not most is most certainly not a common outcome, a common a likely outcome of a police citizen interaction. Now I get the point that you're about to make, which is that you know, well, aren't these videos like the one you just talked about about the

kid being you know, shot at in Chicago? Aren't those also creating the same kind of uh, you know, misconception. And it's very very important that you understand that those videos are also backed by data. Right, more than the third of can victed violent felons in America, we're we're convicted where they committed They committed their crime when they were either out on parole, out on probation, or out

on pre trial release. We again I mentioned earlier in Chicago, average number of prior rests for someone who has charged with either shooting Rahama side is twelve. Of those people have more than twenty prior arrests. So it's not as if these are just sort of cherry picked antios. This is what's reflected in the data. I actually wasn't gonna ask about that, but no, no, genuinely I wasn't. I wasn't. I was, but I just I wanted to hear it. No, no, no, no, no,

I wasn't. I was actually going to go to this. I I really enjoyed the way you wrote this book because you know, I don't agree with some of the conclusions you draw from the data, but but I appreciate that you know the way you've written it, and that you've put thought into it, and you acknowledge you know, you don't make it seem like it's just people are

just complaining about nothing. There's one thing that I that I would love, and I know we won't get to that answer now, but it's it's almost like a challenge to you as a data person, is this, time and time again in the United States, communities who are poor, you know, black communities, even very poor white communities for instance, have complained about the treatment they receive at the hands

of police. And one thing that we've noticed time and time again is that the information we get oftentimes doesn't match the data. And I say this, you know body cameras. I say that once you go into investigations into different police departments, we often find rampant racism, you know, we find corruption, we find signs that what the community has

told people were actually true. And and so my question to use the data person is, with so much of the data that we look at in the world of crime coming from the police, do you not think that there should be an external source of data on crime, on everything that goes with incarceration that doesn't come from the people that we are actually trying to hold accountable,

to make sure that we're dealing with accurate data. Um. Absolutely, Again, you know, sort of implicit in that question is an accusation, Right, then there's something data that's yeah, well, so what we do have a victimization surveys, right, and what you would expect to see, Um, if there was in fact something wrong with the police data, would be a serious incongruity between the police data and the data that's shown by

by victimization services. These are individuals who have been violently victimized, who are you know, reporting to to survey takers what they've experienced. We see the same thing with respect to use of force surveys the public. People who have contacts are surveyed by the Bureau of Justice Satistics, and they report how often they're subjected to use as a force, how often use as a forcer threatened, how often police

officers draw their weapons. And we don't see an incongruity between the police data and the data reported by people who have been surveyed who have had police contacts. So I think that should just give us a little bit of a sense of security that maybe something isn't completely off with with with this data. I want to say thank you so much for joining me on the show.

Thank you, thank you for having a conversation with me and lost but not least get the corners backless work industry, were fouls, book form Meal Injustice, A fascinating is available. Now we're gonna figure fickball fold be right back after the fun ifore, well, that's our shops to right fu before we go. Before we go, please come to the Supporting Respectability, an organization that works to create systemic change

in how society views and values people with disabilities. If you want to help them, lobby for better policies and train organizations to empower people with disabilities, then please donate at the link below. Until next time, stay safe out there, and remember, maybe you can't find your friends on Instagram because you have no friends. Watch The Daily Show weeknights at eleven ten Central Armed Comedy Central in stream full episodes anytime, all on Paramount Plus. This has been a

Comedy Central podcast. Wo m