Latest news with #Kristof
Yahoo
17-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Five mainstream media figures who ran for office as Democrats
Political reporter Hanna Trudo is considering running for Congress in New Hampshire as a Democrat. If she did take the plunge, it would make her the latest mainstream media figure to seek office on the Democratic ticket. Here are five other mainstream media figures who campaigned as Democrats for office, or at least made an attempt. CNN political analyst John Avlon announced last year that he would leave the network to defeat Donald Trump and "his MAGA minions" by running for Congress as a Democrat in New York's First Congressional District in Long Island. "Right now, our democracy is in danger. This election is not a drill," Avlon warned at the time. Journalist Turned Potential House Candidate Says Fellow Democrats 'Keep Losing' By Failing Working Class While he went on to capture the Democratic nomination, he lost the general election to Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., by more than 10 points. Read On The Fox News App Avlon, the former editor of the liberal Daily Beast, was known for hosting a "Reality Check" segment on CNN that skewed heavily to the left. Former CNBC anchor Michelle Caruso-Cabrera made an ill-fated Democratic primary challenge in 2020 to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., in New York's 14th Congressional District. Running as a more moderate candidate who opposed the Green New Deal and universal health care, she was routed by the far-left Ocasio-Cortez in the primary, getting just 18.2 percent of the vote. Caruso-Cabrera spent more than 20 years with CNBC, serving as the financial network's chief financial correspondent as well as co-anchor of "Power Lunch." She also lost her bid for the Democratic nomination for New York comptroller in 2021. Aoc's Constituents Weigh In On Presidential Run, Recall Her Stunning 2018 Political Upset Ocasio-Cortez upset longtime Rep. Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary in 2018 before cruising to victory in the deep-blue district that November. She's now one of the leaders of the Democratic Party and is even rumored as a 2028 presidential candidate despite being only 35. Longtime New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof briefly left the newspaper in 2021 after a 37-year run to run for Oregon governor on the Democratic ticket. "I am confident we can do better as a state. I do think that's going to require vision and leadership and sending a different kind of leader to Salem," he told a local outlet at the time. Unfortunately for him, his New York ties wound up haunting his candidacy. Kristof was deemed ineligible early in 2022 after the state Supreme Court ruled he didn't meet Oregon's three-year residency retirement. Kristof had voted in New York in 2020, calling his ability to meet the requirement into question before the Supreme Court's decision ensured he wouldn't make the ballot. Trump Surprises 104-Year-old Wwii Veteran With Birthday Message After Viral Tiktok Invite Kristof returned to the Times later in 2022 and has been there ever since. Former ABC News political analyst Matthew Dowd long claimed to be an independent, but the mask came off officially in 2021 when he briefly ran for Texas lieutenant governor as a Democrat. Dowd, a straight, White, male Christian, wrote in 2018 that straight, White, male Christians should not pursue power in order to make space for minorities. "I would humbly suggest that we as White male Christians take it upon ourselves to step back and give more people who don't look like us access to the levers of power," he wrote, adding, "As a White male Christian in America, I am part of a dwindling subset that has held the levers of power politically and economically in nearly every field for the entire history of the United States." Dowd's run in an attempt to oust Republican Dan Patrick didn't last long. He dropped out after less than three months, saying enough diverse candidates had emerged on the Democratic side that he should step aside. Democrat Mike Collier ultimately lost the race by 10 points to Patrick. Trump Says Comey Knew 'Assassination' Meaning Behind Deleted Social Media Post Dowd spent 13 years at ABC News as a political analyst before leaving in early 2021, where his "independent" claims were often criticized given his obvious preference for Democrats. Dowd, who served as chief strategist for George W. Bush's 2004 re-election, left the Republican Party during Bush's second term over his disillusionment with the GOP. Dylan Ratigan, a former CNBC journalist who went on to host an eponymous show for MSNBC, mounted a run for the Democratic nomination in New York's 21st Congressional District in 2018. Ratigan didn't come close, finishing far behind winner Tedra Cobb, who went on to lose the general election to Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y. Of course, going from a journalism background to a political campaign isn't solely the domain of Democrats. Republican Kari Lake, who now serves in the Trump administration, was a news anchor in Phoenix before making unsuccessful runs in Arizona for governor and U.S. Senate in 2022 and article source: Five mainstream media figures who ran for office as Democrats
