Hank Kalet

I came across this story today on Facebook:

Metal studs have been installed outside a block of flats in central London to deter rough sleepers.

The installation of the studs outside the flats on Southwark Bridge Road provoked widespread condemnation on Twitter with users claiming homeless people were being treated like vermin because similar metal spikes are used to deter pigeons.

Residents told the Telegraph that the studs were installed outside the flats in the last month to prevent homeless people from sleeping in the doorway.

The story comes on the heels of others in which cities are banning the feeding of the homeless and otherwise cracking down on the movements of homeless individuals.

I understand the desire to protect one’s neighborhood — it’s only natural. But these efforts will only chase the homeless from neighborhood to neighborhood.

And while many of these cities are also creating plans designed to move people from the streets and into housing, the aggressive anti-homeless measures may backfire by making it less likely that homeless men and women will seek help from officials in an environment that views them as nuisances.

We need more low-cost housing, better support services and better pay for so-called low-wage jobs. More broadly, we need to rethink the way our economy values people, especially those who seem to have little to contribute.

There is a bill in the New Jersey Legislature that would legalize marijuana use and subject it to taxation — legislation modeled on the Colorado and Washington state referenda that resulted in those states legalizing pot earlier this year.

It is unclear at this point whether the New Jersey legislation will get a hearing or, if it does, whether it will win approval of both houses of the Legislature. The governor has already said he would veto the effort, which could shut down debate — after all, some might say, why waste our time.

But we should have the debate. Polls show a slow shift toward support for decriminalization and away from outright prohibition, though there remains only modest support for legalization. (See Eagleton poll here and Monmouth poll here.)

And there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed: How would cannabis production, sale and use be regulated? How can dosages be normalized and users be made aware of variations? How do we keep pot out of the hands of kids? And should we “decarcerate” those now doing time on possession and low-level distribution charges?

The New York Times offers an interesting starting point today, with its Room for Debate feature. In five short essays, the Times covers several of these questions and sets the table for others to be addressed, such as how we ensure that legitimate research is done on pot’s physiological, economic and societal impacts, without the politics interfering.

I support legalization and “decarceration” in principle, but that’s not why I write this. My point is that, until recently, we have allowed cliches and stereotypes either to steer the debate or foreclose the possibility of talking altogether. We need to do the research, have the discussion and be open to what the evidence tells us.

A few years ago The New York Times issued some basic rules governing its use of off-the-record comments. Here is a summary taken from a Public Editor column published in 2009. The policy, he wrote, “says anonymous sources should be used only as ‘a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way’ and that anonymous sources should not be allowed to issue “personal or partisan attacks from behind a mask of anonymity.” The policy also “says rote references to sources who ‘insisted on anonymity’ or ‘demanded anonymity’ should be avoided because they ‘offer the reader no help and make our decisions appear automatic.'”

So what to make of today’s story about Democratic criticism of the administration’s handling of the Bowe Bergdahl case? The story includes a quotation from an unnamed Democratic Senator who, the Times says, “asked not to be named in talking candidly about internal party views of the White House” and implies that there are a number of others who have the same critiques. The quotation itself — “We have to quit putting out fires” — is pretty benign, but the larger story leaves the impression that there is a full-on Democratic revolt underway. This is despite the story offering little evidence that there is widespread dissatisfaction.

I don’t write this to defend the president — if he has lost Senate Democrats that is his own fault. I write this to point out that the Times’ story doesn’t actually demonstrate what it purports to demonstrate, that the Bergdahl case has “renewed frustration among congressional Democrats about the administration’s relations with its allies on Capitol Hill, and prompted criticism that the White House failed to prepare the lawmakers for the politically explosive case.”

The problem is the sourcing. It hangs the story on three things: a quotation from a single unnamed source, a vague reference to others, and the assumption that the Times’ cozy relationship with lawmakers means it has information that we have to take on the Times’ word. The Times, after all, is the big kid on the block and knows everyone, so when Times reporters say there is “renewed frustration” it must be true.

The problem is that readers need more — and our elected officials should be held to higher standards. There are 100 Senators — 53 of them Democrats — who were elected to do the public’s business. If they have a problem with the president or party leadership, we expect them to speak up and to do so on the record — unless there is a very compelling reason not to do so.

This brings me back to the Times’ rules on unnamed sources — which are pretty solid, in my book. The Times, as I said before, requires that the unnamed source be used as “a last resort when the story is of compelling public interest and the information is not available any other way” and that they not be allowed to make personal or partisan attacks. It also requires that a full accounting be provided of why the source is allowed to speak anonymously. In this case, the unnamed Democrat says he needs anonymity to speak candidly. Really? Remember, there are 53 Democrats in the U.S. Senate who are perfectly willing to speak publicly against Democratic leadership and the White House when it suits them politically. The only difference here is the lack of obvious political benefit. Hiding behind the “mask of anonymity” allows the senator to show that Senate Democrats are distancing themselves from the president without having to actually do so publicly. It is both cowardly and manipulative on the part of the senator. As for the Times, it allowed itself to be used as a pawn in Washington’s political chess game.

I’ll end this with a comment from the columnist Daniel Froomkin, who put it bluntly on his Facebook page earlier today:

Send me an e-mail.

I have nothing against salt water taffy, but designating a state candy seems a bit silly when the state Legislature and governor can’t agree on how to address a budget shortfall. Just saying.

Send me an e-mail.

Born in the U.S.A. turns 30 today:

Send me an e-mail.