Skip to main content

tv   Overheard With Evan Smith  PBS  May 9, 2015 4:30pm-5:01pm PDT

4:30 pm
>> funding for "overheard" with evan smith is provided in part by mfi foundation. improving the quality of life within our community. and from the texas board of legal specialization. board certified attorneys in your community, experienced, respected, and tested. also, by hillco partners, a texas government affairs consultancy. and by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation. and viewers like you. thank you. >> i'm evan smith. he is a two-time pulitzer prize-winning journalist and op-ed columnist for "the new york times" whose new book, coauthored with his wife, sheryl wudunn, is "a path appears, transforming lives, creating opportunity." he is nicholas kristof. this is "overheard." [cheering and applause] >> actually, there are not two sides to every issue. >> so i guess we can't fire him now.
4:31 pm
>> i guess we can't fire him now. the night that i win the emmy. >> being on the supreme court was an improbable dream. >> it's hard work, and it's controversial. >> without information there is no freedom, and it's journalists who provide that information. >> window rolls down and this guy says, hey, it goes to 11. [laughter] >> nicholas kristof, welcome. >> i'm delighted to be here. >> thank -- thank you so much for being here. congratulations on this book. >> thank you. >> which i hope is a best seller, like the others have been. >> it already is. >> it already is. well, then, good. >> [laughter] >> we've solved the problems of the world. good night. [laughter] >> the thing about this book is, that, i guess, this is probably the point -- i don't know that you want to advertise this as a slogan. it is both enormously uplifting and enormously depressing. >> well, you know -- actually, i think one of the problems with both journalism and kind of the humanitarian world, is that we focus so much on the problems -- >> we do.
4:32 pm
>> -- that we turn people off. and, you know, in journalism, we cover the planes that crash, not the planes that take off. >> right. >> and that leaves people thinking that all planes are always -- >> only planes crash. right. >> -- crashing. [laughter] >> right. >> and you know, and that, i think, leads a lot of people to just tune out of this world. it just -- but i think -- >> -- feels depressing. >> inevitably though, if you do a book about the problems of the world and amazing solutions being developed by individuals stepping up to solve those -- >> yeah. >> -- problems, the problem part has to be in the book. >> you have to outline the problem, how -- you also have to acknowledge that if people engage, there can be -- >> right. >> -- better outcomes. >> right. so this book is really, in essence, a book that illuminates the great work being done all over by people who are stepping in. >> with a nudge to have other people, sort of engage in these causes -- >> yeah. >> -- as well. >> i mean, in some respects, it's a call-to-action book. >> yes. >> but it's a call to action by way of inspiration, being inspired by these people who've stepped up. >> that's right. we don't want to guilt trip people into -- >> right. >> -- get engage. we want to cite, this is an opportunity that -- >> right. >> -- you know, you can help others, and thereby, help yourself, as well. >> the obvious question with an
4:33 pm
obvious answer is, why aren't the existing means to solve problems or the ones that we've relied upon historically, doing the work for us so that individuals do >> i mean, a couple of reasons. i think that we, traditionally, have relied more on good intentions than on evidence. >> yeah. >> and only in the last 20 years or so has there really been a robust body of evidence looking carefully at what works through randomized control of trials. >> yep. >> and the evidence is that some of the things we've done, actually, haven't worked terribly well. and -- >> right. >> and -- i mean, domestically, in the u.s., i think one of the great lessons is that too often we try to intervene too late, and that it's an awful lot easier to make a difference in the life of a six-month-old than troubled sixteen year old. >> and you mean, intervene too late along a continuum that goes from pre-k or early childhood education as opposed to penitentiary -- >> early, early, earlier. >> early, early, earlier. >> i mean, prenatal and even [inaudible] planning. >> even back farther. >> yeah. >> so -- so as far back as one can go, something like that, but you're also talking about internationally, globally -- >> yes. >> -- crises where we arrive too late; and therefore --
4:34 pm
>> absolutely. >> -- the cost is enormous in lives and dollars and everything else. >> that's right. and ebola is a classic example of that. and we tend to pick the high-hanging fruit and leave all this low-hanging fruit all around us. >> you would think we'd learn. >> you would think. [laughter] but, you know? we don't do a very good job of it and -- >> it's not that we don't talk about it. i mean, you hear people say often, when it relates to education, just to isolate out that one issue, it's so much cheaper to educate a kid now than to jail him or her later. >> yeah. i mean, i think one -- that in the past, people would assert these things, but often, there wasn't great, really robust evidence for that proposition. these days, there really is. and so -- >> yeah. >> -- i mean, you have, you have randomized control trials. so one program that we talked about works with moms at risk, low-income moms, beginning -- >> right. >> -- during pregnancy through age two. ends at age two, but giving that child at the very beginning of life, a foundation. and even though it ends at age two, by age 15, that child is only half as likely to have been arrested. >> makes a difference. yeah. >> it just makes a huge difference.
