Podcasts about john jay college

This week on Economic Update, Professor Wolff begins by presenting updates on the death of libertarianism and the rise of US economic nationalism, and US universities become big businesses, governed by money concerns. In the episode's second half, Professor Wolff interviews Professor Geert Dhondt, the Chair of the Economics Department and Economics Professor at John Jay College of the City University of New York, on how colleges and universities are reacting to Trump's attack on higher education.   The d@w Team Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff is a DemocracyatWork.info Inc. production. We make it a point to provide the show free of ads and rely on viewer support to continue doing so. You can support our work by joining our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/democracyatwork Or you can go to our website: https://www.democracyatwork.info/donate   Every donation counts and helps us provide a larger audience with the information they need to better understand the events around the world they can't get anywhere else. We want to thank our devoted community of supporters who help make this show and others we produce possible each week.1:01 We kindly ask you to also support the work we do by encouraging others to subscribe to our YouTube channel and website: www.democracyatwork.info

✌️Upgrade your subscription if you want to hear the full conversation: http://bit.ly/3OJJRO9

Pam Brown is a multi-faceted writer, activist, and wellness entrepreneur whose activism includes protesting the Iraq War with African American Women United for Peace & Justice, Occupy Wall Street, and the Occupy Student Debt Campaign. Pam was also the co-host of the WBAI/Pacifica Radio Morning Show and an adjunct professor of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The New School. Ever the academic, she has degrees in Philosophy, Media Studies, and Sociology.   Pam traveled to Occupied Palestine with fellow filmmakers and activists to document Palestinian organizing for liberation. In this episode, we talk about protesting, revolution, racial capitalism, and so much more.   Welcome to 차 with Laura and Leah! Cha is a podcast and video series featuring conversations with our friends over tea. We are two diasporic Korean women who were inspired by Nina Simone's quote, “An artist's duty is to reflect the times.” Cha is our offering to the collective and we hope our conversations inspire you to start having meaningful dialogues and reflections with your own communities. So make sure to brew a pot of cha and join our conversations about art, spirituality, culture, and liberation.  Links Pam Substack Pam Website Pam Instagram Laura Instagram Laura Website Laura YouTube Leah Instagram Leah Substack Leah YouTube  

Pam Brown is a multi-faceted writer, activist, and wellness entrepreneur whose activism includes protesting the Iraq War with African American Women United for Peace & Justice, Occupy Wall Street, and the Occupy Student Debt Campaign. Pam was also the co-host of the WBAI/Pacifica Radio Morning Show and an adjunct professor of sociology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The New School. Ever the academic, she has degrees in Philosophy, Media Studies, and Sociology.Pam traveled to Occupied Palestine with fellow filmmakers and activists to document Palestinian organizing for liberation. In this episode, we talk about protesting, revolution, racial capitalism, and so much more.Welcome to 차 with Laura and Leah! Cha is a podcast and video series featuring conversations with our friends over tea. We are two diasporic Korean women who were inspired by Nina Simone's quote, “An artist's duty is to reflect the times.” Cha is our offering to the collective and we hope our conversations inspire you to start having meaningful dialogues and reflections with your own communities. So make sure to brew a pot of cha and join our conversations about art, spirituality, culture, and liberation. LinksPam SubstackPam WebsiteLaura InstagramLaura WebsiteLaura YouTubeLeah InstagramLeah SubstackLeah YouTube

Civil rights groups in New York City have filed a lawsuit challenging the NYPD's gang database, which these groups call discriminatory. Meanwhile, City Council and the Adams administration have clashed over the issue. Babe Howell, professor at CUNY School of Law, and Peter Moskos, professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, former Baltimore City police officer and author of Back from the Brink: Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop (Oxford University Press, 2025), debate the efficacy of the gang database 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice colleagues, Dr. Nathan Lents (Biology) and Dr. Olivera Jokić (English and Gender Studies), discuss Dr. Lents's new book, The Sexual Evolution: How 500 million years of sex, gender and mating shape modern relationships. Visit IndoorVoicesPodcast.com for more info.

Gabrielle Salfati is a Professor of Psychology and the Director of the Investigative Psychology Research Unit at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Her 25+ year career to date has been focused on serving the law enforcement and mental health practitioner community. She has developed and spearheaded initiatives to prioritize best practice in translation of scientific evidence to be applicable in practice through the development of practitioner-focused training, and trains law enforcement officers, crime analysts, forensic psychologists and other criminal justice and mental health professionals. She is part of the first group of people who emerged within the new field of Investigative Psychology, and was instrumental in its development as an international research field on the empirical analysis of violent criminal behavior. Her main areas of expertise relates to how psychology is applied to police investigations, in particular with reference to behavioral crime scene analysis, offender profiling, and linking serial crime. All of her work has focused on developing evidence-based practice tools for law enforcement and the crime analysis field, specifically as it pertains to behavioral analysis, has been done in collaboration with law enforcement agencies internationally. https://www.PoliceScienceDr.com

State Your P.E.A.C.E.: Dave Wolffe Fortieth Episode: Dave developed the Anger Management Power (A.M.P.) Program that's been used with more than 1,000 teens and 600 others, including parents, college students, and professionals who work with young people. It's been used with Dispute Resolution and Teacher Education students in several New York area colleges and with parent and professional groups. Dave is committed to helping young people manage their anger in positive ways, to giving them information and methods by which to curtail bullying, and to helping adults who work with youngsters save them from physical, emotional or psychological pain. Dave has been an Adjunct Lecturer/Anger Management Specialist at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, teaching P.E.A.C.E. (Peace Enhancement Attained-Collaborative Efforts) and a teacher and guidance counselor in the New York City Department of Education. He joins me for what's sure to be an hour of enlightenment and learning. Video Version:  https://www.youtube.com/live/ahH2Tvl0I-8?si=lF0I8ddqzyrcOeox Learn more about Mark here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4cXoftnMYJ7bREYG-K9eng https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-anxious-voyage/about/?viewAsMember=true https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100095313165139 https://www.linkedin.com/in/markobrien/ https://www.facebook.com/MarkNelsonOBrien https://www.facebook.com/MartinTheMarlin/ mark@obriencg.com

In this episode of Spill the Tea, host Jason Blitman is joined by professor Nathan H. Lents (The Sexual Evolution) to understand the sexual history of humans to better understand how we got here. They talk about the expansive relationship to sex and sexulaity that humans used to have, how our approach to sex and gender comes from hundreds of millions of years of sexual evolution, social and economic monogamy vs sexual monogamy, and the importance of learning and communicating. Nathan H. Lents is a professor of biology at John Jay College, CUNY, and the author of Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in Animals. He has appeared as a scientific expert in a range of national media, including The TODAY Show, NPR, Access Hollywood, 48 Hours, and Al Jazeera America. He lives in Queens, NY.SUBSTACK!https://gaysreading.substack.com/ BOOK CLUB!Use code GAYSREADING at checkout to get first book for only $4 + free shipping! Restrictions apply.http://aardvarkbookclub.com WATCH!https://youtube.com/@gaysreading FOLLOW!Instagram: @gaysreading | @jasonblitmanBluesky: @gaysreading | @jasonblitmanCONTACT!hello@gaysreading.com

Operations Corrupt America and the World Douglas Valentine Author of three books on CIA operations, Valentine's research into CIA activities began when CIA Director William Colby gave him free access to interview CIA officials who had been involved in various aspects of the Phoenix program in South Vietnam. It was a permission Colby was to regret. The CIA would rescind it, making every effort to impede publication of The Phoenix Program, which documented the CIA's elaborate system of population surveillance, control, entrapment, imprisonment, torture and assassination in Vietnam.While researching Phoenix, Valentine learned that the CIA allowed opium and heroin to flow from its secret bases in Laos, to generals and politicians on its payroll in South Vietnam. His investigations into this illegal activity focused on the CIA's relationship with the federal drugs agencies mandated by Congress to stop illegal drugs from entering the United States. Based on interviews with senior officials, Valentine wrote two subsequent books, The Strength of the Wolf and The Strength of the Pack, showing how the CIA infiltrated federal drug law enforcement agencies and commandeered their executive management, intelligence and foreign operations staffs in order to ensure that the flow of drugs continues unimpeded to traffickers and foreign officials in its employ.Ultimately, portions of his research materials would be archived at the National Security Archive, Texas Tech University's Vietnam Center, and John Jay College.This book includes excerpts from the above titles along with subsequent articles and transcripts of interviews on a range of current topics, with a view to shedding light on the systemic dimensions of the CIA's ongoing illegal and extra-legal activities. These terrorism and drug law enforcement articles and interviews illustrate how the CIA's activities impact social and political movements abroad and in the United States.A common theme is the CIA's ability to deceive and propagandize the American public through its impenetrable government-sanctioned shield of official secrecy and plausible deniability.Though investigated by the Church Committee in 1975, CIA praxis then continues to inform CIA praxis now. Valentine tracks its steady infiltration into practices targeting the last population to be subjected to the exigencies of the American empire: the American people.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

For almost two centuries, New York has used Ward's Island as a space to house its most marginalized residents. Philip T. Yanos, a professor of psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, grew up on the island in the 1970s on the grounds of the Manhattan State Hospital, where his dad worked as a psychiatrist. Yanos has written a new book, Exiles in New York City: Warehousing the Marginalized on Ward's Island, and he discusses his research and listeners who've visited or lived on Ward's Island share their stories.

