Jim Geraghty of NR calls out NY Times columnist Charles Blow for a religious slur aimed at Mitt Romney:
Hmm, mocking Mormon's religious undergarments? My, my. Are these the standards at the Times?
As to what set Blow off, the offending portion of the debate seems to be this:
ROMNEY: John, you know, I think as Rick has just said, this isn't an argument about contraceptives, this is a discussion about, are we going to have a nation which preserves the foundation of the nation, which is the family, or are we not? And Rick is absolutely right.
When you have 40 percent of kids being born out of wedlock, and among certain ethnic groups the vast majority being born out of wedlock, you ask yourself, how are we going to have a society in the future? Because these kids are raised in poverty in many cases, they're in abusive settings. The likelihood of them being able to finish high school or college drops dramatically in single-family homes. And we haven't been willing to talk about this.
Romney alludes to the fact that Rick Santorum made a similar point earlier, yet he didn't draw any Blow-tweets about his Magic Rosary - whatever.
Is it possible that Romney and Santorum had a point about the perils of broken homes? Let's cut to a Times columnist for guidance:
Now allow me to set aside the personal issues for a moment and refocus on the issue at the crux of Mr. Obama’s speeches (lest it be lost in the hullabaloo): more black men need to be present in the lives of their children. On that, there can be no argument.
According to the United States Census Bureau, black children are the only group more likely to live with a single mother than in a two-parent household. (That’s in part because black men are the least likely to be married and most likely to be divorced or separated.) And, according to a 2002 report by Child Trends, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research group, in 1997 single black mothers were the least likely to receive full child support payments (and most likely to receive none) and only about half of black children had any contact with their absent fathers in 1996.
That was Charles Blow writing in 2008 in praise of Barack Obama - no "Hey, Muddle Mouth, my kids are amazing" here. Evidently, how one takes the message depends on the messenger.
For another voice, let's turn to Times columnist Bob Herbert, writing on the crisis facing young black men:
I was going over the dismal information in a new report about the tragic conditions confronting a large portion of America’s black population, especially black males.
We know by now, of course, that the situation is grave. We know that more than a third of black children live in poverty; that more than 70 percent are born to unwed mothers; that by the time they reach their mid-30s, a majority of black men without a high school diploma has spent time in prison.
...Black children — boys and girls — are three times more likely to live in single-parent households than white children and twice as likely to live in a home where no parent has full-time or year-round employment.
He keeps writing abut single-parent households as though it were a bad thing. Hater. Doesn't he know Charles Blow has amazing kids so its all good?
Here is Times columnist, Nick Kristof on the poverty trap:
Over the last 35 years, our economy has almost tripled in size, but, according to the United States Census Bureau, the number of Americans living below the poverty line has been stuck at roughly 1 in 8.
One reason is that wages for blue-collar and other ordinary workers peaked in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A second is the breakdown in the family and the explosion in single-parent households.
...In effect, what’s needed to overcome poverty in part seems to be a change of culture, to break self-destructive behaviors — resignation to unemployment, self-doubt, alcohol and drug abuse, disintegrating families, lack of engagement in children’s education — that create self-replicating cycles of poverty.
He keeps mentioning the breakdown in families as if its a bad thing. Don't these Times columnists socialize at all? Charles Blow's kids are amazing, so pipe down, Nick.
Here is Times contributor Lisa Belkin of the Motherlode Blog talking to a sociologist about the rise in singe fathers raising families:
With More Single Fathers, a Changing Family Picture
Q: Is there any measurable difference to a child being raised by a single father versus a single mother?
A: That, of course, is the most important question! In my opinion, this needs much more research, but last year, there was a marvelous study showing that children of single fathers and single mothers faced greater developmental risks than children raised by their own two parents — risks like not completing high school and being both unemployed and out of school as young adults. The really interesting thing here is that for children with a single mom, the risks were reduced a bit if the mother found a new partner, but for children with a single dad, the risks increased when he found a new partner. Maybe this is only because I have a four-year-old girl, but this study conjured images of the wicked stepmother archetype from so many fairy tales.
Sweet Jiminy, doesn't the Times have any editors up to speed on the Blow household? If they did, they would quit printing this research-based drivel and deliver the only news we need to know - single fathers raise amazing kids!
And in keeping with our goal of leaving no dead horse behind, unbeaten, we have one last bit of non-anecdotal evidence, this time torn from this weeks headlines:
For Women Under 30, Most Births Occur Outside Marriage
By JASON DePARLE and SABRINA TAVERNISE
...The shift is affecting children’s lives. Researchers have consistently found that children born outside marriage face elevated risks of falling into poverty, failing in school or suffering emotional and behavioral problems.
Times editors have a wonderful opportunity to correct the record. Or to address Blow's ignorant bigotry. Does anybody anywhere think Blow will be asked to address either the Mormon slur or the anecdotal sociology?
A HATE GROUP OF ONE: Bill Jacobson notes that Mr. Bow was quick to spot the bigotry and hate in the Tea Party. Maybe we could chip in and buy him a mirror.
CAN'T MAKE THIS UP: Was it really only two weeks ago that Charles Blow led a column with "Twitter claims another casualty"?!?
Twitter claims another casualty.
This week, Roland Martin, a bombastic cultural and political commentator was suspended by CNN from his role as a political analyst on the network for Twitter messages published during the Super Bowl.
One message read: “If a dude at your Super Bowl party is hyped about David Beckham’s H&M underwear ad, smack the ish out of him! #superbowl.” Another read: “Who the hell was that New England Patriot they just showed in a head to toe pink suit? Oh, he needs a visit from #teamwhipdatass.”
The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation said the messages advocated “violence against gay people” and asked CNN to fire Martin. CNN called the messages “regrettable and offensive” and suspended him “for the time being.” Martin issued an apology in which he said that he was just “joking about smacking someone.”
And we get the expected verbiage about tolerance, diversity and respect for others. None of which seems to apply to Mormons, none of which Mr. Blow seems to have internalized, and none of which will be applied by the Times.
Some parting wisdom from Mr. Blow:
We all have to understand that effects can operate independent of intent, that subconscious biases can move counter to conscious egalitarianism, and that malice need not be present within the individual to fuel the maliciousness of the society at large.
By "we all have to understand", naturally he means "You all have to understand...". Pressing on:
Start with this fact: The truest measure of a man, indeed of a person, is not whom he lies down with but what he stands up for. If we must be judged, let it be in this way. And when we fall short, as we sometimes will, because humanity is fallible, let us greet each other with compassion and encouragement rather than ridicule and resentment.
Let us greet each other with compassion, unless the other guy is a Mormon. Then he can stick it in his magic underwear.
I am marveling at this trifecta of bigotry, stupidity and hypocrisy.