4:35 pm
>> right. of course, when -- when the best news that we can hope for is half as likely to get arrested. >> you know, i think we have this yearning for silver bullets. >> right. we do. >> and where there -- i got to say, there aren't silver bullets. >> right. >> but there are silver buck shot. and that, you know, there are lots of things that move the needle to some degree. >> right. >> and so if we can, through family planning, reduce the number of 15-year-olds who are having -- >> right. >> -- babies. if we can then help them during pregnancy so that they are drinking less, smoking less -- >> right. >> -- taking fewer drugs. if we can help them in early childhood with early -- with pre-k -- >> right. >> -- then, you know, more investment [inaudible]. >> so you want -- you want evidence and science to be the basis for it. >> yes. absolutely. >> what are you, a communist? [laughter] >> i mean, you -- you -- you can't possibly be arguing in favor of evidence. >> you know, it is fascinating the things we learn from the -- you know, in the international sphre there was a lot of enthusiasm for micro lending a few years ago. >> true. indeed.
4:36 pm
>> and then there was a -- some really careful studies that found that micro-lending was modestly effective, but really, actually, only quite modestly, but micro-savings was hugely effective. >> right. >> the sort of helping very poor families save a little bit of -- of money -- >> yeah. >> -- because everybody can benefit from micro-savings; while really, only the more entrepreneurial people would benefit from micro-lending. >> i guess when i was asking about the -- the -- the failure of the conventional means to solve these problems, i was really talking about institutions. we, in this country, are engaged in what seems like a jihad against government, conceptually. government is bad. big government, especially, is bad, but all government is bad. government doesn't solve problems. government actually creates problems. government doesn't work efficiently or effectively. why can't it, and shouldn't it; or conversely, should we just give up on that whole concept and figure out that we're going to have so solve these problems locally and individually? >> you know, i think that government can be very effective and it can be enormously ineffective. it's -- >> it's not either/or. >> no.
4:37 pm
and -- and you just have to look at what programs work and what don't work so well. i tend to think that we have focused too much on -- in terms of fighting poverty, on safety nets, which have their usefulness, but tend to address symptoms of poverty rather than causes; and so i wouldn't -- >> that's interesting. >> i want to -- i mean, i wouldn't -- i wouldn't want to dismantle safety nets, but i do think you get the most bang for the buck in addressing underlying causes; and i think underlying causes, in particular, you address -- >> right. >> -- early -- in these interventions early in life. >> but the political system, you know, is constructed -- and especially the campaigns and elections in this country are constructed to rebut just such a suggestion because -- >> right. >> -- it becomes about, you want to take away this thing that we've had or that we've given away for so long and that makes you an enemy of -- of helping people. >> and i would -- yeah. i mean, i think that, for example, there was this push for mass incarceration since the 1970s -- >> right. >> -- that ended up, conversely, breaking up families --
4:38 pm
>> yep. >> -- and depriving a lot of boys of dads at home. >> right. >> and i think one thing, that in retrospect, conservatives turned out to be absolutely right on, was the importance of stable families, and especially for raising boys. >> yeah. >> evidence on that is just overwhelming. but the same conservative push for mass incarceration devastated -- and other things did too -- the family. and leading those boys, in turn, to become, at the margin, more likely to offend later on. and so mass incarceration ended up being part of the problem. >> right. i want to ask about some specific stories in this book. >> yeah. >> because really what this book is, is a collection of stories of people doing amazing things, and there are a couple in the book that i like very much, beginning with [inaudible] who is a doctor. >> yeah. >> who applies the principles of epidemiology to curbing violence. >> gang violence. right. >> can you talk a little bit about him? i mean that's -- >> sure. >> -- one -- again, this is a series of examples -- >> yeah. >> -- that you give, told in a narrative fashion of people who are doing amazing work. he is one great -- >> yeah. and he's an example of using a