Show NotesBrain injuries are often described as an invisible disability.  You don't necessarily know just by looking at somebody that they have a brain injury, and they may not even know they have one. But inside, things can be very different. The World Health Organization has identified brain injury as a significant public health concern, and traumatic brain injuries are a major cause of death and disability in the United States. Without the right care or resources, it's easy for these injuries to go unnoticed and untreated.  In this episode, Jordyn speaks with Research Assistant Professor Jennifer McMahon about her combined work in Neuropsychology and forensic psychology to protect and advocate for justice-involved individuals. McMahon helps run The Brain Injury Screening Program which is housed in The Denver Forensic Institute for Research, Service and Training, also known as Denver FIRST. Jennifer McMahon is a research assistant professor at the University of Denver. As Program Director at Denver FIRST (Forensic Institute for Research Service and Training) McMahon oversees the community serving forensic programs. She graduated with a PhD in clinical psychology from John Jay College and a master's degree in forensic psychology from DU.More InformationThe Denver Forensic Institute for Research, Service and Training (Denver FIRST) Neuropsychologist Kim Gorgens Helps Rebuild Lives After TBIs Grant Greenlights Denver FIRST's Brain Injuries Screening Program

Christian Parenti, Professor of Economics at John Jay College, City University of New York and author of Radical Hamilton: Economic Lessons from a Misunderstood Founder (Verso, 2020), returns to the show with a searing analysis of the US political scene and various international theatres. Kicking off with an evaluation of the Trump v2.0 administration, Parenti reviews some of Trump's pre-presidential promises, from the Jeffrey Epstein file dump that was vastly redacted to Trump's enthralment with the Israeli lobby. Delving into the Israeli lobby, deeply entrenched within the US government, Parenti notes that this “lobby” is much more than simply monetary, and suggests that it is much more entrenched within the US political system. Parenti also develops a deeper examination of the war in Ukraine and the “demonology” of Russia within legacy media that has taken up the Cold War era model of anti-Communism by eliding the fact that some of Ukraine's oblasts (Donetsk and Luhansk) are still occupied by Ukrainian Nazis. Observing how the domestic pressure upon Putin is coming from the Communists and the far-right parties, both highly critical of Putn's longstanding abandonment of the Russian people who have been militarily occupied by Ukrainian forces wearing swastikas, Parentis evidences the machinations within the US proxy war against Russia from its provisions of munitions to Ukraine to the Ukrainian government's banning the Russian language in 2019 and Law 5371 which denies unionisation, exempting workers in companies with fewer than 250 employees from the coverage of collective agreements. Parenti also discusses the situation of free speech in the United States that is currently being eroded, specifically regarding any criticism of both the Israeli government and Zionism, as he explores the broader questions of academic freedom and anti-war sentiment within American universities where today the managerial class of university administrators within these institutions outnumbers faculty while itinerant workers with PhDs, the adjunct class, provide approximately 78% of all university teaching. Get full access to Savage Minds at savageminds.substack.com/subscribe