Yahoo
13-05-2025
- Yahoo
Opinion: Keep firing at the pornography industry
In a blistering column last week, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof exposed the cavalier attitude employees at porn companies have about videos featuring children. His reporting centered on the vilest form of evil afflicting this visual cancer on society, concluding that various 'tube' sites on the internet carry hundreds of thousands of videos with children as the main subjects. He interviewed a victim who, at age 15, had been unwittingly drugged at a stranger's house and sexually abused while being filmed. The resulting trauma she endured was staggering, as were her relentless efforts to have the images removed. 'I am sharing my story because I want there to be laws and safeguards in place to prevent this from happening to anyone else,' she told Kristof. Indeed, modern society owes her that for allowing such things to happen. Images of child pornography are illegal under federal law. And so it's encouraging to see Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, sponsoring the Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, which would establish a uniform definition of obscenity under the Communications Act of 1934 that would be enforced across state lines. The bill is meant to make it easier to protect children from being exposed to pornography, which is another side to the problem about which Kristof wrote. Any movement against this relentless monster should be seen as good. Confusion and unclear definitions 'have allowed extreme pornography to saturate American society and reach countless children,' Lee said in a statement. 'Our bill updates the legal definition of obscenity for the internet age so this content can be taken down and its peddlers prosecuted.' Whether the focus is on children who become exposed to pornography or those who become subjects of it, the concern is similar. Regularly viewing such things leads to a host of problems, and it is becoming endemic. An essay published on noted that the porn industry today generates more income each year than the revenues of the NFL, NBA and MLB combined. 'Every second, $3,075.64 is being spent on pornography,' it said. Studies have shown how pornography desensitizes viewers, leading to addictive behavior as they consume more in order to achieve the desired stimulus. A behavioral study published by the National Institutes of Health concluded, 'In all facets of the users' lives, negative consequences (from pornography) were seen. Due to the explosion of new technologies, online pornography has risen to an alarming level, which has very injurious effects on societies and individuals. Therefore, it is high time to get rid of this addiction to protect our lives from its harmful effects.' Two years ago, the Deseret News reported on a survey by Common Sense Media that found more than half of children had watched pornography online by age 13. Getting rid of it entirely runs headlong into First Amendment issues, but Congress can act to better protect children. Nine years ago, Utah lawmakers passed a resolution declaring pornography a public health hazard and calling for research, public education, prevention and policy changes. But Washington can do much more than any state to attack the problem. As the Deseret News reported, Lee's bill would amend the definition of obscenity to be more explicit and direct. It also would delete language in the current law that prohibits such content only if there is proof of 'abusing, threatening, or harassing a person.' Law enforcement would have more power to keep obscene content from being transmitted across state lines — a challenge in the internet age but an absolute necessity for effectiveness. Earlier this year, Lee also introduced the Shielding Children's Retinas from Egregious Exposure on the Net (SCREEN) Act. That would require strengthened age verification technology on pornography websites. Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, is a co-sponsor. Unfortunately, pornography has gained a foothold of acceptance in American culture. About 60% of men and 40% of women have viewed it, according to In addition, the website reports that 51% do not believe watching pornography is wrong. However, 84% of American adults say child pornography is morally wrong and should be illegal. Logically, it makes little sense to believe that celebrating an 18th birthday should automatically make such a thing proper entertainment, but that is a bigger battle. Meanwhile, we hope bills such as these can begin to put a dent in a growing industry that does tremendous harm to the most vulnerable among us.