4:39 pm
public health approach to address something we don't really think of as a health problem. >> right. >> crime. violence. >> violence. >> and so gary [inaudible] worked a lot on infectious diseased in -- >> yeah. >> -- africa, tb, aids; and then he came back to chicago to be near his elderly parents, and he was at loose ends and he was wondering how we could use his expertise. and then he looked at gang violence and the way it spreads. and he realized that it spreads the way infectious diseases spread. it affects people with compromised immunity. >> right. >> perhaps because they grew up in a gang environment, and it -- if you map out infectious diseases, that is exactly how gang violence spreads. so he had -- his technique in addressing them had been to hire people from the community to stop this spread. >> yeah. >> and so in chicago, he started a group called cure violence that stops gang violence the same way. he hires these people from these gang communities, often former gang members with the most
4:40 pm
extraordinary tattoos. and sends them out and they halt these -- these escalating series of game out. we -- we talked to one guy, china joe, who was in the middle of addressing when a fight between two gangs about who could sell heroin on -- on the street and he sort of negotiated an agreemnt where one gang would sell it on this street corner, the other on that street corner. which is the kind of thing police have little -- it's a little harder for police to negotiate that kind of thing. >> really. you -- you -- you think? [laughter] >> yeah. really. yeah. >> yeah. and then he's in the middle of negotiating that and he gets a call from a -- a woman who is about to be murdered by a gang as part of a retribution and so he brings all these two gang -- these two gangs that he just diffused a shoot out with and they all charge over to protect this woman. >> to save the woman. >> to save this woman. and i mean, it's -- >> but again, this is what i mean by institutions that we would look to, traditionally, to solve problems not solving them. i mean, obviously, this is happening, not in league with the authorities, but -- >> right. >> -- because the authorities have been unable to do their job. >> that's right.
4:41 pm
and -- and one of the things i liked about what gary sletken did with cure violence, is he introduced it carefully with, you know, with evidence. so it's -- >> yeah. >> -- been assigned to some randomly there -- you know, there are 20 neighborhoods, and so in 10 neighborhoods cure violence goes in -- >> yeah. >> -- and in 10 it doesn't, and you carefully measure from baselines the change in -- in -- in crime in those places. and it has a quite dramatic effect. >> it's kind of an amazing deal. i'm very fond of -- of -- of lester strong, the former tv news anchor who quits his job, as you tell the story in this book, to try to create tutoring programs for underprivileged kids. this is, again, a case where the public education system is not necessarily doing its best work at helping kids who come in with a real significant need. >> that's right. yeah. >> and he said, i'm going to quit what i'm doing and i'm going to go try to tackle this problem. >> yeah. i mean, lester strong, it meant a lot to him because as a -- as an african-american kid growing up in pennsylvania, he didn't get help at home -- >> right. >> -- that he needed and his
4:42 pm
first-grade teacher thought he was a dunce, said that he was incapable of schoolwork. put his desk out in the hallway. >> yeah. >> incredibly humiliating thing. >> yep. >> and then, he got tutoring help from three people in the community. and then it was transformative for him. he ended up graduating as valedictorian, becoming, as you say, a -- >> successful -- >> very successful news anchor. and then he is now heading experience core, which uses seniors as volunteers to mentor kids just like -- just like him. and -- >> kind of an amazing -- >> it's -- it truly is. and, you know, i think one of the insights we're getting is that there are a lot of sort of interventions and methods of support, that are routine in middle class households, but that in some low income or working class households, those kids are just not getting them. and rather than just throwing up our hands -- >> right. >> -- you know, there are ways of providing that kind of support through mentoring, through tutoring -- >> right. >> -- through parent coaching. they really make a difference. >> well, this is what we talk about as best practices on some level. right?
