That is a very interesting article. I'm going to keep my eye out for that book.

Alacritous: That is a very interesting article. I'm going to keep my eye out for that book.

Same.

I find it difficult to find non-government approved (read 'propaganda') perspectives on the drug war.

Was this the guy from Freakonomics?

Alacritous: That is a very interesting article. I'm going to keep my eye out for that book.

If you're interested, check out Ain't No Makin' It, by Jay MacLeod. It's sort of the same story: academic goes to the projects and makes friends with two rival gangs, one white and one black and what happens to them after ten years.

The revised edition is twelve years old now, but it's still an interesting read.

How does he get that pair into pants every day?

Oooh! This is the guy who did the prostitute study in Chicago. Why didn't he become whore for a day too?

Anyway, I think he is doing a talk & signing in Chicago this week.

luminus119: Was this the guy from Freakonomics?

Yes(p)

While I totally disagree with the stupid-ass drug war, I think it might be a bit of stretch to call leading a street gang for a day "heroic".

Philbb: minus119: Was this the guy from Freakonomics?

Yes(p)

That's what I came here to say. Fascinating story. The moral? Drug prohibition sucks.

I hope there was some sort of exchange program. I'd like to think there is a drug dealing gagsta keep'n it real at faculty mixers at Columbia University. On second thought that sounds like a really bad Wayans movie.

Maybe heroic if he actually gets people to really re-think their ideas on how drugs affect their communities.

the_colors: Maybe heroic if he actually gets people to really re-think their ideas on how drugs affect their communities.

You're missing the point. He wasn't trying to change them, he was trying to understand how they worked so that that knowledge could be known and used by the outside world. We have plenty of people running around trying to guilt trip drug dealers, and it hasn't worked yet.

/legalize it
//yes, hard drugs too

Wow.

That being said, I hope this thread doesn't turn into a horrible legalization flame war.

Yeah, if this sounds interesting to you folks, read Freakonomics. It's one economist's very interesting perspective on the whole project.

Cagey B: While I totally disagree with the stupid-ass drug war, I think it might be a bit of stretch to call leading a street gang for a day "heroic".

That's not all he did - he was in the project for months, during which time he was kidnapped and repeatedly threatened, basically talking his way out of those situations. The guy has balls of steel.

eqtworld: He should go to Africa and not eat for 6 months, maybe his heroic brand of new journalism can teach us why not eating leads to starvation.

/this is dumb

This guy isn't exactly Ric Romero, he's a sociologist doing some considerably dangerous studies. Dumb? Maybe. But nobody else has been willing to research this problem so thoroughly, except maybe the feds.

I'm 63 years old, so I don't know much about this "Drug War" thingy, but I did get a little wounded in the "Sexual Revolution" a few years ago!

fta: As it turned out, they weren't as enthusiastic as I was about an in-depth study of the Black Kings crack gang and their compelling leader. They were more interested in the standard sociological issues in the community: entrenched poverty, domestic violence, the prevalence of guns, residents' charged relations with the government - and, to a lesser extent, how the community dealt with the gang.

Some academics really give me the shiats. This guy has a chance to study in detail something that no one has ever studied before. And they want to turn it into a boring dissertation on the community dealt with the gang. Sure if he got close to J.T. then his view would be biased, but then he would miss out on a large amount of very valuable information.

It reminds me of people's criticism of Alfred Kinsey's sex studies. Sure, they were not biased, but they revealed a lot about people's sexual activities that were not well understood.

eqtworld: saintwrathchild: But nobody else has been willing to research this problem so thoroughly, except maybe the feds.

And millions of ordinary Americans. And local cops who know what is going on. And tens of millions of people who live in these neighborhoods.

He is talking a lot, but not really saying anything.

/Does a reporter need to get on a motorcycle, and run it up to 160mph on a public road so we (the dumbass public) can understand why it is dangerous?
//we already know, this is just bravado used to further his career/reputation/book sales.

So you're saying that there's nothing to learn about the problem than 'living in deprived, violent neigbourhoods is dangerous'? I'm pretty certain that his research provides insights which might be useful somewhere.

Gonzo Research?

/Off to read the article now.

I think the problem is that he was conducting a study with a sample size of one. That's not very scientifically sound. The urge towards a broader study is a traditional scientists way of getting a more accurate set of data.

Don't get me wrong, the Freakonomics guys do some interesting work. I think they bring a refreshing take to their field. However a lot of their work doesn't stand up under scrutiny, so take it with a grain of salt.

You all failed reading comprehension. Miserably. The guy is a hero because he infiltrated a real gang just to perform research, not for his one-day leader gig. He infiltrated a gang while you can't even see a black man in the same side of the street you are on without crossing the street or running the other way.

And millions of ordinary Americans.

Pardon? Millions of Americans have befriended the heads of crack rings? I'll need proof of that.

And local cops who know what is going on. And tens of millions of people who live in these neighborhoods.