CNBC
30-04-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Here's what experts say about selling gold jewelry for cash
Gold prices have been on a tear, and with that comes an opportunity, at least for anyone with estate jewelry tucked away. "We're seeing an increasing number of people — mostly regular individuals and families, not investors — selling or melting old jewelry to access quick cash while the market is strong," said Tim Schmidt, the founder of Gold IRA Custodians, an online resource for buying gold. "For some, it's a way to cover urgent expenses; for others, it's an opportunity to capitalize on long-forgotten pieces that have suddenly become far more valuable than they were just months ago," Schmidt said. More from Personal Finance:International vs. U.S. stocks: what experts are sayingTrump-fueled backlash 'intensified' flight from ESG fundsWhat typically happens to stocks after high volatility The recent surge in gold prices is pushing more people to consider unloading their family heirlooms and other valuables, which can be melted for cash, according to Schmidt. Spot gold prices hit an all-time high above $3,500 per ounce last week. The record follows a barrage of tariffs announced by President Donald Trump in April, fueling concern that a global trade war will push the U.S. economy into recession. One year ago, prices were about $2,200 to $2,300 an ounce. As of Wednesday morning, gold futures prices were up about 23% year-to-date and 36% higher compared to the price a year ago. "Gold tends to trade on fear, and we have a lot of fear in the markets right now," said Kathy Kristof, a personal finance expert and founder of "If you can find a moment when people are the most fearful, that's an ideal time to sell your gold," she said. "Strike while the iron is hot." Many consumers who hold physical gold — such as higher-karat jewelry, bars and coins — view it as "financial insurance," said Jordan Roy-Byrne, founder of The Daily Gold, an online resource for gold, silver and mining stocks. "Gold is reassuring," Schmidt explained. "It offers something tangible, dependable, and easily liquidated when times get tough." One downside of selling physical gold is traditionally high trading costs — and those costs are typically not transparent, Kristof said. Consumers should check the spot price of gold online before hawking their gold at a pawn shop or online marketplace like Alloy or Express Gold Cash, Kristof said. Sellers can use the spot price to get a rough sense of what their gold is worth, if they know its weight and purity, to sense if they're being ripped off, Kristof said. (Keep in mind: 24-karat gold is pure gold; an 18-karat piece is 75% gold and 25% other metals.) "Do the math before you even go," she said. "Fools get creamed." Price comparisons and deal shopping are "always wise" moves for consumers, Kristof added. "It is a competitive marketplace," she said. "You can get a better deal." Some experts say prices may have topped out, but others think there is still room to run. "My view is that gold hit an interim peak, which should hold up at least into the fall," Roy-Byrne said. Ultimately, it's impossible to know what the future holds. Consumers should assess if they made a good return on investment, and if the risk of holding and hoping for a better profit "is wise or foolish," Kristof said. One cautionary note: Sellers may pay a higher tax rate on their gold profits than they may otherwise think. That's because the Internal Revenue Service would likely consider physical gold like jewelry, coins or bars to be a "collectible," for tax purposes, explained Troy Lewis, a certified public accountant and professor of accounting and tax at Brigham Young University. Federal long-term capital gains taxes on collectibles can go as high as 28%, while those on other assets like stocks and real estate can reach 20%. Schmidt recommends proceeding "thoughtfully" before selling or melting down gold jewelry. "It can be a smart move for those needing immediate funds, but not every piece should be melted down," he said. "Items with historical or artistic value, like family heirlooms or antique jewelry, may be worth more in their original form than as melted metal." Schmidt recommends consulting with a reputable jeweler or appraiser before selling as well as considering the cost of cashing out. "Gold may be in high demand, but once a unique piece is melted, its original value is lost forever," he said.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
‘We Will Pay in Lives': The Devastating Cost of Dismantling USAID