4:43 pm
what works as being applied -- >> absolutely. >> -- to situations that need it; and also, it is being applied outside of what is typically the bureaucracy -- and maybe this is the argument against institutions. institutions tend to laden everything with bureaucracy and process and it's maybe more efficient to go in in an insurgent way with a program like that. >> i mean, i -- i would favor doing it institutionally. i do think that, as a nation, that we should try to address whether it's family planning, whether it's early childhood intervention -- >> right. >> -- systematically. >> well -- well, and we agree that there's work to be done in improving institutions, but the reality is, you can wait for institutions to improve, or you can be impatient, in a good way, and just say, i'm going to -- just go try to solve this problem. >> right. i mean, while -- i certainly think we could push -- >> [inaudible]. >> -- through advocacy and we talked about advocacy groups -- >> right. >> -- that are doing this push through, to try to address these systemically, but until that happens, in the meantime, let's also, through volunteering, through -- >> right. >> -- private donation, try to prevent those kids from slipping through the cracks [inaudible]. >> you know who -- in reading this book, i was thinking, you know who probably would be a big fan of this approach? it's president bush, the younger, who after all, talked
4:44 pm
about faith-based solutions to problems where either the government couldn't or shouldn't solve them. we look to a community organizations. now, there are people who recoiled from the idea that we're going to go to faith-based organizations, but the reality is, a faith-based organization is no different than -- >> right. >> -- any of these organizations we're talking about, come in and solve the problem. all hands on deck. >> i mean, i guess i would say, i think i'm not usually compared to president george w. bush, but -- >> is that right? [laughter] well, mark -- >> not usually. >> -- mark this day on your calendar, right? [laughter] >> but, i do -- i mean, i think, one difference is, i would -- i really do think that we need more systemic efforts and -- >> yeah. >> -- you know, we wouldn't build an interstate highway system with bake sales and individual volunteers. >> well, actually, stay around texas for a little while longer [laughter] and we may be at that -- you and i can go bake muffins, actually, in the background. keep going. i'm sorry. >> [laughter] yeah. but on the other hand, i do think that, you know, he is right, that, you know, in the absent -- while we're waiting for that to happen, don't just do nothing.
4:45 pm
>> yeah. >> that let's indeed, help those we can and people may disparage it as just drop in the bucket, but at the end of the day, that's how buckets get filled. and for those individuals -- >> right. drop by drop. >> drop by drop. for those individuals, it's -- it is transformative and i do also think that -- one of the things i find very frustrating is -- >> yep. >> -- that there are -- faith-based organizations do great work in this area. and there are secular organizations that do great work and because of the polarization in the u.s. and this -- this god gulf, they tend not to cooperate very much on areas that they agree on. >> right. >> and the result is that, you know, those kids who most desperately need that coalition, don't get it. >> you are, like bush, a uniter, not a divider. i think that's actually great. [laughter] you -- as -- as you have proven. let me -- let me move -- let me move a little bit away from the actual book, but stay with your co-author, for a moment. you have co-written, now -- this is a best seller -- so four best-selling books with your wife. i can't make it to the grocery
4:46 pm
store with my wife without her being mad at me. [laughter] so i'm wondering -- i'm wondering how -- how you make this work? how -- how do you an your wife collaborate? what is the actual process of collaborating, and what is the thought going into it, and what's the execution -- execution of it once you're into it? >> you know, the truth is that we have -- we have three kids and if you can raise three kids and stay married -- >> you can write four books. [overlapping speakers] [laughter] but -- but can you talk in -- i'd love to know. how do you approach the task of a book like this where it's co-ownership, co-authorship, dividing the labor up and all that? >> you know, sheryl and i have themes that we're both interested in, but somewhat different precise interest. so sheryl worked in banking for some years. >> yep. >> she's interested in -- she believes deeply that we -- that for-profit companies can be engines of change; and because they are big, if they take on a social mission, whether it's through corporate social responsibility or -- or in whatever form, that they can -- >> right. >> -- truly make a difference. and so we have some chapters on that.
4:47 pm
she believes that double bottom line companies. so companies that are for profit but that also have a social mission. >> charitable component or -- >> exactly. >> yeah. mission -- >> or impact investing is another -- >> yeah. >> -- aspect of that. that these are also ways that can truly move the needle and they're more sustainable because they are for profit. >> right. >> and so she -- so she tended to pick off areas that are more intrinsically interested -- interesting to her. i pick those that are interesting to me. we write our own individual chapters and then the other person edits -- >> that's great. >> -- what we've written and edits quite heavily. i mean, are there a few bruised feelings? you know -- >> probably -- hey. it's a marriage, right? >> yeah. but at the end of the day, you know, you can put a book to bed at night and it stays asleep. a manuscript doesn't play you off each other, you know. >> that's true. >> it's so much easier than kids. [laughter]