A coalition of educators and allies has come together to push back against a variety of different kinds of attacks on higher education and students at colleges and universities, particularly in the United States. This group is driven by the belief that a democracy is only as strong as its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual integrity, human diversity, and individual dignity. The impetus among this particular group of academics and staff members is to make sure that students at all the campuses, in all the programs at those campuses across the United States are supported and free to engage in their chosen courses of study. The various ways in which this mission is being attacked or undermined, with the slashing of grants, attempts to control curriculum, freezing of campus free speech, snatching of students off the streets, and threats to the bottom line all contribute to destabilizing the educational paths of students, and the ability of the faculty and the staff to provide students with the education, research opportunities, and higher education experiences they are seeking at these institutions. I am joined on this installment of PostScript by three members of an organic group of educators—across disciplines—who came together in the early days of the new Trump Administration to try to figure out how to best support students at different institutions. One of the results of this collaboration among academics and educators across disciplines, institutions, and parts of the country, was to craft a letter directed at university administrators, governmental entities, and the public, explaining the value and import of education, especially in a democracy, and the need for a diversity of voices and contributors to that enterprise. I discuss the origin of the group, the genesis of the letter (which is available to sign here), and the deep concerns among those who work in higher education in the United States with Alison Gash, Daniel Laurison, and Nathan Lents. Alison Gash is Professor of Political Science and Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon. Daniel Laurison is Associate Professor of Sociology at Swarthmore College, the former Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Sociology, and a 2021-2023 Carnegie Fellow. Nathan Lents is Professor of Biology at John Jay College, Links: We are Higher Ed Letter: Speaking Out for Democracy and US Higher Education We are Higher Ed Website: https://www.wearehighered.org/ Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Today's guest is Peter Moskos, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He spent two years as a police officer in Baltimore. I asked him to come on and talk about his new book, Back from the Brink, Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop. It's one of my favorite books I've read this year (and it was one of my three book recommendations on Ezra Klein's show last week).Peter spoke with hundreds of police officers and NYC officials to understand and describe exactly how the city's leaders in the early 1990s managed to drive down crime so successfully.We discussed:* How bad did things get in the 1970s?* Why did processing an arrest take so long?* What did Bill Bratton and other key leaders do differently?* How did police get rid of the squeegee men?I've included my reading list at the bottom of this piece. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits.Subscribe for one new interview a week.Peter, how would you describe yourself?I would say I'm a criminologist: my background is sociology, but I am not in the sociology department. I'm not so big on theory, and sociology has a lot of theory. I was a grad student at Harvard in sociology and worked as a police officer [in Baltimore] and that became my dissertation and first book, Cop in the Hood. I've somewhat banked my career on those 20 months in the police department.Not a lot of sociologists spend a couple of years working a police beat.It's generally frowned upon, both for methodological reasons and issues of bias. But there is also an ideological opposition in a lot of academia to policing. It's seen as going to the dark side and something to be condemned, not understood.Sociologists said crime can't go down unless we fix society first. It's caused by poverty, racism, unemployment, and social and economic factors — they're called the root causes. But they don't seem to have a great impact on crime, as important as they are. When I'm in grad school, murders dropped 30-40% in New York City. At the same time, Mayor Giuliani is slashing social spending, and poverty is increasing. The whole academic field is just wrong. I thought it an interesting field to get into.We're going to talk about your new book, which is called Back from the Brink, Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop. I had a blast reading it. Tell me about the process of writing it.A lot of this is oral history, basically. But supposedly people don't like buying books that are called oral histories. It is told entirely from the perspective of police officers who were on the job at the time. I would not pretend I talked to everyone, because there were 30,000+ cops around, but I spoke to many cops and to all the major players involved in the 1990s crime drop in New York City.I was born in the ‘90s, and I had no idea about a crazy statistic you cite: 25% of the entire national crime decline was attributable to New York City's crime decline.In one year, yeah. One of the things people say to diminish the role of policing is that the crime drop happened everywhere — and it did end up happening almost everywhere. But I think that is partly because what happened in New York City was a lot of hard work, but it wasn't that complicated. It was very easy to propagate, and people came to New York to find out what was going on. You could see results, literally in a matter of months.It happened first in New York City. Really, it happened first in the subways and that's interesting, because if crime goes down in the subways [which, at the time, fell under the separate New York City Transit Police] and not in the rest of the city, you say, “What is going on in the subways that is unique?” It was the exact same strategies and leadership that later transformed the NYPD [New York Police Department].Set the scene: What was the state of crime and disorder in New York in the ‘70s and into the ‘80s?Long story short, it was bad. Crime in New York was a big problem from the late ‘60s up to the mid ‘90s, and the ‘70s is when the people who became the leaders started their careers. So these were defining moments. The city was almost bankrupt in 1975 and laid off 5,000 cops; 3,000 for a long period of time. That was arguably the nadir. It scarred the police department and the city.Eventually, the city got its finances in order and came to the realization that “we've got a big crime problem too.” That crime problem really came to a head with crack cocaine. Robberies peaked in New York City in 1980. There were above 100,000 robberies in 1981, and those are just reported robberies. A lot of people get robbed and just say, “It's not worth it to report,” or, “I'm going to work,” or, “Cops aren't going to do anything.” The number of robberies and car thefts was amazingly high. The trauma, the impact on the city and on urban space, and people's perception of fear, all comes from that. If you're afraid of crime, it's high up on the hierarchy of needs.To some extent, those lessons have been lost or forgotten. Last year there were 16,600 [robberies], which is a huge increase from a few years ago, but we're still talking an 85% reduction compared to the worst years. It supposedly wasn't possible. What I wanted to get into in Back from the Brink was the actual mechanisms of the crime drop. I did about fifty formal interviews and hundreds of informal interviews building the story. By and large, people were telling the same story.In 1975, the city almost goes bankrupt. It's cutting costs everywhere, and it lays off more than 5,000 cops, about 20% of the force, in one day. There's not a new police academy class until 1979, four years later. Talk to me about where the NYPD was at that time.They were retrenched, and the cops were demoralized because “This is how the city treats us?” The actual process of laying off the cops itself was just brutal: they went to work, and were told once they got to work that they were no longer cops. “Give me your badge, give me your gun."The city also was dealing with crime, disorder, and racial unrest. The police department was worried about corruption, which was a legacy of the Knapp Commission [which investigated NYPD corruption] and [Frank] Serpico [a whistleblowing officer]. It's an old police adage, that if you don't work, you can't get in trouble. That became very much the standard way of doing things. Keep your head low, stay out of trouble, and you'll collect your paycheck and go home.You talk about the blackout in 1977, when much of the city lost power and you have widespread looting and arson. 13,000 off-duty cops get called in during the emergency, and only about 5,000 show up, which is a remarkable sign of the state of morale.The person in my book who's talking about that is Louis Anemone. He showed up because his neighbor and friend and partner was there, and he's got to help him. It was very much an in-the-foxholes experience. I contrast that with the more recent blackout, in which the city went and had a big block party instead. That is reflective of the change that happened in the city.In the mid-80s you get the crack cocaine epidemic. Talk to me about how police respond.From a political perspective, that era coincided with David Dinkins as [New York City's first black] mayor. He was universally disliked, to put it mildly, by white and black police officers alike. He was seen as hands off. He was elected in part to improve racial relations in New York City, to mitigate racial strife, but in Crown Heights and Washington Heights, there were riots, and racial relations got worse. He failed at the level he was supposed to be good at. Crime and quality of life were the major issues in that election.Dinkins's approach to the violence is centered around what they called “community policing.” Will you describe how Dinkins and political leaders in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s thought about policing?This is under Ben Ward, the [NYPD] Commissioner at the time. The mayor appoints the police commissioner — and the buck does stop with the mayor — but the mayor is not actively involved in day-to-day operations. That part does go down to the police department.Community policing was seen as an attempt to improve relations between the police and the community. The real goal was to lessen racial strife and unrest between black (and to a lesser extent Hispanic) communities and the NYPD. Going back to the ‘60s, New York had been rocked by continued unrest in neighborhoods like Central Harlem, East New York, and Bushwick. Community policing was seen as saying that police are partly to blame, and we want to improve relations. Some of it was an attempt to get the community more involved in crime fighting.It's tough. It involves a certain rosy view of the community, but that part of the community isn't causing the problems. It avoids the fact there are people who are actively criming and are willing to hurt people who get in their way. Community policing doesn't really address the active criminal element, that is a small part of any community, including high-crime communities.Arrests increased drastically during this era, more than in the ‘90s with broken windows policing. If the idea is to have fewer arrests, it didn't happen in the ‘80s. Some good came out of it, because it did encourage cops to be a bit more active and cops are incentivized by overtime. Arrests were so incredibly time-consuming, which kind of defeated the purpose of community policing. If you made an arrest in that era, there was a good chance you might spend literally 24 hours processing the arrest.Will you describe what goes into that 24 hours?From my experience policing in Baltimore, I knew arrests were time-consuming and paperwork redundant, but I could process a simple arrest in an hour or two. Even a complicated one that involved juveniles and guns and drugs, we're talking six to eight hours.In the ‘80s, Bob Davin, [in the] Transit Police, would say they'd make an arrest, process at the local precinct, search him in front of a desk officer, print him, and then they would have to get a radio car off patrol to drive you down to central booking at 100 Centre Street [New York City Criminal Court]. Then they would fingerprint him. They didn't have the live scan fingerprints machine, it was all ink. It had to be faxed up to Albany and the FBI to see if it hit on any warrant federally and for positive identification of the person. Sometimes it took 12 hours to have the prints come back and the perp would be remanded until that time. Then you'd have to wait for the prosecutor to get their act together and to review all the paperwork. You couldn't consider bail unless the prints came back either positive or negative and then you would have that initial arraignment and the cop could then go home. There are a lot of moving parts, and they moved at a glacial pace.The system often doesn't work 24/7. A lot of this has changed, but some of it was having to wait until 9 am for people to show up to go to work, because it's not a single system. The courts, the jails, and policing all march to their own drummer, and that created a level of inefficiency.So much of the nitty-gritty of what cops actually do is boring, behind-the-scenes stuff: How do we speed up the paperwork? Can we group prisoners together? Can we do some of this at the police station instead of taking it downtown? Is all of this necessary? Can we cooperate with the various prosecutors? There are five different prosecutors in New York City, one for each borough.There's not a great incentive to streamline this. Cops enjoyed the overtime. That's one of the reasons they would make arrests. So during this time, if a cop makes an arrest for drug dealing, that cop is gone and no cop was there to replace him. If it's a minor arrest, there's a good chance in the long run charges will be dropped anyway. And you're taking cops off the street. In that sense, it's lose-lose. But, you have to think, “What's the alternative?”Bob Davin is a fascinating guy. There's a famous picture from 1981 by Martha Cooper of two cops on a subway train. It's graffitied up and they're in their leather jackets and look like cops from the ‘70s. Martha Cooper graciously gave me permission to use the picture, but she said, "You have to indemnify me because I don't have a release form. I don't know who the cops are." I said, "Martha, I do know who the cop is, because he's in my book and he loves the picture.” Bob Davin is the cop on the right.Davin says that things started to get more efficient. They had hub sites in the late ‘80s or ‘90s, so precincts in the north of Manhattan could bring their prisoners there, and you wouldn't have to take a car out of service to go back to Central Booking and deal with traffic. They started collecting prisoners and bringing them en masse on a small school bus, and that would cut into overtime. Then moving to electronic scan fingerprints drastically saves time waiting for those to come back.These improvements were made, but some of them involve collective bargaining with unions, to limit overtime and arrests that are made for the pure purpose of overtime. You want cops making arrests for the right reason and not simply to make money. But boy, there was a lot of money made in arrests.In 1991, you have the infamous Crown Heights riot in Brooklyn. Racial tensions kick off. It's a nightmare for the mayor, there's this sense that he has lost control. The following year, you have this infamous police protest at City Hall where it becomes clear the relationship between the cops and the mayor has totally evaporated. How does all that play into the mayoral race between Dinkins and Giuliani?It was unintentional, but a lot of the blame for Crown Heights falls on the police department. The part of the story that is better known is that there was a procession for a Hasidic rabbi that was led by a police car. He would go to his wife's grave, and he got a little three-car motorcade. At some point, the police look at this and go "Why are we doing this? We're going to change it." The man who made the deal said ‘I"m retiring in a couple weeks, can we just leave it till then? Because I gave him my word." They're like, "Alright, whatever."This motor car procession is then involved in a car crash, and a young child named Gavin Cato is killed, and another girl is severely injured. The volunteer, Jewish-run ambulance shows up and decides they don't have the equipment: they call for a professional city ambulance. Once that ambulance is on the way, they take the mildly-injured Jewish people to the hospital. The rumor starts that the Jewish ambulance abandoned the black children to die.This isn't the first incident. There's long been strife over property and who the landlord is. But this was the spark that set off riots. A young Jewish man was randomly attacked on the street and was killed.As an aside, he also shouldn't have died, but at the hospital they missed internal bleeding.Meanwhile, the police department has no real leadership at the time. One chief is going to retire, another is on vacation, a third doesn't know what he's doing, and basically everyone is afraid to do anything. So police do nothing. They pull back, and you have three days of very anti-Semitic riots. Crowds chanting "Kill the Jews" and marching on the Lubavitch Hasidic Headquarters. Al Sharpton shows up. The riots are blamed on Dinkins, which is partly fair, but a lot of that's on the NYPD. Finally, the mayor and the police commissioner go to see what's going on and they get attacked. It's the only time in New York City history that there's ever been an emergency call from the police commissioner's car. People are throwing rocks at it.It took three days to realise this, but that's when they say “We have to do something here,” and they gather a group of officers who later become many of Bratton's main chiefs at the time [Bill Bratton was Commissioner of the NYPD from 1994-1996, under Giuliani]: Mike Julian, Louis Anemone, Ray Kelly, and [John] Timoney. They end the unrest in a day. They allow people to march, they get the police department to set rules. It still goes on for a bit, but no one gets hurt after that, and that's it.It was a huge, national story at the time, but a lot of the details were not covered. Reporters were taken from their car and beaten and stripped. The significance was downplayed at the time, especially by the New York Times, I would say.That's followed by the Washington Heights riots, which is a different story. A drug dealer was shot and killed by cops. There were rumors, which were proven to be false, that he was executed and unarmed. Then there were three days of rioting there. It wasn't quite as severe, but 53 cops were hurt, 120 stores were set on fire, and Mayor Dinkins paid for the victim's family to go to the Dominican Republic for the funeral. The police perspective again was, “You're picking the wrong side here.”Then there's the so-called Police Riot at City Hall. Nominally, it was about the CCRB, the Civilian Complaint Review Board, and setting up an accountability mechanism to control cops. But really it was just an anti-Dinkins protest. It was drunken and unruly. The cops stormed the steps of City Hall. I have the account of one of the cops who was on the top of those steps looking at this mob of cops storming to him, and he's getting worried he's going to be killed in a crush. There were racist chants from off-duty cops in the crowd. It did not reflect well on police officers. But it showed this hatred of David Dinkins, who was seen as siding with criminals and being anti-police. The irony is that Dinkins is the one who ends up hiring all the cops that Giuliani gets credit for.In the “Safe Streets, Safe City” program?Yes. That was because a white tourist, Brian Watkins, was killed in a subway station protecting his parents who were getting robbed. That led to the famous headline [in the New York Post] of “Dave, do something! Crime-ravaged city cries out for help.” He, with City Council President Peter Vallone, Sr., drafted and pushed through this massive hiring of police officers, “Safe Streets, Safe City.”The hiring wasn't fast-tracked. It might be because Dinkins's people didn't really want more cops. But it was a Dinkins push that got a massive hiring of cops. When the first huge class of police officers graduated, Bill Bratton was there and not David Dinkins.Some interviewees in your book talk about how there's physically not enough room in the police academies at this time, so they have to run classes 24/7. You cycle cohorts in and out of the same classroom, because there are too many new cops for the facilities.You have thousands of cops going through it at once. Everyone describes it as quite a chaotic scene. But it would have been hard to do what the NYPD did without those cops. Ray Kelly, who was police commissioner under Dinkins at the end [from 1992 to 1994] before he became police commissioner for 12 years under Bloomberg [from 2002 to 2013] probably could have done something with those cops too, but he never had the chance, because the mayoral leadership at the time was much more limiting in what they wanted cops to do.Crime starts declining slowly in the first few years of the ‘90s under Dinkins, and then in ‘93 Giuliani wins a squeaker of a mayoral election against Dinkins.One of the major issues was the then-notorious “squeegee men” of New York City. These were guys who would go to cars stopped at bridges and tunnel entrances and would rub a squeegee over the windshield asking for money. It was unpleasant, intimidating, and unwanted, and it was seen as one of those things that were just inevitable. Like graffiti on the subway in the ‘80s. Nothing we can do about it because these poor people don't have jobs or housing or whatever.The irony is that Bratton and Giuliani were happy to take credit for that, and it was an issue in the mayoral campaign, but it was solved under David Dinkins and Ray Kelly and Mike Julian with the help of George Kelling [who, with James Wilson, came up with broken windows theory]. But they never got credit for it. One wonders if, had they done that just a few months earlier, it would have shifted the entire campaign and we'd have a different course of history in New York City.It's a great example of a couple of things that several people in your book talk about. One is that disorder is often caused by a very small set of individuals. There's only like 70 squeegee men, yet everybody sees them, because they're posted up at the main tunnel and bridge entrances to Manhattan. And getting them off the streets solves the problem entirely.Another emphasis in the book is how perceptions of crime are central. You quote Jack Maple, the father of Compstat, as saying, “A murder on the subway counts as a multiple murder up on the street, because everybody feels like that's their subway.” The particular locations of crimes really affect public perception.Absolutely. Perception is reality for a lot of these things, because most people aren't victimized by crime. But when people perceive that no one is in control they feel less safe. It's not that this perception is false, it just might not be directly related to an actual criminal act.The other thing I try to show is that it's not just saying, “We've got to get rid of squeegee men. How do you do it?” They had tried before, but this is why you need smart cops and good leadership, because it's a problem-solving technique, and the way to get rid of graffiti is different to the way you get rid of squeegee men.This book is in opposition to those who just say, “We can't police our way out of this problem.” No, we can. We can't police our way out of every problem. But if you define the problem as, we don't want people at intersections with squeegees, of course we can police our way out of the problem, using legal constitutional tools. You need the political will. And then the hard work starts, because you have to figure out how to actually do it.Will you describe how they tackle the squeegee men problem?Mike Julian was behind it. They hired George Kelling, who's known for broken windows. They said, “These people are here to make money. So to just go there and make a few arrests isn't going to solve the problem.” First of all, he had to figure out what legal authority [to use], and he used Traffic Reg 44 [which prohibits pedestrians from soliciting vehicle occupants]. He talked to Norm Siegel of the NYCLU [New York Civil Liberties Union] about this, who did not want this crackdown to happen. But Norman said, “Okay, this is the law, I can't fight that one. You're doing it legally. It's all in the books.” And So that took away that opposition.But the relentless part of it is key. First they filmed people. Then, when it came to enforcement, they warned people. Then they cited people, and anybody that was left they arrested. They did not have to arrest many people, because the key is they did this every four hours. It was that that changed behavior, because even a simple arrest isn't going to necessarily deter someone if it's a productive way to make money. But being out there every four hours for a couple of weeks or months was enough to get people to do something else. What that something else is, we still don't know, but we solved the squeegee problem.So in 93, Giuliani is elected by something like 50,000 votes overall. Just as an aside, in Prince of the City, Fred Siegel describes something I had no idea about. There's a Puerto Rican Democratic Councilman who flips and supports Giuliani. Mayor Eric Adams, who at the time was the head of a nonprofit for black men in law enforcement, calls him a race traitor for doing that and for being married to a white woman. There was a remarkable level of racial vitriol in that race that I totally missed.10 years ago when I started this, I asked if I could interview then-Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams, and he said yes, and the interview kept getting rescheduled, and I said, “Eh, I don't need him.” It's a regret of mine. I should have pursued that, but coulda, woulda, shoulda.Giuliani is elected, and he campaigns very explicitly on a reducing crime and disorder platform. And he hires Bill Bratton. Tell me about Bratton coming on board as NYPD commissioner.Bratton grew up in Boston, was a police officer there, became head of the New York City Transit Police when that was a separate police department. Right before he becomes NYPD Commissioner, he's back in Boston, as the Chief of Police there, and there is a movement among certain people to get Bratton the NYC job. They succeed in that, and Bratton is a very confident man. He very much took a broken windows approach and said, “We are going to focus on crime.” He has a right-hand man by the name of Jack Maple who he knows from the Transit Police. Maple is just a lieutenant in transit, and Bratton makes him the de facto number two man in the police department.Jack Maple passed away in 2001 and I didn't know what I was going to do, because it's hard to interview a man who's no longer alive. Chris Mitchell co-wrote Jack Maple's autobiography called Crime Fighter and he graciously gave me all the micro-cassettes of the original interviews he conducted with Maple around 1998. Everyone has a Jack Maple story. He's probably the most important character in Back from the Brink.Jack Maple comes in, no one really knows who he is, no one respects him because he was just a lieutenant in Transit. He goes around and asks a basic question — this is 1994 — he says, “How many people were shot in New York City in 1993?” And nobody knows. That is the state of crime-fighting in New York City before this era. There might have been 7,000 people shot in New York City in 1990 and we just don't know, even to this day.One citation from your book: in 1993, an average of 16 people were shot every day. Which is just remarkable.And remember, shootings have been declining for two or three years before that! But nobody knew, because they weren't keeping track of shootings, because it's not one of the FBI Uniform Crime Report [which tracks crime data nationally] index crimes. But wouldn't you be curious? It took Jack Maple to be curious, so he made people count, and it was findable, but you had to go through every aggravated assault and see if a gun was involved. You had to go through every murder from the previous year and see if it was a shooting. He did this. So we only have shooting data in New York City going back to 1993. It's just a simple process of caring.The super-short version of Back from the Brink is it was a change in mission statement: “We're going to care about crime.” Because they hadn't before. They cared about corruption, racial unrest, brutality, and scandal. They cared about the clearance rate for robbery a bit. You were supposed to make three arrests for every ten robberies. It didn't matter so much that you were stopping a pattern or arresting the right person, as long as you had three arrests for every ten reported crimes, that was fine.This is a story about people who cared. They're from this city — Bratton wasn't, but most of the rest are. They understood the trauma of violence and the fact that people with families were afraid to go outside, and nobody in the power structure seemed to care. So they made the NYPD care about this. Suddenly, the mid-level police executives, the precinct commanders, had to care. and the meetings weren't about keeping overtime down, instead they were about ”What are you doing to stop this shooting?”Tell listeners a little bit more about Jack Maple, because he's a remarkable character, and folks may not know what a kook he was.I think he was a little less kooky than he liked to present. His public persona was wearing a snazzy cat and spats and dressing like a fictional cartoon detective from his own mind, but he's a working-class guy from Queens who becomes a transit cop.When Bratton takes over, he writes a letter up the chain of command saying this is what we should do. Bratton read it and said, “This guy is smart.” Listening to 80 hours of Jack Maple, everyone correctly says he was a smart guy, but he had a very working-class demeanor and took to the elite lifestyle. He loved hanging out and getting fancy drinks at the Plaza Hotel. He was the idea man of the NYPD. Everyone has a Jack Maple imitation. “You're talking to the Jackster,” he'd say. He had smart people working under him who were supportive of this. But it was very much trying to figure out as they went along, because the city doesn't stop nor does it sleep.He was a bulls***er, but he's the one who came up with the basic outline of the strategy of crime reduction in New York City. He famously wrote it on a napkin at Elaine's, and it said, “First, we need to gather accurate and timely intelligence.” And that was, in essence, CompStat. “Then, we need to deploy our cops to where they need to be.” That was a big thing. He found out that cops weren't working: specialized units weren't working weekends and nights when the actual crime was happening. They had their excuses, but basically they wanted a cushy schedule. He changed that. Then, of course, you have to figure out what you're doing, what the effective tactics are. Then, constant follow up and assessment.You can't give up. You can't say “Problem solved.” A lot of people say it wasn't so much if your plan didn't work, you just needed a Plan B. It was the idea that throwing your hands in the air and saying, “What are you going to do?” that became notoriously unacceptable under Chief Anemone's stern demeanor at CompStat. These were not pleasant meetings. Those are the meetings that both propagated policies that work and held officers accountable. There was some humiliation going on, so CompStat was feared.Lots of folks hear CompStat and think about better tracking of crime locations and incidents. But as you flesh out, the meat on the bones of CompStat was this relentless follow-up. You'd have these weekly meetings early in the morning with all the precinct heads. There were relentless asks from the bosses, “What's going on in your district or in your precinct? Can you explain why this is happening? What are you doing to get these numbers down?” And follow-ups the following week or month. It was constant.CompStat is often thought of as high-tech computer stuff. It wasn't. There was nothing that couldn't have been done with old overhead projectors. It's just that no one had done it before. Billy Gorta says it's a glorified accountability system at a time when nobody knew anything about computers. Everyone now has access to crime maps on a computer. It was about actually gathering accurate, timely data.Bratton was very concerned that these numbers had to be right. It was getting everyone in the same room and saying, “This is what our focus is going to be now.” And getting people to care about crime victims, especially when those crime victims might be unsympathetic because of their demeanor, criminal activity, or a long arrest record. “We're going to care about every shooting, we're going to care about every murder.”Part of it was cracking down on illegal guns. There were hundreds of tactics. The federal prosecutors also played a key role. It was getting this cooperation. Once it started working and Giuliani made it a major part of claiming success as mayor, suddenly everyone wanted to be part of this, and you had other city agencies trying to figure it out. So it was a very positive feedback loop, once it was seen as a success.When Bratton came on the job, he said, “I'm going to bring down crime 15%.” No police commissioner had ever said that before. In the history of policing before 1994, no police commissioner ever promised a double-digit reduction in crime or even talked about it. People said “That's crazy.” It was done, and then year after year. That's the type of confidence that they had. They were surprised it worked as well as it did, but they all had the sense that there's a new captain on this ship, and we're trying new things. It was an age of ideas and experiment.And it was a very short time.That's the other thing that surprised me. Giuliani fired Bratton in the middle of ‘96.It's remarkable. Bratton comes in ‘94, and August 1994 is where you see crime drop off a cliff. You have this massive beginning of the reduction that continues.That inflection point is important for historical knowledge. I don't address alternatives that other people have proposed [to explain the fall in crime] — For example, the reduction in lead [in gasoline, paint, and water pipes] or legalized abortion with Roe v. Wade [proposed by Stephen Dubner].Reasonable people can differ. Back from the Brink focuses on the police part of the equation. Today, almost nobody, except for a few academics, says that police had nothing to do with the crime drop. That August inflection is key, because there is nothing in a lagged time analysis going back 20 years that is going to say that is the magic month where things happened. Yet if you look at what happened in CompStat, that's the month they started getting individual officer data, and noticing that most cops made zero arrests, and said, “Let's get them in the game as well.” And that seemed to be the key; that's when crime fell off the table. The meetings started in April, I believe, but August is really when the massive crime drop began.To your point about the confidence that crime could be driven down double digits year over year, there's a great quote you have from Jack Maple, where he says to a fellow cop, “This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel. As long as we have absolute control, we can absolutely drive this number into the floor.”One detail I enjoyed was that Jack Maple, when he was a transit cop, would camp out under a big refrigerator box with little holes cut out for eyes and sit on the subway platform waiting for crooks.For people who are interested in Jack Maple, it is worth reading his autobiography, Crime Fighter. Mike Daly wrote New York's Finest, which uses the same tapes that I had access to, and he is much more focused on that. He's actually the godfather of Jack Maple's son, who is currently a New York City police officer. But Maple and co were confident, and it turned out they were right.As well as having changes in tactics and approach and accountability across the NYPD, you also have a series of specific location cleanups. You have a specific initiative focused on the Port Authority, which is a cesspool at the time, an initiative in Times Square, the Bryant Park cleanup, and then Giuliani also focuses on organized crime on the Fulton Fish Market, and this open-air market in Harlem.I was struck that there was both this general accountability push in the NYPD through CompStat, and a relentless focus on cleaning up individual places that were hubs of disorder.I'm not certain the crime drop would have happened without reclamation of public spaces and business improvement districts. Bryant Park's a fascinating story because Dan Biederman, who heads the Corporation, said, “People just thought it was like a lost cause, this park can't be saved. The city is in a spiral of decline.” He uses Jane Jacobs' “eyes on the street” theory and then George Kelling and James Q. Wilson's broken windows theory. The park has money — not city money, but from local property owners — and it reopens in 1991 to great acclaim and is still a fabulous place to be. It showed for the first time that public space was worth saving and could be saved. New York City at the time needed that lesson. It's interesting that today, Bryant Park has no permanent police presence and less crime. Back in the ‘80s, Bryant Park had an active police presence and a lot more crime.The first class I ever taught when I started at John Jay College in 2004, I was talking about broken windows. A student in the class named Jeff Marshall, who is in my book, told me about Operation Alternatives at the Port Authority. He had been a Port Authority police officer at the time, and I had not heard of this. People are just unaware of this part of history. It very much has lessons for today, because in policing often there's nothing new under the sun. It's just repackaged, dusted off, and done again. The issue was, how do we make the Port Authority safe for passengers? How do we both help and get rid of people living in the bus terminal? It's a semi-public space, so it makes it difficult. There was a social services element about it, that was Operational Alternatives. A lot of people took advantage of that and got help. But the flip side was, you don't have to take services, but you can't stay here.I interviewed the manager of the bus terminal. He was so proud of what he did. He's a bureaucrat, a high-ranking one, but a port authority manager. He came from the George Washington Bridge, which he loved. And he wonders, what the hell am I going to do with this bus terminal? But the Port Authority cared, because they're a huge organization and that's the only thing with their name on it — They also control JFK Airport and bridges and tunnels and all the airports, but people call the bus terminal Port Authority.They gave him almost unlimited money and power and said, “Fix it please, do what you've got to do,” and he did. It was environmental design, giving police overtime so they'd be part of this, a big part of it was having a social service element so it wasn't just kicking people out with nowhere to go.Some of it was also setting up rules. This also helped Bratton in the subway, because this happened at the same time. The court ruled that you can enforce certain rules in the semi-public spaces. It was not clear until this moment whether it was constitutional or not. To be specific, you have a constitutional right to beg on the street, but you do not have a constitutional right to beg on the subway. That came down to a court decision. Had that not happened, I don't know if in the long run the crime drop would have happened.That court decision comes down to the specific point that it's not a free-speech right on the subway to panhandle, because people can't leave, because you've got them trapped in that space.You can't cross the street to get away from it. But it also recognized that it wasn't pure begging, that there was a gray area between aggressive begging and extortion and robbery.You note that in the early 1990s, one-third of subway commuters said they consciously avoided certain stations because of safety, and two thirds felt coerced to give money by aggressive panhandling.The folks in your book talk a lot about the 80/20 rule applying all over the place. That something like 20% of the people you catch are committing 80% of the crimes.There's a similar dynamic that you talk about on the subways, both in the book and in your commentary over the past couple years about disorder in New York. You say approximately 2,000 people with serious mental illness are at risk for street homelessness, and these people cycle through the cities, streets, subways, jails, and hospitals.What lessons from the ‘90s can be applied today for both helping those people and stopping them being a threat to others?Before the ‘80s and Reagan budget cuts there had been a psychiatric system that could help people. That largely got defunded. [Deinstitutionalization began in New York State earlier, in the 1960s.] We did not solve the problem of mental health or homelessness in the ‘90s, but we solved the problem of behavior. George Kelling [of broken windows theory] emphasized this repeatedly, and people would ignore it. We are not criminalizing homelessness or poverty. We're focusing on behavior that we are trying to change. People who willfully ignore that distinction almost assume that poor people are naturally disorderly or criminal, or that all homeless people are twitching and threatening other people. Even people with mental illness can behave in a public space.Times have changed a bit. I think there are different drugs now that make things arguably a bit worse. I am not a mental health expert, but we do need more involuntary commitment, not just for our sake, but for theirs, people who need help. I pass people daily, often the same person, basically decomposing on a subway stop in the cold. They are offered help by social services, and they say no. They should not be allowed to make that choice because they're literally dying on the street in front of us. Basic humanity demands that we be a little more aggressive in forcing people who are not making rational decisions, because now you have to be an imminent threat to yourself or others. That standard does need to change. But there also need to be mental health beds available for people in this condition.I don't know what the solution is to homelessness or mental health. But I do know the solution to public disorder on the subway and that's, regardless of your mental state or housing status, enforcing legal, constitutional rules, policing behavior. It does not involve locking everybody up. It involves drawing the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. It's amazing how much people will comply with those rules.That presents the idea that someone's in charge, it's not a free-for-all. You get that virtuous loop, which New York had achieved in 2014–2016, when crime was at an all-time low in the city. Then the politicians decided public order wasn't worth preserving anymore. These are political choices.I had a similar version of this conversation with a friend who was shocked that there were zero murders on the subway in 2017 and that that number was stable: you had one or two a year for several years in the mid-2010s.It was five or fewer a year from 1997 to 2019, and often one or two. Then you have zero in 2017. There were [ten in 2022]. It coincides perfectly with an order from [Mayor] de Blasio's office and the homeless czar [Director of Homeless Services Steven] Banks [which] told police to stop enforcing subway rules against loitering. The subways became — once again — a de facto homeless shelter. Getting rule-violating homeless people out of the subway in the late ‘80s was such a difficult and major accomplishment at the time, and to be fair it's not as bad as it was.The alternative was that homeless outreach was supposed to offer people services. When they decline, which 95% of people do, you're to leave them be. I would argue again, I don't think that's a more humane stance to take. But it's not just about them, it's about subway riders.There's one story that I think was relevant for you to tell. You were attacked this fall on a subway platform by a guy threatening to kill you. It turns out he's had a number of run-ins with the criminal justice system. Can you tell us where that guy is now?I believe he's in prison now. The only reason I know who it is is because I said, one day I'm going to see his picture in the New York Post because he's going to hurt somebody. Am I 100 percent certain it's Michael Blount who attacked me? No, but I'm willing to call him out by name because I believe it is. He was out of prison for raping a child, and he slashed his ex-girlfriend and pushed her on the subway tracks. And then was on the lam for a while. I look at him and the shape of his face, his height, age, build, complexion, and I go, that's got to be him.I wasn't hurt, but he gave me a sucker punch trying to knock me out and then chased me a bit threatening to kill me, and I believe he wanted to. It's the only time I ever was confronted by a person who I really believe wanted to kill me, and this includes policing in the Eastern District in Baltimore. It was an attempted misdemeanor assault in the long run. But I knew it wasn't about me. It was him. I assume he's going to stay in prison longer for what he did to his ex-girlfriend. But I never thought it would happen to me. I was lucky the punch didn't connect.Peter Moskos's new book is Back from the Brink, Inside the NYPD and New York City's Extraordinary 1990s Crime Drop.My reading listEssays:Johnny Hirschauer's reporting, including “A Failed 'Solution' to 'America's Mental Health Crisis',“ “Return to the Roots,” and “The Last Institutions.” “Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” by George L. Kelling and James Q. Wilson. ​“It's Time to Talk About America's Disorder Problem,” Charles Lehman.Books:Ghettoside: A True Story of Murder in America, Jill Leovy.​Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York, and the Genius of American Life, Fred Siegel.​ Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District, Peter Moskos.​Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic, Sam Quinones.​Bonfire of the Vanities, Tom Wolfe. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Christian Parenti joins us to discuss a number of his recent articles, each of which addresses aspects of the feckless, co-opted US Left. Christian Parenti is Professor of Economics at John Jay College, CUNY. His academic work focuses on: American economic history, environmental history, and the history of capitalism; climate change and sustainable energy; as well as war, policing, and political violence. His most recent bookis 'Radical Hamilton: Economic Lessons from a Misunderstood Founder'. This discussion is centered around three of his recent articles: The Cargo Cult of Woke How the Organized Left Got Covid Wrong, Learned to Love Lockdowns and Lost Its Mind: An Autopsy The Left-Wing Origins of ‘Deep State' Theory Special thanks to: Dana Chavarria, production Casey Moore, graphics Michelle Boley, animated intro Mock Orange, music