Last month, unelected shadow president Elon Musk told President Donald Trump's Cabinet that he and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had 'accidentally canceled' Ebola prevention programs funded by the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID, which the new administration has tried to dismantle. With a chuckle, Musk told some of the most powerful figures in the U.S. government that 'we won't be perfect. But when we make a mistake we'll fix it very quickly.' Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Nicholas Kristof recently put names, faces, and numbers on the potential costs of such 'mistakes' in an opinion piece for The New York Times, titled 'Musk Said No One Has Died Since Aid Was Cut. That Isn't True.' Kristof recounts a recent trip to South Sudan, where he learned that individuals reliant on USAID programs to mitigate HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and maternal mortality are already feeling the pain of the U.S.'s withdrawal — and that some have died as a result of the cuts, despite Musk's contention on Fox News Tuesday night that his work with DOGE has not caused any harm.. 'I was particularly struck when I … met women who are alive because of a U.S.-funded maternity clinic, and their babies were surviving,' Kristof tells Rolling Stone. 'They thanked America for its generosity, for its commitment to saving these women's lives. What they didn't know was that the U.S. was, in fact, dismantling that program, and women, again, were going to be dying there along with their newborns. It's just heartbreaking.' On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that Musk and DOGE likely violated the Constitution 'in multiple ways' when they fired thousands of USAID employees and attempted to shutter the agency — primarily because Trump and his administration had not properly followed established law to appoint Musk into the position and power he currently holds. While the ruling is a win for USAID employees, and a major check on Musk's power, the Trump administration's recent enthusiasm for flouting court orders and hostility towards judges who defy their antics casts a doubt over if the decision will actually be enforced. In his interview with Rolling Stone, Kristof further delves into the relationship between Americans and foreign aid, the history of soft power foreign politics, and what Trump and Musk get wrong about the American aid project abroad. As Kristof explains, , the damage the duo are doing to the world — and to American's safety — may not be permanent, but in the meantime 'we will end up paying in lives and treasure' to cover the damages. Foreign aid represents around 1 percent – if not less — of the annual federal budget, yet it's being presented as this bottomless pit of waste. What are Americans getting wrong about foreign aid spending, and how did it become this flashpoint for Republicans? Americans are kind of complicated. They think that too much money is spent on foreign aid, and they think that 25 percent of the budget is spent on foreign assistance and that it should be reduced to — different polls come up with different numbers — maybe 5 percent or 10 percent. In fact, it's 1 percent roughly. So [Americans] both think that it should come down and that it should be at a level much higher than it actually is. But I do think that there is a weariness with the world, kind of an exhaustion. There's a perception that global poverty has either gotten worse or stayed the same over the years, and that foreign aid has been kind of a bottomless pit. In fact, maybe the most important thing that has happened in my lifetime has been an enormous reduction in global poverty, in global disease and suffering, and a huge expansion in education, in life expectancy, in well being. When I was a kid, a majority of human beings had always been illiterate throughout human history, now we're pushing 90 percent adult literacy. It's a pretty extraordinary change. I think it's fair to say that the United States' foreign aid apparatus had a significant amount to do with those improvements, particularly when we talk about things like disease prevention. Why aren't these milestones something that Americans are constantly celebrating? What changed? It has gone through cycles. There was a period when John F. Kennedy created the Agency for International Development that it was seen as America's responsibility — as a way to fight communism. There was sort of a heroic element to it, and people joined the Peace Corps. And then, [the Vietnam War] rather sullied that notion of American intervention in the world. A generation or two later, I think Iraq did something of the same thing. But there has truly been a bipartisan element of support for humanitarian assistance, and Ronald Reagan spoke eloquently about it. Maybe the most important aid program we have is PEPFAR which was President Bush's landmark 2003 program to combat AIDS. It's maybe the most effective government program I can think of; it has saved 26 million lives so far. So until now, there has been a lot of squabbling about aid, a lot of disagreement, but there also has been a real recognition that it both saves a lot of lives and that it genuinely advances American interests around the