4:48 pm
>> where were you when i -- long ago i should have -- [laughter] the -- the great thing about this book, though, is that while it's a collaboration, it reads seamlessly as if it's produced by one entity or one voice. which -- >> that's because of sheryl's heavy editing. >> is that what it is? now we -- [laughter] now i see what you're talking about. the -- ebola, which you referenced earlier, i think, that any conversation with you, these days, has to run through a discussion of where we've been and are and are going on this subject. it has now been migrated from texas to new york as the focus of the nation's attention. you're welcome. [laughter] but in all seriousness -- and there's no other way to regard it but seriously, what are we to make of this as a nation? your book is about global consciousness. we've clearly been lacking in the global consciousness department about this issue. >> we blew it. i mean -- >> we blew it. >> the ebola began, actually, at the end of 2013. it was finally detected in the spring of 2014, and the world kind of shrugged. i mean, when it -- in -- in the march/april period, if there had been an aggressive effort --
4:49 pm
>> yeah. >> -- to wipe it out in west africa, that could have been done quite easily. we know how to do that. the u.s. has the program that it sponsored in uganda to detect ebola early, diagnose it, stop it. and that's -- it's so successful it stopped after one case. >> well, what happened? >> i think that we felt that guinea, sierra leone, liberia, they're so far away. it's not going to bother us. >> not our problem. >> their problem. we're weary of the world. >> right. >> one of the basic lessons of infectious disease is you've got to stop it early, and we blew that and we -- we should have learned that from aids, we should have learned that from cholera in haiti. once they escalate, it becomes infinitely harder to stop. and i think, we're still making that mistake. we -- you know, right now, in west africa, depending on the country, it's -- the number of cases is doubling every two to four weeks. these countries don't have the resources to stop it on its own. liberia's entire electrical capacity is one-third what the dallas cowboys stadium consumes at peak hours. i mean, it's -- it's -- you
4:50 pm
know, they just don't -- all liberia only had 50 doctors at the outset -- >> yeah. >> -- of this. and so if it is going to be stopped, it's going to be with international help; and if it's not stopped, it is going to spread to other countries in africa and has now spread to mali. it will eventually spread to, you know, to south asia. and those would be catastrophes. the problem isn't -- people are -- you know, there's a certain amount of hysteria about ebola, here. >> yeah. >> we don't need to be so worried about ebola in america. our health system is such that we will stop it. >> you're not -- you're not freaked out. >> i'm not freaked out about the u.s. at all; but the way to protect america is not to build barriers or do things at the airport, here. the way to protect americans is to stop it in west africa. >> all right. so let me stop you, there. so this has become a hot topic, politically. you do not believe there should be a travel ban -- >> i don't. >> -- at airports? >> i don't. i think that that impedes the effort to -- to end it in -- in west africa. >> but couldn't we -- >> -- and that should be the -- >> -- couldn't we -- couldn't we wire around a commercial travel ban to allow experts to get overseas? i mean, couldn't we have both?
4:51 pm
>> i mean, in theory, you could. in practice, it tends to be very difficult. the aid organizations that are actually trying to fight this on the ground, they say that -- that any interruption in commercial travel impedes the ability of individuals to get there, of cargo -- >> right. >> -- to get there and even -- i mean, i -- i came across a case where a south african doctor wanted to go to sierra leone to help and then she just realized it was going to be difficult to get back to south africa. >> yeah. >> she went to sierra leone and so she canceled her plans. and it is so much more important to -- i mean the -- all priority right now, should be on -- >> yeah. >> -- wiping it out in sierra leone, liberia, and guinea and now mali, unfortunately. >> yeah. couple minutes left. you are in your 30th year with "the new york times." >> just -- 30 -- i just passed 30 years. >> just passed the 30 -- just passed the 30 -- into the 30 -- got there in '84. >> i started when i was seven years old. [laughter] >> i was going to say you look good. so you've actually been part of the newspaper business -- and
4:52 pm
you've been sitting, really, in the very best perch to observe it through an extraordinary period of both revolution and evolution. right? you could -- you -- you are now in 2014 at a newspaper that's making a go of it in the way -- >> yeah. >> -- that many newspapers are not. still producing amazing and award-winning journalism, and yet, just announced that there would be another round of cutbacks. reassure us or not about the state of journalism from your perspective of the times? >> i mean, i think -- unfortunately, that there was too much evolution in the news industry and not enough revolution. i think we, in the news industry, brought late -- i mean, i -- i think the times has done reasonably well. but in general, i think, whether you're talking about television, news magazines, newspapers, that we blew it and that we were too comfy, too risk averse, too reluctant to engage readers. you know, as our business model collapsed, one emerging business model was creating a social network. we had social networks -- >> yep. >> -- with our audiences and we blew it.
