Charles Blow is clueless about blacks in New York City; Pay for the online NY Times? Hell no!

Yes, I was born in the NYC area and I still read the free online NY Times. Op-Ed is for the birds, but the food section, obituaries, local news and business are always worth a glance.

Charles Blow is a terrrible columnist who’s written the same column about the tea party and about Republicans at least 20 times over. Saturday’s column is so outstandingly stupid that it’s worth a comment:

Escape From New York
Published: March 18, 2011
It was a black Mecca and magnet. Was.

Next week, the Census Bureau will release local data for New York. And if those data come in as expected, they will show the first drop in the black population of New York City on a census since at least 1880, according to Professor Andy Beveridge, a sociologist at the City University of New York.

So far, so good. Until Blow steps in it.

But to the soup of reasons and recriminations I would like to add one more possible factor that must be considered if not studied: the hyper-aggressive police tactics that have resulted in a concerted and directed campaign of harassment against the black citizens of this city.

Blow makes the argument that blacks are leaving New York City because of racist cops!

Memo to Charles Blow: This is 2011, not 1963. This is New York City, not Alabama. New York City is liberal and Democratic and has lots of lawyers and activists and media outlets. If the police were truly racist, wouldn’t we see tons of lawsuits and media stories and YouTube videos and daily Al Sharpton marches? If anything, most police bend over backward NOT to appear racist in any way.

If this is even part of the reason blacks are fleeing from, or simply not coming to, our great metropolis, then the city, knowingly or not, is engaged in its own subtle form of ethnic cleansing — a sort of eradication by intimidation. 

The police simply try to do a job, Charles. Do you quote any black person who left New York City in your story? Of course not.

There are two main reasons the black population of New York City is in decline. The main reason is economics–New York City is not affordable for the middle class. That’s why I left. The suburbs and other parts of the United States are more attractive. Not everyone can pay $500,000 for a small Manhattan studio apartment. Harlem has been gentrified. I’d say that economics is the reason for two-thirds of the people who leave New York.

What other reason do we have for the black population declining in New York City? Charles Blow will never tell you. THe New York Times will never tell you. What could it be?

I’ll let Rush Limbaugh tell the story that Charles Blow won’t:

Pro-Abortion Threats Force Down Pro-Life, African-American Ad
February 25, 2011
RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, apparently there is a billboard, or was — I have a picture of it here — there was a billboard in New York City that has been pulled down. It was a picture of a little African-American girl. “An outdoor advertising company has taken down a New York City anti-abortion billboard that showed a black girl along with the tagline, ‘The most dangerous place for an African-American is in the womb.’
“According to the Gothamist, the advertising company actually took the sign down ‘because they were worried about the waiters and waitresses in the building’s restaurant.'” Now, apparently it is racist to try to save black children from abortion. This is really stunning here.
But, yeah, half of New York City pregnancies in abortion. I don’t understand. I mean I do, but intellectually I don’t. Politically I understand, but intellectually I don’t understand how anybody claiming to be an advocate for African-Americans can sit idly by while half of black pregnancies in New York City were aborted. Take the race out of it, that’s horrible. The billboard, if you just go by statistics, was accurate,
RUSH: Here’s the number on the abortion rate for black women in New York City. It’s just under 60%. It’s 59-point-something percent,
Planned Parenthood is doing the job the Klan could never finish, is that what you think? I don’t know. But that’s unacceptable, a 60% abortion rate among black women in New York City, and then you turn around and look at who they’re probably voting for, under what premise? They’re voting for Democrats under the premise that Democrats care about ’em. They’re voting for ’em under the premise that Democrats are gonna protect ’em, that Democrats are gonna protect ’em from racism and sexism and bigotry and homophobia and all these other rotten things that conservative Republicans are doing to them.

If black women in New York City are killing 60% of their babies, Charles Blow, don’t you think the black population will go down?

But no! It’s racist cops who are scaring everyone out of town! Raaaaaaacism!

How Charles Blow has a job at a major city newspaper–even one as bad as the New York Times–is beyond me.

I think I last bought the New York Times when they published a story about me. I’ve been reading the free online New York Times since the 1990s. (It’s not the only online news source I have, of course.)

From the New York Times:

The Times Announces Digital Subscription Plan
Published: March 17, 2011
The New York Times introduced a plan on Thursday to begin charging the most frequent users of its Web site $15 for a four-week subscription in a bet that readers will pay for news they are accustomed to getting free.

Beginning March 28, visitors to NYTimes.com will be able to read 20 articles a month without paying, a limit that company executives said was intended to draw in subscription revenue from the most loyal readers while not driving away the casual visitors who make up the vast majority of the site’s traffic.
If enough readers balk at paying, The Times risks losing its status as the most-visited newspaper Web site in the country — an important distinction with many advertisers. But revenue losses from any declines in traffic could be offset because advertisers were willing to pay a premium for an audience they know is highly engaged.
With passions running high, the question of whether readers will pay never fails to spark spirited discussion online.

The Times’s announcement prompted more than 2,500 comments to its Web site.

No! Hell, no! We’re not paying!

When the New York Times is free as it is, I’ll occasionally read Charles Blow, just to see how stupid he is this week. If I have to pay as much as one cent to read a Charles Blow article, then I’ll never read him again for the rest of my life.

I thought the organ of the DNC would be happy that people read their stuff. Now they won’t read it.

Greedy capitalists!