world. What were the valid criticisms of USAID? What actual reforms do you think were needed? At the moment, there's generally been agreement that it is way too bureaucratic and that far too much money goes to these 'Beltway bandit' firms that know how to contract with USAID. So much of the money from USAID doesn't actually end up in the pockets of people in poor countries, it goes to the pockets of rich people in Washington, D.C. And recent administrators have indeed worked pretty diligently to try to reduce the amount of money that is going to the Beltway bandits, and increase the share that is going to pockets abroad, but it's a slow process. I also think that it's true that in Democratic administrations, there are liberal projects that get financed that are often fashionable and that aren't always evidence-based, and during Republican administrations there are various conservative projects that get financed that aren't always particularly evidence-based. Both sides have done things that seem fashionable and ideological. Last month, Musk laughed during a Cabinet meeting while he told the secretaries that DOGE had 'accidentally canceled' Ebola prevention programs. I'd like to hear a little bit of your thoughts about how these cuts are being handled, and what it means for someone like Elon Musk to be the dictating force of this massive government reform that's going to have not just domestic repercussions, but massive global repercussions. Well, the basic repercussions from slash USAID are that kids die, and that is something that can't be undone. Musk has said that, well it's a 90-day pause, and then you know that if we make mistakes, we'll fix them later. That works if you are trying to build a Tesla. It doesn't work if you're saving children's lives, and medication isn't there, and the kid dies. You're not going to resurrect that child. And that is what is happening. There's genuinely a way in which what we're seeing in Washington now is not policy formation, it's effectively vandalism. They don't know what they're doing. In some ways, I think Musk's extraordinary achievements in manufacturing have come about because he was willing to take a lot of risks and make mistakes and try, and try again. That was one of the secrets of his extraordinary achievements in rocketry, but that has worked less well in human health, and he just doesn't know what he's doing. I don't think he understands public health, and disease surveillance, and what happens when you drop surveillance programs for Ebola, for avian flu, drop programs against tuberculosis. We will end up paying in lives and treasure for some of these programs on disease surveillance. So it's not just kids abroad who die, but he's placing Americans at risk as well. In justifying these cuts, USAID has been accused of essentially being a Trojan horse for American intelligence agencies like the CIA. What are critics getting wrong or right about the intelligence community's relationship with foreign aid? Or how it relates to soft power? I think that the intelligence community side of that is vastly overstated. I think that was more true in the 1960s. I think it's much less true today. It's much more true of embassies as a whole, and there are a lot of intelligence officers who go abroad as nominally commercial officers, or agricultural officers, or whatever it may be. I think much less often as USAID people. They stick out, you know, when they don't know anything about aid. Now in terms of soft power, President Kennedy proposed USAID not just because it was going to help people abroad, but because it was going to help the U.S. Because he thought we were in competition with communism, and this was a way to win friends and influence people worldwide, especially in Africa and in the South Pacific. The U.S. is in competition with China, and we're trying to figure out where each side wants to have more bait, and more bases, more port visits, and more listening posts, more people who will support us in the United Nations. One way we get people to let us send warships or get people to vote with us, is by providing aid and various funds. We ended aid projects in Cambodia, and it took about 10 minutes for China to start a new project in Cambodia with UNICEF and present itself as the savior of the Cambodian people. Marco Rubio was arguing until recently that it was really important to fund USAID as part of the competition with China, that we compete with China, not only with aircraft carriers, but also with aid projects. That seems like a major indicator of a shift in how the United States is positioning itself within the international order. Sometimes it seems like an outright abandonment of the soft power we're talking about. Is this the fulfillment of a long standing Republican policy priority, or is it the collateral damage of people who as you said — don't know what they're doing? Traditionally, Republicans and