4:53 pm
we let that slip through our fingers. i think we have been way too slow to move -- we, generally, meaning the news media -- >> yeah. >> -- too slow to move on to the web, to use reader-generated content, to adopt social media, to use video, and it's not -- >> you've embraced -- personally, you have embraced much of that stuff. you're like a one-man band, although clearly, you're an institutionalist in the sense of being a new york times guy. you have an individual brand. you have a very aggressive presence on social media. you understand. you've embraced it. >> i mean, i think that we -- we have to do more -- i mean, i'm a little like a -- i feel like this ancient prehistoric fish trying to clamber onto land and develop lungs, you know, because -- >> right. >> -- i see that this is the future. and i think that we need to do -- i think we need to do more of that and i -- there's a certain contempt use and i'm -- hear or disdain from long time journalists about, you know, the buzz feeds of the world or huffington posts of the world. i fear that that kind of disdain is the same thing as -- >> you don't share it. >> i don't share that.
4:54 pm
i think we need to learn from them and i think probably the disdain is not all that dissimilar from what people at kodak were saying about digital pictures in the early years. >> but you acknowledge that -- that buzz feed style journalism doesn't necessarily migrate over to "the new york times." i mean, you know, 26 diseases we should be freaked out about should not be what "the new york times" is doing. >> yeah. no. let me give you a list [inaudible] about why it's not for us. >> yeah. >> a joke. >> that was a good joke. no. i got it. i was like, man, that's -- that's a pretty hip joke. [laughter] that's very good. but the point is you -- you -- you accept the fact that the buzz feeds of the world have their place. >> yeah. >> "the new york times" has its place. they don't all have to be the same. >> that's right. and that we -- we need to learn from the willingness to take risks, to screw up periodically, to try new things. >> yeah. >> and i think we've been -- we, generically, all of us, have been slow to do that, and our old business model -- >> yeah. >> -- is not going to work as well. >> that three-legged stool of classified advertising and display advertising and circulation is kind of an antiquated -- >> that's right. >> -- model, isn't it? >> and -- and the -- you know,
4:55 pm
at the end of the day, "the new york times," "the wall street journal" -- >> yeah. >> -- will be able to have -- leverages global -- >> sure. >> -- audience. the thing i worry about, mostly, is in, frankly, state capitals or in the cities that, you know, who is going to cover those city governments? >> yeah. >> those state governments. especially in one-party towns where the opposition, you know, isn't able to provide that kind of scrutiny. traditionally, that was the role of the news media, and i think that the news media is going to be dropping the ball on that because it's expensive and difficult to cover state or local government. >> yeah. >> and there's not a huge audience for it. >> well, let's hope that changes. >> yeah. >> let's hope. nicholas kristof, good to see you. >> great to be here. [applause] >> we'd love to have you join us in the studio. visit our website at klru.org/overheard to find invitations to interviews, q&a's with ourience d guests, and an archive of past episodes. >> i think of the -- of climate change, which had been something
4:56 pm
of a bipartisan issue and it polled reasonably well among republicans until al gore became associated with it, and then republican polling on it, you know, dropped dramatically, and i -- i hope that doesn't happen again. [music playing] >> funding for "overheard" with evan smith is provided in part by mfi foundation. improving the quality of life within our community. and from the texas board of legal specialization, board certified attorneys in your community. experienced, respected, and tested. also, by hillco partners. texas government affairs consultancy, and its global healthcare consulting business unit, hillco health. and by the alice kleberg reynolds foundation, and viewers like you. thank you. garrison keillor: after serving in the united states navy,
4:57 pm
galway kinnell was a field worker in the south during the civil rights struggle of the 1960s. he's been a macarthur fellow, the state poet of vermont, and a winner of the pulitzer prize and the national book award. "a poem expresses one's most private feelings," he says, "and these turn out to be the feelings of everyone else as well." for i can snore like a bullhorn or play loud music or sit up talking with any reasonably sober irishman, and fergus will only sink deeper into his dreamless sleep, which goes by all in one flash. but let there be that heavy breathing or a stifled come cry anywhere in the house and he will wrench himself awake and make for it on the run. as now, we lie together, after making love, quiet, touching along the length of our bodies,
4:58 pm
familiar touch of the long-married, and he appears in his baseball pajamas, it happens, the neck opening so small he has to screw them on, and flops down between us and hugs us and snuggles himself to sleep, his face gleaming with satisfaction at being this very child. in the half darkness we look at each other and smile and touch arms across this little, startlingly muscled body, this one whom habit of memory propels to the ground of his making, sleeper only the mortal sounds can sing awake, this blessing love gives again into our arms. (applause)
4:59 pm
5:00 pm

70 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on