I've been fortunate enough not to live where crack has been the criminal activity of choice (meth-swilling hicks on the other hand...), so I can't say for those people, and I certainly can't speak for local police forces.

He is talking a lot, but not really saying anything.

I don't follow you here, especially since the full text isn't available to either of us. I would certainly consider his experience at the least a worthwhile listen since he was able to examine this "world" from the highest vantage point on the "inside."

Point02GPA: I'm 63 years old, so I don't know much about this "Drug War" thingy, but I did get a little wounded in the "Sexual Revolution" a few years ago!

Gonorrhea? Anal warts? Steamer gone haywire?

/Then, again... Don't tell. I'm not sure I really want to know.

GreatBunzinni: He infiltrated a gang while you can't even see a black man in the same side of the street you are on without crossing the street or running the other way.

There you go. Maybe he is just a sociologist, but he's a sociologist at Columbia. Half of you can't even lower yourselves to shop at a Wal-Mart, and you're making fun of this guy?

Great Bunzinni, you missed the point, that people can comprehend things differently.

I liked this story better when it was called Memos from Purgatory.

eqtworld: pjc51: I'm pretty certain that his research provides insights which might be useful somewhere.

Oh, what new insights has he told us we did not know? how can that information be used?

/Did you know the older you get, the more likely you are to die? I once read a book by a guy who allowed himself to get really, really old...

I dunno - I haven't read the book, but I'm guessing you haven't either.

Just read the article.

It seems to me that there is one huge problem, and related smaller problems, with his research.

Basically, the person/people under the microscope are aware that they are under the microscope. They change their actions accordingly.

eqtworld: Oh, what new insights has he told us we did not know? how can that information be used?

It tells us how drug gangs in Chicago work. This information could be used to understand gangs.

downtownkid: I think the problem is that he was conducting a study with a sample size of one. That's not very scientifically sound. The urge towards a broader study is a traditional scientists way of getting a more accurate set of data.

There is nothing unsound about focusing a study on one subject. There are times and place for group studies, and there are times and places for individual studies.

In medicine for example, a much more scientific field than sociology, there is a movement to conduct detailed studies on small numbers of people as a compliment to traditional studies with large groups and low detail.

Mr Logo : In medicine for example....there is a movement to conduct detailed studies


Yes, and as I said, a broader study is traditionally considered more scientifically sound, for obvious reasons. I agree that more detailed case studies can fill in the gaps in larger studies but I think it would be foolish to draw wholesale conclusions from extremely narrow studies. I venture to say any proper researcher would agree.

eqtworld: saintwrathchild: But nobody else has been willing to research this problem so thoroughly, except maybe the feds.

And millions of ordinary Americans. And local cops who know what is going on. And tens of millions of people who live in these neighborhoods.

He is talking a lot, but not really saying anything.

/Does a reporter need to get on a motorcycle, and run it up to 160mph on a public road so we (the dumbass public) can understand why it is dangerous?
//we already know, this is just bravado used to further his career/reputation/book sales.

Yeah, lots of people understand the sociology of inner city gangs, but not a lot of people who are in a position to influence how the rest of society deals with them understand it.
The genesis of this project, described in Freakonomics, was a survey concocted by some nitwit (who is a very prominent and politically influential academic), designed to guage project residents' attitudes about being poor and black.
That's how we deal with social issues. Elites don't want to actually be poor, and understand the pressures the poor face; they just want to think about being poor, and then spout their conclusions for politicians' soundbites.
In the NPR article, "J.T." points this out- here he's got some academic tailing him, watching what he does, and the academic decides he knows exactly what is going on. Evidently, he doesn't.
The book isn't about, "hey, look at me, this is dangerous", the way a book about going 160 on a motorcycle would be. The book is about the sociology of drug gangs, and it comes from a perspective that may help us understand something about inner city poverty. It was risky for this guy to gain that perspective, and he deserves our appreciation for his efforts.
He doesn't deserve snarky comments from ignorant internet posters.

Mr Logo: It reminds me of people's criticism of Alfred Kinsey's sex studies. Sure, they were not biased, but they revealed a lot about people's sexual activities that were not well understood.

We owe a lot to Dr. Kinsey.

eqtworld:
Yes, it is voyeurism for whitey.

I just mean a lot of people (millions) are involved in, or see the drug trade in a one on one personal way...on some level. This guy is not making enough of a clear point to be called a "Hero".

/he will make more off this book than his crack selling friend who made 100k

So your antagonism is aimed more at the use of the tag than the book?

*infects self with HIV, writes book that it sucks, and makes you sick*

Despite not reading the book myself, I fear you may be oversimplifying its contents. Simply stating that "crack is bad" is not enough to solve the problem, nor does it appear to be all he will say.

saintwrathchild: But nobody else has been willing to research this problem so thoroughly, except maybe the feds.

I would think that the police research is entirely directed towards obtaining evidence for the purpose of prosecuting people. They would not conduct a scientific study like this.

Mr Logo: saintwrathchild: But nobody else has been willing to research this problem so thoroughly, except maybe the feds.