Democrats essentially believed in multilateralism, believed in the post-1945 model in which the U.S. worked closely with allies to create an international order that advanced and reflected American interests. That was true of Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton. It was true of Reagan and [H.W.] Bush. George W. Bush began to have more skepticism about multilateralism, more of a willingness to go it alone. But it really took off under Trump in a totally different way. The notion that you just drop out of UN organizations, drop out of global health surveillance against bird flu. NATO is more or less defunct now. If Russia invaded Estonia tomorrow, there's no way the U.S. would intervene under Article Five of the NATO Treaty. So I think there's just been a wholesale abandonment, and that's partly that's because President Trump is really transactional and doesn't believe there's much value in friendships, and I think it's partly because he doesn't understand how the world works. So two other pieces that you wrote recently really stood out to me. The first one was titled 'With Trump's Prostration to Putin, Expect a More Dangerous World,' and the second was 'Trump is Already Making America Weaker and More Vulnerable.' Combine them, and you get a weaker America in a more dangerous world. Is the damage that's happening right now going to be permanent, and is there any way the United States is going to be able to claw back the presence and the authority it had within the international order? Or is the damage done? Well, permanent is a long time. We made terrible mistakes in Vietnam, and we managed to recover from them. But hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese died in the process. We made terrible mistakes in Iraq, and we sort of recovered international respect under Obama. So I don't want to say it's utterly unrecoverable, but I do think that President Trump has increased the likelihood that NATO and European security will fall apart in ways and send messages to Xi Jinping that maybe it's worth taking a bite out of Taiwan. If there is a world war for Taiwan or the South China Sea, that might be kind of irrecoverable. So I think that he's increased all kinds of risks. If there is an avian flu pandemic comparable to what happened in 1918, yeah, we'll eventually get over it, but there'll be a lot of losses along the way. So I think we're in a more dangerous world, I think there'll be real costs. The kids that I described in my article, they're dead, they're not going to come back. But 10 years from now, will we find ways to recover our standing, to knit together allies once more? I think it's possible. I think a lot of people think that the dissolution of organizations like USAID, while they will have international consequences like the ones you described in your article, won't necessarily have domestic repercussions. What's the potential blowback for the everyday American that thinks it's not going to affect them because it's just foreign aid? I would probably focus on global health and disease. Over the last few decades, we've faced two major epidemics or pandemics that have started abroad and that were devastating in the U.S. We had AIDS, which began slowly, somewhere in Congo or possibly in Cameroon, and then eventually reached the U.S. and claimed a lot of American lives. We faced a risk of that in the 2010s with Ebola, but fortunately — partly because of USAID — we were able to primarily stop it in West Africa. And then Covid-19, of course, which did come to the U.S. We don't know what else is brewing out there. I think some kind of avian flu evolving to not just hit mammals, but spread from mammal to mammal, from person to person, is a particular nightmare. It's very hard to calculate these risks, but they are greater. We don't have surveillance systems in place. We have just dismantled those surveillance systems. There are also novel diseases and pathogens that are going to emerge. Right now we're not even supposed to talk to the World Health Organization. I just find it remarkable that so soon after a global pandemic killed so many Americans we're dismantling our defenses and making ourselves vulnerable again. Musk saying that [USAID] was a criminal organization, and these are folks who in some cases risk their lives, in some cases lost their lives. When has Elon Musk risked his life for something larger than himself? So, yeah, I found that quite offensive. More from Rolling Stone Putin Placates Trump, But Dodges Wider Ukrainian Peace Deal Teslas Torched at Las Vegas Facility in 'Targeted Attack' Supreme Court Chief Justice Slams Trump's Call to Impeach Judge Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence
Yahoo
08-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NYT columnist rejects the 'good liberal' stance on drugs, blames 'permissive liberal culture' on west coast