A coalition of educators and allies has come together to push back against a variety of different kinds of attacks on higher education and students at colleges and universities, particularly in the United States. This group is driven by the belief that a democracy is only as strong as its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual integrity, human diversity, and individual dignity. The impetus among this particular group of academics and staff members is to make sure that students at all the campuses, in all the programs at those campuses across the United States are supported and free to engage in their chosen courses of study. The various ways in which this mission is being attacked or undermined, with the slashing of grants, attempts to control curriculum, freezing of campus free speech, snatching of students off the streets, and threats to the bottom line all contribute to destabilizing the educational paths of students, and the ability of the faculty and the staff to provide students with the education, research opportunities, and higher education experiences they are seeking at these institutions. I am joined on this installment of PostScript by three members of an organic group of educators—across disciplines—who came together in the early days of the new Trump Administration to try to figure out how to best support students at different institutions. One of the results of this collaboration among academics and educators across disciplines, institutions, and parts of the country, was to craft a letter directed at university administrators, governmental entities, and the public, explaining the value and import of education, especially in a democracy, and the need for a diversity of voices and contributors to that enterprise. I discuss the origin of the group, the genesis of the letter (which is available to sign here), and the deep concerns among those who work in higher education in the United States with Alison Gash, Daniel Laurison, and Nathan Lents. Alison Gash is Professor of Political Science and Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon. Daniel Laurison is Associate Professor of Sociology at Swarthmore College, the former Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Sociology, and a 2021-2023 Carnegie Fellow. Nathan Lents is Professor of Biology at John Jay College, Links: We are Higher Ed Letter: Speaking Out for Democracy and US Higher Education We are Higher Ed Website: https://www.wearehighered.org/ Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