I would think that the police research is entirely directed towards obtaining evidence for the purpose of prosecuting people. They would not conduct a scientific study like this.

I was thinking of the comparable experience an undercover cop might have, but I agree, even that would not hold up to this guy's report.

I read Freakonomics (and recommend it), so I am really getting a kick out of these replies.

For those who spun this into a war-on-drugs thing, not really. The guy is a sociologist. He did an excellent job observing, collecting and analyzing data. Mostly, he found that the Black Disciples (not Kings, jeesh) were an effective organized-crime enterprise. J.T. did pretty well for himself until he was promoted to a level at which the Feds took notice. As Venkatesh noted, some of his subordinates couldn't afford to move out of their mom's house, even while risking arrest, turf wars, and gang enforcers.

Freakonomics? (Does the google) Now I have two books to read.

I call shenanigans.

Though J.T. had a college degree, he left corporate America to run a drug operation that made him up to $100,000 a year.

yeah, that always helps pad out a resume.

I began talking to several of my professors about my dissertation topic. As it turned out, they weren't as enthusiastic as I was about an in-depth study of the Black Kings crack gang and their compelling leader.

Yet you eventually won them over with your rugged charisma and dogged determination.

How did he help? He mandated that all his gang members get a high-school diploma and stay off drugs. He gave money to some local youth centers for sports equipment and computers. He willingly loaned out his gang members to Robert Taylor tenant leaders, who deployed them on such tasks as escorting the elderly on errands...

Bravo Farking Sierra.

J.T. just sat for a moment, making no move to drive off. "Okay, well, you want to give it a try? If you think it's so easy, you try it."

We see this day every now, CEOs handing the reins of the company to a subordinate for a day, so they can feel what it's like to walk a mile in their s... fark this.

Most importantly, what will happen to Sukdir once his tell-all expose hits the streets, complete with his photo on the cover? Granted, the Black Kings might not peruse the New York Times best-seller list, but word will get to them sooner or later. Remember Richard Szanza? These guys are almost as bad.

You heard it here first, kiddies. This book is BS.

eqtworld: Yes, and the blind felating of the guy before the book is even out.

No, I am sure he will say what I have already said in this thread. Crack cost 20cents to make and sells for $20 on the street because it is a high risk venture for the seller, and the demand is very strong.

It is all obvious and has been laid out in front of us for a long time.

/if he comes up with new insights, let's praise him then...he is getting a preemptive "way to go Hero, you made a difference!" when nothing new has yet been done

But it has! That's what the book is about and why people are already patting him on the back for the sheer effort alone. I don't have any experience researching this topic, much to the contrary of you apparently, but again I daresay he has more insights on the problem (and its complexities) worth hearing than just what you are repeating.

eqtworld: I, myself, was once president of Algeria.

I, myself, was going to snark about oil problems past and present, but decided against it.

Downtown Dave: Why this is bullshiat:

It can take narcotics officers who look like black drug dealers months- maybe years- to get this deeply inside a drug organization. Apu wants us to believe he sauntered in and was accepted just for his sparkling personality?

First sentence in TFA: "For seven years, sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh led a double life."

Another awesome book sprang from a sociological study of an inner city family in the South Bronx. It's called "Random Family".

I highly recommend it.

yvmnoc--I have to disagree with you. I think perhaps you don't know how incredibly rigourous academic ethics are for non medical research with human subjects. There is absolutely no way that this dude could have completed the research without his 'subjects' knowing that he was an academic. The JT guy he speaks about knew he was an academic, and took him under his wing in FULL cognizance of that.

Why is it so unbelievable that the gang leader would send his minions out to help little old ladies? An urban gang is no different than the Godfather in many respects, it's a relationship with the community, little acts of kindness go a long way in terms of long term survival of the group.

Sounds like an awful lot of judging a book by its cover going on in here.

eqtworld
rumpelstiltskin: He doesn't deserve snarky comments from ignorant internet posters.

Yes, he does.

*Goes undercover, investigates WOW, finds the users of that RPG like video games*

Quit being a dumbass. A nerdy academic hanging out with drug-dealing gangs on the south side of Chicago is far more dangerous than sitting in your mom's basement playing WOW.

i kind of want to read that now. thanks, subby

mtrac
J.T. did pretty well for himself until he was promoted to a level at which the Feds took notice. As Venkatesh noted, some of his subordinates couldn't afford to move out of their mom's house, even while risking arrest, turf wars, and gang enforcers.

So basically, gangs are violent pyramid schemes.

Downtown Dave: It can take narcotics officers who look like black drug dealers months- maybe years- to get this deeply inside a drug organization. Apu wants us to believe he sauntered in and was accepted just for his sparkling personality?

From the article it appears that he said straight up that J.T. knew all along that he was a PhD student doing research.

I've refrenced this very often to very very liberal deuchebag professors who think people deal drugs because they'd make more money then at McDonalds. JT the gang leader he refrences kept numbers. Most street level dealers actually make less then the minimum wage (and thats before risk comes in)