New York Times opinion columnist Nicholas Kristof admitted Saturday that west coast liberals' "permissive" stance on drugs has been the wrong approach. The columnist authored a piece admitting that the more hands off, less punitive approach to dealing with drugs has backfired, nearly leading to the death of one of his old friends. "Yet it's also true that Drew's most recent tumble into addiction came in part because of a permissive liberal culture toward drugs on the West Coast. This was meant to be compassionate, but it almost killed him (and has killed many of my other friends)," the columnist reflected. Sheriff Says Drugs Are Fueling Crime Crisis In California Prominent west coast cities, like San Francisco and Portland, have been ravaged by a drug crisis in recent years. Coincidentally, local laws regarding drug possession have been relaxed. Oregon, for example, decriminalized possession of user amounts of drugs in 2021, leaving Portland leaders struggling to crack down on public drug use. Critics have accused California's Proposition 47 – signed into law in 2014 – of deteriorating San Francisco, as it reclassified six minor felony offenses as misdemeanors in the state of California – including shoplifting less than $950 and drug possession. Read On The Fox News App In his column, Kristof admitted to waking up from his own belief that these more compassionate policies were good for the community after seeing what befell his friend, a homeless fentanyl addict. "As a good liberal, I used to oppose arresting people for using drugs. They need health care, not handcuffs, I thought. But then to my surprise and dismay, I found myself praying that my old pal Drew Goff would be arrested," the columnist reflected. Kristof noted how Portland's drug laws were so lax compared to laws regarding alcohol or cigarette consumption, stating, "In Portland, a person could be arrested for drinking a beer on the sidewalk but until recently not for smoking fentanyl. Smoking cigarettes in public places was often limited or banned on the West Coast while fentanyl use was tolerated." The column will appear in Sunday's print edition of The New York Times. Overseas Meth Sent To Us Election Building Shuts Down Office For Hours Kristof broke down the crisis at large, writing, "The United States has lost more than one million people to overdoses since 2000 — more than the number of Americans lost in all wars in the past 150 years put together, including both World Wars." However, the author did not revert to advocating for the tough on crime policies pushed by Republicans, reserving plenty of criticism for that. He added, "Drew's journey constitutes a rebuke to liberals and conservatives alike. Drew is the third generation in his family to wrestle with addiction, and his life reflects the failure of the right's half-century war on drugs, fought with only the criminal justice toolbox." He declared that "neither Democrats nor Republicans have tackled the problem with the seriousness or nuance it deserves." Still, he kept his focus on the fact that West Coast areas decriminalizing and destigmatizing drug use has fueled the crisis. "Oregon decriminalized possession of small amounts of hard drugs in a 2020 referendum, and Drew says that the lack of penalties played a role in his decision to return to drugs. 'The benefits outweighed the consequences for me,' he said." The author pointed out that while promoting less punitive drug policies, people on the West Coast became too reluctant to "judge people's choices," a dynamic that led to the drug crisis spiraling. 'Captain America: Brave New World' Star Says The Character Should Not Represent America He cited the executive director of a Portland-based addiction prevention center, who articulated the proper approach people should have to addicts: "'It's not OK to stigmatize drug users,' he told me. "It is imperative to stigmatize drug use.'" Kristof added the director's point that harm reduction saves lives, but the best way to save lives is to establish "norms against drug use." The author then offered his own solutions to the crisis that blend compassion for addicts with more traditional measures like incarceration. "The implication is that we should be less dogmatic and navigate a middle path. The right reaches instinctively for criminal sanctions, and the left for supportive harm reduction, but an effective toolbox requires both sticks and carrots." Mentioning his friend once again, who he said got his life back thanks to treatment programs while in jail, Kristof wrote, "Drew made poor choices, but there's plenty of blame to go around. Conservatives resisted the social safety net that might have helped him in childhood, and liberals coddled him with a nonjudgmental tolerance that mired him in addiction. Whatever our politics, we all need a rethink."'Original article source: NYT columnist rejects the 'good liberal' stance on drugs, blames 'permissive liberal culture' on west coast