A coalition of educators and allies has come together to push back against a variety of different kinds of attacks on higher education and students at colleges and universities, particularly in the United States. This group is driven by the belief that a democracy is only as strong as its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual integrity, human diversity, and individual dignity. The impetus among this particular group of academics and staff members is to make sure that students at all the campuses, in all the programs at those campuses across the United States are supported and free to engage in their chosen courses of study. The various ways in which this mission is being attacked or undermined, with the slashing of grants, attempts to control curriculum, freezing of campus free speech, snatching of students off the streets, and threats to the bottom line all contribute to destabilizing the educational paths of students, and the ability of the faculty and the staff to provide students with the education, research opportunities, and higher education experiences they are seeking at these institutions. I am joined on this installment of PostScript by three members of an organic group of educators—across disciplines—who came together in the early days of the new Trump Administration to try to figure out how to best support students at different institutions. One of the results of this collaboration among academics and educators across disciplines, institutions, and parts of the country, was to craft a letter directed at university administrators, governmental entities, and the public, explaining the value and import of education, especially in a democracy, and the need for a diversity of voices and contributors to that enterprise. I discuss the origin of the group, the genesis of the letter (which is available to sign here), and the deep concerns among those who work in higher education in the United States with Alison Gash, Daniel Laurison, and Nathan Lents. Alison Gash is Professor of Political Science and Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon. Daniel Laurison is Associate Professor of Sociology at Swarthmore College, the former Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Sociology, and a 2021-2023 Carnegie Fellow. Nathan Lents is Professor of Biology at John Jay College, Links: We are Higher Ed Letter: Speaking Out for Democracy and US Higher Education We are Higher Ed Website: https://www.wearehighered.org/ Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

A coalition of educators and allies has come together to push back against a variety of different kinds of attacks on higher education and students at colleges and universities, particularly in the United States. This group is driven by the belief that a democracy is only as strong as its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual integrity, human diversity, and individual dignity. The impetus among this particular group of academics and staff members is to make sure that students at all the campuses, in all the programs at those campuses across the United States are supported and free to engage in their chosen courses of study. The various ways in which this mission is being attacked or undermined, with the slashing of grants, attempts to control curriculum, freezing of campus free speech, snatching of students off the streets, and threats to the bottom line all contribute to destabilizing the educational paths of students, and the ability of the faculty and the staff to provide students with the education, research opportunities, and higher education experiences they are seeking at these institutions. I am joined on this installment of PostScript by three members of an organic group of educators—across disciplines—who came together in the early days of the new Trump Administration to try to figure out how to best support students at different institutions. One of the results of this collaboration among academics and educators across disciplines, institutions, and parts of the country, was to craft a letter directed at university administrators, governmental entities, and the public, explaining the value and import of education, especially in a democracy, and the need for a diversity of voices and contributors to that enterprise. I discuss the origin of the group, the genesis of the letter (which is available to sign here), and the deep concerns among those who work in higher education in the United States with Alison Gash, Daniel Laurison, and Nathan Lents. Alison Gash is Professor of Political Science and Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon. Daniel Laurison is Associate Professor of Sociology at Swarthmore College, the former Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Sociology, and a 2021-2023 Carnegie Fellow. Nathan Lents is Professor of Biology at John Jay College, Links: We are Higher Ed Letter: Speaking Out for Democracy and US Higher Education We are Higher Ed Website: https://www.wearehighered.org/ Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/education

A coalition of educators and allies has come together to push back against a variety of different kinds of attacks on higher education and students at colleges and universities, particularly in the United States. This group is driven by the belief that a democracy is only as strong as its commitments to academic freedom, intellectual integrity, human diversity, and individual dignity. The impetus among this particular group of academics and staff members is to make sure that students at all the campuses, in all the programs at those campuses across the United States are supported and free to engage in their chosen courses of study. The various ways in which this mission is being attacked or undermined, with the slashing of grants, attempts to control curriculum, freezing of campus free speech, snatching of students off the streets, and threats to the bottom line all contribute to destabilizing the educational paths of students, and the ability of the faculty and the staff to provide students with the education, research opportunities, and higher education experiences they are seeking at these institutions. I am joined on this installment of PostScript by three members of an organic group of educators—across disciplines—who came together in the early days of the new Trump Administration to try to figure out how to best support students at different institutions. One of the results of this collaboration among academics and educators across disciplines, institutions, and parts of the country, was to craft a letter directed at university administrators, governmental entities, and the public, explaining the value and import of education, especially in a democracy, and the need for a diversity of voices and contributors to that enterprise. I discuss the origin of the group, the genesis of the letter (which is available to sign here), and the deep concerns among those who work in higher education in the United States with Alison Gash, Daniel Laurison, and Nathan Lents. Alison Gash is Professor of Political Science and Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Oregon. Daniel Laurison is Associate Professor of Sociology at Swarthmore College, the former Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Sociology, and a 2021-2023 Carnegie Fellow. Nathan Lents is Professor of Biology at John Jay College, Links: We are Higher Ed Letter: Speaking Out for Democracy and US Higher Education We are Higher Ed Website: https://www.wearehighered.org/ Lilly J. Goren is a professor of political science at Carroll University in Waukesha, WI. She is co-editor of The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (University Press of Kansas, 2022), as well as co-editor of the award winning book, Women and the White House: Gender, Popular Culture, and Presidential Politics (University Press of Kentucky, 2012), Email her comments at lgoren@carrollu.edu or tweet to @gorenlj. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/gender-studies

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/public-policy

Most people think about abortion in the context of the country they live in. In the U.S., abortion fuels debate, elections, and legislation. In China, abortion is often treated as a settled issue. Why and how do abortion attitudes vary across the world?  In her new book, Fetal Positions: Understanding Cross-National Public Opinion about Abortion (Oxford UP, 2025), Dr. Amy Adamczyk examines the factors influencing cross-national abortion opinion, rates and individual abortion decisions. She investigates the relationship between attitudes and laws, and explores how personal and national characteristics shape views on abortion. Using large-scale public opinion surveys, interviews from two case study countries, and an analysis of newspaper articles from over 40 countries, she argues that cross-national differences in public opinion can largely be explained based on overall levels of religious belief, economic and educational development, type of government and government history, and gender inequality. The book distinguishes beliefs from behaviors and macro factors from personal characteristics to analyze the forces shaping cross-national abortion rates and personal abortion decisions. Dr. Amy Adamczyk is a sociology professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and The Graduate Center at the City University of New York. Her work unravels the religious, cultural and social forces shaping public opinion on controversial issues like abortion, same-sex relations, premarital sex, and marijuana and terrorism. Her many earlier books include, Cross-National Public Opinion about Homosexuality: Examining Attitudes across the Globe (University of California Press 2017). Mentioned: World Values Study (free database) Amy Adamczyk, Brittany Suh, and Lindsay Lerner, “Analysis of the Relationship between Religion, Abortion, and Assisted Reproductive Technology: Insights into Cross-National Public Opinion” (2024) (free access to article) Ronald Inglehart and Wayne E. Baker, “Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values” (2000) (free access to article) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

ILYASAH AL SHABAZZ – Third daughter of Malcolm X and Dr. Betty Shabazz, is an educator, social activist, motivational speaker, and author of award winning publications: (1) Growing Up X (Random House) a coming of age memoir; (2) Malcolm Little (Simon & Schuster), a children's illustration book and (3) X, A Novel (Candlewick Press) a young adult historical fiction. Ilyasah promotes higher education for at-risk youth, interfaith dialogue to build bridges between cultures for young leaders of the world, and she participates on international humanitarian delegations. Ilyasah produced training programs to encourage higher education sanctioned by City University of New York's Office of Academic Affairs. She served for twelve years on the Executive Youth Board for the City of Mount Vernon, including appointments as Director of Public Relations, Director of Public Affairs & Special Events, and later promoted to Director of Cultural Affairs. She is a member of the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Committee at West Virginia University. She is a mentor for Nile Rogers' We Are Family Foundation. She mentors at various group homes, lock-up facilities, high schools and college campuses through production of The WAKE-UP Tour™ X-Tra Credit Forums—her exclusive youth empowerment program. Ilyasah has retraced her father's footsteps to the Holy City of Mecca, explored religious and historical sites in both Egypt and Jordan as the guest of HRH Princess Alia Hussein, participated in interfaith dialogue study programs under Rabbi Nancy Kreimer and Dr. Aziza Al Hibri, and served as member of the American Interfaith Leadership delegation that participated with the Malaria No More Foundation in Mali, West Africa. Ilyasah also served as a member of the United States delegation that accompanied President Bill Clinton to South Africa to commemorate election of President Nelson Mandela and the economic business development initiative. Ilyasah serves as Trustee for the Harlem Symphonic Orchestra, The Malcolm X & Dr. Betty Shabazz Memorial and Educational Center, and The Malcolm X Foundation. She is a member of the Arts Committee for the New York City Opera at Lincoln Center and a project advisor for the PBS award-winning Prince Among Slaves documentary. She holds a Master of Science in Education & Human Resource Development from Fordham University and a Bachelor of Science in Biology from SUNY/New Paltz. Ilyasah is currently an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and resides in Westchester County, New York.For further information, please contact, Dr. Jamal Watson, at jamal@ilyasahshabazz.comwww.ilyasahshabazz.com http://Twitter.com/ilyasahshabazzX: A NOVEL, Candlewick Press. (1/2015) MALCOLM LITTLE, Simon & Schuster. (1/2014) GROWING UP X, Random House. (1/2002)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-opperman-report--1198501/support.

In 2021, the ASIS Foundation published research about how social media and artificial intelligence can be leveraged to proactively identify new security issues. Now, we check in with one of those researchers—Chelsea Binns from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice—to see what has changed in the field, the ethics of researching social media, and what's she's looking at now. This episode is brought to you by the ASIS Foundation. Find out more here: https://www.asisonline.org/get-involved/asis-foundation/ Additional Resources Read the 2021 research, Using Social Media to Gather Security Intelligence, and other ASIS Foundation research online here: https://www.asisonline.org/get-involved/asis-foundation/asis-foundation-research/ Learn how OSINT and social media intelligence can become actionable in this Security Technology article: https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/monthly-issues/security-technology/archive/2023/december/stopping-an-active-shooter-with-osint/ More and more people get their news from social media. But when algorithms are designed to capture attention—even with traumatic content—what does this mean for protests and de-escalation? https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2025/01/burnout/social-media-crisis-response/ Online chatter and conspiracy theories can rapidly affect your organization's reputation security. Learn more here: https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2023/02/reputation-security/redesigning-pandoras-box/ Improving social media governance is crucial for organizations to effectively manage their online presence. Find out more with Security Technology: https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/monthly-issues/security-technology/archive/2023/december/managing-digital-risk-with-social-media-governance/ Hone your situational awareness skills with this Security Management article: https://www.asisonline.org/security-management-magazine/articles/2022/09/how-to-improve-your-situational-awareness/

Sleepless No More: Trauma, Recovery, and the Science of Sleep with Dr. Leah Kaylor In this eye-opening episode, Marcus and Melanie welcome Dr. Leah Kaylor—a distinguished clinical psychologist whose expertise spans forensic mental health, trauma recovery, and the intricate world of sleep science. With a career built on helping those affected by trauma, Dr. Kaylor brings unique insights into how sleep disturbances intersect with mental health challenges and recovery. Here's what you can expect from our conversation: ·         Foundational Expertise: o    Dr. Kaylor earned her Master's in Forensic Mental Health Counseling at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, where she conducted forensic assessments for the Brooklyn Supreme Court. o    She completed her Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology at Saint Louis University, specializing in trauma-informed assessments and evidence-based therapies like Cognitive Processing Therapy and Imagery Rehearsal Therapy for survivors of sexual trauma. ·         Forensic and Crisis Intervention: o    Dr. Kaylor has administered forensic assessments and competency restorations for the Shelby County Justice System, demonstrating her ability to bridge the gap between clinical psychology and legal requirements. ·         Scholarly Contributions & Thought Leadership: o    With 5 book chapters and over 15 peer-reviewed journal articles to her name, she has significantly contributed to research on trauma, stress responses, sleep disorders, and mental health interventions. o    A respected speaker on national and international stages, Dr. Kaylor discusses topics ranging from the human stress response and EMDR to practical techniques for addressing sleep disturbances in trauma-impacted populations. ·         Deep Dive into Sleep Science: o    During her residency at the Memphis VA Medical Center, Dr. Kaylor honed her sleep-related expertise by working in the sleep clinic. Here, she helped active duty members and veterans overcome sleep disturbances by addressing issues such as sleep hygiene, nightmares, insomnia, and CPAP adherence. o    In our discussion, she reveals how proper sleep management plays a critical role in trauma recovery and overall mental health, sharing actionable strategies to improve sleep quality and resilience in high-stress environments. Join us as Dr. Kaylor unpacks the powerful connection between sleep and trauma recovery, offering a blend of clinical insights, practical sleep hygiene tips, and strategies to manage nightmares and insomnia. Whether you're a mental health professional, a veteran, or someone struggling with sleep issues, this episode is packed with knowledge to help you reclaim restful nights and resilient days. Tune in now for a transformative discussion on how quality sleep can pave the way for healing and recovery!  In this episode you will hear: • My dad sells drugs and my mom's in prison. My dad is a pharmaceutical drug representative, and my mom is a dental hygienist in a maximum security all-male prion. (5:42) • Sexually violent predators are people who have committed some type of sex crime. They have been deemed to have some type of mental illness or defect, and there's a belief that they will commit another sex crime. (15:59) • Whenever we sleep – if you're a normal, average healthy sleeper, you should go through various sleep cycles. You should be cycling through light sleep, deep sleep, REM sleep and you're gonna be cycling through these several times a night. (23:18) • REM sleep (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep, is most famous for having dreams. (23:44) • Folks who have problems sleeping – there are so many things you can to help yourself. (38:12) • Going to bed at the same time every night and waking up at the same time every morning. This is key. (39:4) • We are inducing our own jet lag when we go from 6am Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, then go down to 9am on Saturday and Sunday. The brain gets very confused.  (43:11) • I have been a psychologist for the FBI for 5 years now, and that entire time I will be helping people with trauma. I'm certified with EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) and brain spotting. I love those, but I also help people with sleep. (45:10) • In my work, folks experience things and see things that we should not be asking normal human beings to see. (47:04) • [Marcus] When you're doing your job and you're runnin' and gunnin' - no matter what it is - and it tarts creeping into your dreams, that means your database is full. (50:25) • Taking time to reflect either alone or with someone you trust: How is this impacting me? What's happening? (51:36) • I have a book coming out on sleep coming out on sleep. It's called The Sleep Advantage. (56:02) • If you're really getting good sleep, it can impact your decision-making, and your reaction time. It can make you the best of the best; it can impact your performance. (57:01) Socials: -- https://www.drleahkaylor.com/ -- https://www.facebook.com/drleahkaylor  Support TNQ - IG: team_neverquit , marcusluttrell , melanieluttrell , huntero13 -  https://www.patreon.com/teamneverquit Sponsors:   - shipsticks.com/TNQ    - Navyfederal.org           - Robinhood.com/gold    - strawberry.me/TNQ    - stopboxusa.com {TNQ}    - ghostbed.com/TNQ [TNQ]   -  kalshi.com/TNQ    - PXG.com/TNQ   -  joinbilt.com/TNQ    - Tonal.com [TNQ]   - greenlight.com/TNQ   - PDSDebt.com/TNQ   - drinkAG1.com/TNQ   - Shadyrays.com [TNQ]   - qualialife.com/TNQ [TNQ]   - Hims.com/TNQ   - Shopify.com/TNQ   - Aura.com/TNQ   - Policygenius.com   - TAKELEAN.com [TNQ]   - usejoymode.com [TNQ]

March 6, 2025 - Everything Co-op launches its Women's History Month series. The 2025 theme, set by the National Women's History Alliance, is “Moving Forward Together! Women Educating & Inspiring Generations,” celebrating women leaders in education and mentorship. The inaugural episode of the series features cooperative advocates Jessica Gordon-Nembhard, Ph.D., Professor at John Jay College, and Ahzjah-Netjer Simons, Co-Executive Director of the Georgia Cooperative Development Center. Dr. Gordon Nembhard Ahzjah-Netjer Simons discuss the insights gained from their interviews with Black women cooperators, and their future plans. Author of Collective Courage: A History of African American Cooperative Economic Thought and Practice (2014) and 2016 inductee into the U.S. Cooperative Hall of Fame, Jessica Gordon-Nembhard, Ph.D., is a Professor at John Jay College, City University of NY. She is a political economist specializing in cooperative economics, community economic development, racial wealth inequality, Black Political Economy. She is a member of the Cooperative Economics Council of NCBA/CLUSA; the ICA Committee on Co-operative Research; an affiliate scholar with the Centre for the Study of Co-operatives, University of Saskatchewan; and past board member of Association of Cooperative Educators. Ahzjah-Netjer Simons is a transformative leader committed to empowering cooperative businesses and communities through education, strategy, and innovation. She holds key roles such as Co-Executive Director of the Georgia Cooperative Development Center, P6 Ambassador for the NCBA, and President of Digico Global. With 25 years in media activism and 18 years as a cooperative leader, Simons has earned the CCMA Cooperative Service Award. She founded International Co-op Media and launched Co-op Nation to illuminate the cooperative movement and its impact. Additionally, she co-created Women In Cooperation, a pass the mic podcast, digital magazine, and community dedicated to uplifting and amplifying women in the cooperative space.

Matt Crawford speaks with professor of Biology at John Jay University and author Nathan Lents about his book, The Sexual Evolution: How 500 Million Years of Sex, Gender, and Mating Shape Modern Relationships.  Evolutionary biologist Nathan H. Lents knows what makes humans unique—and it's most definitely not our sexual diversity. A professor at John Jay College, Lents has spent his career studying what makes us, well, us, and contrary to what the culture warriors want people to believe—diverse sexual behavior is not a new development, or even a human one. It didn't just emerge from a progressive culture; it's the product of billions of years of evolutionary experimentation throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a modern story, a Florida story, or even a human story. It's a biological story. In The Sexual Evolution, Lents takes readers on a journey through the animal world, from insects to apes, revealing what the incredible array of sexual diversity can teach us about our own diverse beauty. Nature, it turns out, has made a lot of space for diverse genders and sexual behaviors. And why? Because when it comes to evolution—diversity wins. This is not just a political or social message, instead it's rooted in science and cultivated from understanding the full breadth of sexuality that exists throughout the world. With shades of both Frans de Waal and Esther Perel, Lents's storytelling is as fascinating as it is topical, offering eye-opening stories about the diversity of animal life, while relating it to our own sexual journey as a species. At once a forceful rebuttal to bigotry and a captivating dive into the secret sex lives of animals, The Sexual Evolution is the rare book of pop science that leans into the controversy. Sex, the reactionaries say, should only be for procreation between a man and a woman, anything else goes against nature. Well, nature would like a word with them.

  On this episode of Unsupervised Learning Razib talks to Nathan Lents about his new book, The Sexual Evolution: A Provocative Look at Sexual Behavior Through the Lens of Evolution. A professor at John Jay College in New York City, Lents earned a Ph.D. in Pharmacological and Physiological Sciences in 2004 at Saint Louis University School of Medicine, and did his postdoctoral fellowship in cancer genomics at NYU Medical Center. Lents' research ranges from the evolution of molecular mechanisms to behavioral ecology. He is also the author of Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in Animals and Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes.   Lents reached out to Razib after hearing his podcast with Conn Carroll, about his book Sex and the Citizen: How the Assault on Marriage Is Destroying Democracy. Lents felt that Carroll overemphasized the role of monogamy during humanity's long forager phase, and more precisely, failed to distinguish social monogamy and genetic monogamy. As noted in The Sexual Evolution, many socially monogamous species, like most birds, engage in enough extra-pair copulation so that genetic fidelity is considerably lower than 100%. Razib and Lents then go back to first principles, talking about the origins of sex, and its persistence in the face of the two-fold cost of reproduction in dimorphous organisms. They discuss why specialized males and females exist in complex organisms as distinct as flowering plants and humans. Lents also discusses the reviews empirical literature on homosexual behavior, variation in sex differences across many classes of organisms and the application of evolutionary thinking to our understanding of the human past. Then they discuss the relevance of evolutionary biology for understanding the human present, and our current debates about marriage, sex and gender. Finally, they consider the differences between sex and gender, and the idea that both can be conceptualized in a nonbinary fashion.

Jean Mills, Associate Professor and chairperson in the English Dept. at John Jay College, and Ria Banerjee, Professor of English and Honors Program Coordinator at Guttman Community College and the Graduate Center, discuss Dr. Banerjee's book Drafty Houses in Forster, Eliot, and Woolf: Spatiality and Cultural Politics and related topics. Visit IndoorVoicesPodcast.com for more.

Listen: Tuesday, February 25, 2025, 4pm ET by going to PRN, The Progressive Radio Network. Listen Live by phone over ZenoRadio: (641) 741-2308 (585) 652-0611 Call Caryn's personal archive number to hear the most recent five episodes of It's All About Food: 1-701-719-0885 Nathan Lents, The Sexual Evolution, How 500 million years of sex, gender, and mating shape modern relationships NATHAN H. LENTS is a professor of biology at John Jay College, CUNY, and the author of Not So Different: Finding Human Nature in Animals and Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches, from Pointless Bones to Broken Genes. He has appeared as a scientific expert in a range of national media, including The TODAY Show, NPR, Access Hollywood, 48 Hours, and Al Jazeera America. He lives in Queens, NY.

Christian Parenti is an investigative journalist, academic, and the author of several books, including "Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis" and "Radical Hamilton: Economic Lessons from a Misunderstood Founder.” He has reported from various locations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, and China. He is currently a professor of economics at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In this wide-ranging conversation, Jimmy and Parenti discuss why progressives should welcome President Trump's assault on the FBI, an organization with a long history of targeting, infiltrating and undermining left movements. Plus a segment on Trump and Musk's DOGE defunding the National Endowment for Democracy, a well-known CIA cutout. Also featuring Stef Zamorano, Kurt Metzger and Mike MacRae. Plus a phone call from Elon Musk!

On the podcast today I am joined by Presidential Scholar and Professor Emerita of Anthropology at John Jay College, City University of New York, Alisse Waterston to talk about her award-winning book, My Father's Wars: Migration, Memory, and the Violence of A Century (Routledge, 2024). The book was first published in the Innovative Ethnographies series by Routledge Books in 2014. Its acclaim has led to the Tenth Anniversary edition which has just come out in 2024. My Father's Wars is a story about twentieth-century social history told through the vivid account of Alisse's father as he journeys across continents, countries, cultures, languages, generations—and wars. The book is a beautifully moving account bridging family narrative and anthropological offering deeply insightful reflections on themes that remain more urgent than before, including migration, memory and violence. Captivating and powerful, the book is not only an important example of just how much ethnographic writing can show rather than tell, it is also an example of the wide terrain of how anthropologists can communicate knowledge multimedia accompaniments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

On the podcast today I am joined by Presidential Scholar and Professor Emerita of Anthropology at John Jay College, City University of New York, Alisse Waterston to talk about her award-winning book, My Father's Wars: Migration, Memory, and the Violence of A Century (Routledge, 2024). The book was first published in the Innovative Ethnographies series by Routledge Books in 2014. Its acclaim has led to the Tenth Anniversary edition which has just come out in 2024. My Father's Wars is a story about twentieth-century social history told through the vivid account of Alisse's father as he journeys across continents, countries, cultures, languages, generations—and wars. The book is a beautifully moving account bridging family narrative and anthropological offering deeply insightful reflections on themes that remain more urgent than before, including migration, memory and violence. Captivating and powerful, the book is not only an important example of just how much ethnographic writing can show rather than tell, it is also an example of the wide terrain of how anthropologists can communicate knowledge multimedia accompaniments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

On the podcast today I am joined by Presidential Scholar and Professor Emerita of Anthropology at John Jay College, City University of New York, Alisse Waterston to talk about her award-winning book, My Father's Wars: Migration, Memory, and the Violence of A Century (Routledge, 2024). The book was first published in the Innovative Ethnographies series by Routledge Books in 2014. Its acclaim has led to the Tenth Anniversary edition which has just come out in 2024. My Father's Wars is a story about twentieth-century social history told through the vivid account of Alisse's father as he journeys across continents, countries, cultures, languages, generations—and wars. The book is a beautifully moving account bridging family narrative and anthropological offering deeply insightful reflections on themes that remain more urgent than before, including migration, memory and violence. Captivating and powerful, the book is not only an important example of just how much ethnographic writing can show rather than tell, it is also an example of the wide terrain of how anthropologists can communicate knowledge multimedia accompaniments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

On the podcast today I am joined by Presidential Scholar and Professor Emerita of Anthropology at John Jay College, City University of New York, Alisse Waterston to talk about her award-winning book, My Father's Wars: Migration, Memory, and the Violence of A Century (Routledge, 2024). The book was first published in the Innovative Ethnographies series by Routledge Books in 2014. Its acclaim has led to the Tenth Anniversary edition which has just come out in 2024. My Father's Wars is a story about twentieth-century social history told through the vivid account of Alisse's father as he journeys across continents, countries, cultures, languages, generations—and wars. The book is a beautifully moving account bridging family narrative and anthropological offering deeply insightful reflections on themes that remain more urgent than before, including migration, memory and violence. Captivating and powerful, the book is not only an important example of just how much ethnographic writing can show rather than tell, it is also an example of the wide terrain of how anthropologists can communicate knowledge multimedia accompaniments. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

This week on CounterPunch Radio, Erik Wallenberg and Joshua Frank talk to David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz about their new book, "Building the Worlds that Kill Us: Disease, Death and Inequality in American History" (Columbia University Press). David Rosner is the Ronald H. Lauterstein Professor of Sociomedical Sciences and professor of history in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at Columbia University and the director of the Center for the History and Ethics of Public Health at the Mailman School. Gerald Markowitz is distinguished professor of history at John Jay College. Together, they have written many books, including Deadly Dust: Silicosis and the Politics of Occupational Disease in Twentieth-Century America (1991) and Lead Wars: The Politics of Science and the Fate of America's Children (2014). They are both elected members of the National Academy of Science's National Academy of Medicine. Check out their resource site, ToxicDocs.org. More The post Building the Worlds that Kill Us w/ David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

The Sexual Evolution: How 500 Million Years of Sex, Gender, and Mating Shape Modern Relationships by Nathan H. Lents Amazon.com Evolutionary biologist Nathan H. Lents knows what makes humans unique—and it's most definitely not our sexual diversity. A professor at John Jay College, Lents has spent his career studying what makes us, well, us, and contrary to what the culture warriors want people to believe—diverse sexual behavior is not a new development, or even a human one. It didn't just emerge from a progressive culture; it's the product of billions of years of evolutionary experimentation throughout the animal kingdom. It's not a modern story, a Florida story, or even a human story. It's a biological story. In The Sexual Evolution, Lents takes readers on a journey through the animal world, from insects to apes, revealing what the incredible array of sexual diversity can teach us about our own diverse beauty. Nature, it turns out, has made a lot of space for diverse genders and sexual behaviors. And why? Because when it comes to evolution—diversity wins. This is not just a political or social message, instead it's rooted in science and cultivated from understanding the full breadth of sexuality that exists throughout the world. With shades of both Frans de Waal and Esther Perel, Lents's storytelling is as fascinating as it is topical, offering eye-opening stories about the diversity of animal life, while relating it to our own sexual journey as a species. At once a forceful rebuttal to bigotry and a captivating dive into the secret sex lives of animals, The Sexual Evolution is the rare book of pop science that leans into the controversy. Sex, the reactionaries say, should only be for procreation between a man and a woman, anything else goes against nature. Well, nature would like a word with them.About the author Nathan H. Lents is Professor of Biology at John Jay College and author of two recent books: Not So Different and Human Errors. With degrees in molecular biology and human physiology, and a postdoctoral fellowship in computational genomics, Lents tackles the evolution of human biology from a broad interdisciplinary perspective. In addition to his research and teaching, he can be found defending sound evolutionary science in the pages of Science, Skeptic Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, and others.

Christian Parenti is an investigative journalist, academic, and author whose recent articles have appeared in Compact Mag and others.  We discuss Kash Patel as the potential FBI Director, President Jimmy Carter's legacy and other news. Parenti is Professor of Economics at John Jay College, City University of New York. His undergraduate and graduate teaching, and research, focus on: American economic history, environmental history, and the history of capitalism; climate change and sustainable energy; as well as war, policing, and political violence. His books include Radical Hamilton: Economic Lessons from a Misunderstood Founder, (Verso, 2020); Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence, (Nation Books, 2011); The Freedom: Shadows and Hallucinations in Occupied Iraq, (The New Press, 2004); The Soft Cage: Surveillance from Slavery to the War on Terror, (Basic Books, 2003); and Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis (1999/2008, Verso). Previously, as a journalist, he reported extensively from Afghanistan, Iraq, and various parts of Africa, Asia, and Latin America for The Nation, Fortune, The London Review Books, The New York Times, and other publications. Follow us at: @JackmanRadio Become a Patron:  www.patreon.com/JackmanRadio For $ tips if you enjoy our work:  Venmo Eric: SenatorJackman86 Venmo Mike: MikeJackman1986

A new rule finalized by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would remove close to $50 billion in medical debt from millions of Americans' medical bills. CFPB director Rohit Chopra explains. And, Minneapolis signed off on a federal agreement to reform the city's police department following the 2020 murder of George Floyd. Rachel Marshall of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice talks about what's in the plan. Then, journalist Jesse Holland joins us to talk about "Captain America: The Shield of Sam Wilson," his new book about the state of the Black superhero universe.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Get Joel's Book: Https://amzn.to/48GwbLxAll Things STS: Https://linktr.ee/stspodcastSupport the show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/SurvivingTheSurvivorCatch us live on YouTube: Surviving The Survivor: #BestGuests in True Crime - YouTubeWhat's up, #STSNation! Welcome to another episode of Surviving the Survivor! Today, we bring you another episode of Surviving My Biggest Case, featuring retired NYPD Detective David Sarni. Before Anna Delvey made headlines, New York City had the Blackberry Trickster. Andre Roper was a master con artist who scammed his way through the city with speed and expertise—until Detective Sarni cracked the case. #BestGuest: David Sarni, retired NYPD detective, former trainer of NYPD detectives, and professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. #NYC #NYCCrime #TrueCrime #TrueCrimeCommunity #TrueCrimeStories #BlackberryTrickster #AnnaDelvey #Netflix #ConArtist #CrimeStories #SurvivingTheSurvivor #BestGuests #DavidSarni #NewYorkDetective #JohnJayCollege #CrimeInvestigation #justicefordanmarkel

Straight From The Admissions Office: Insider Strategies For College ApplicationsIf you're looking for helpful tips and insights for the college admissions process, check out my book by clicking the links below:

Felipe Rodriguez, adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and former NYPD detective sergeant, offers analysis of the ongoing police investigation into the brazen shooting of a health care executive on a Midtown Manhattan street. 

Jimmy welcomed John Jay College economics professor and former investigative journalist Christian Parenti to the show to discuss the fundamental lie at the foundation of the whole “wokeness” phenomenon — specifically that the act of centering identity in the political discourse inevitably, and by design, marginalizes discussion of class while eroding worker solidarity.   Specific topics covered include whether wokeness can continue to expand in influence or will taper off and die, why young people will turn away from the woke agenda in favor of more pressing economic concerns and a preschool that warned children not to mis-gender animals.   Plus a segment on a recent clip from MSNBC featuring a discussion of why Arab-Americans in swing states are abandoning Kamala Harris.   Also featuring Stef Zamorano and Kurt Metzger!

On this week's episode of Economic Update, Professor Richard Wolff discusses the new law signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom banning "legacy and donor" favoritism in private college admissions to foster a "merit system." We also bring your attention to Javier Milei and his regime in Argentina as they impose austerity measures on the country: the masses will suffer to pay off debts that enriched the elite few in classic ways.  Finally, we Interviewed economics Professor Ian Seda-Irizarry of the City University of New York about the conditions provoking the rise of the political left and left unity in Puerto Rico. Ian Seda-Irizarry is an Associate Professor and Graduate Program Director at the Economics Department of John Jay College, City University of New York. His work focuses on the current socio-economic crisis of Puerto Rico and its relation to the island's first fiscal crisis in the mid-1970s.   The d@w Team Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff is a DemocracyatWork.info Inc. production. We make it a point to provide the show free of ads and rely on viewer support to continue doing so. You can support our work by joining our Patreon community: https://www.patreon.com/democracyatwork Or you can go to our website: https://www.democracyatwork.info/donate   Every donation counts and helps us provide a larger audience with the information they need to better understand the events around the world they can't get anywhere else. We want to thank our devoted community of supporters who help make this show and others we produce possible each week. We kindly ask you to also support the work we do by encouraging others to subscribe to our YouTube channel and website: www.democracyatwork.info