Across the entire American media edifice, is there a single institution more deserving of ridicule and irrelevance than the New York Times editorial board? Despite efforts to shake up a stale cast of writers who have aged largely in place since the Clinton Administration - the Opinion section has added some new progressive and conservative voices in recent years - most of the writings are little more than ridiculous, poorly fact-checked clickbait.
This is the same editorial board that endorsed Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar following a televised competition that had the air of an extremely boring reality show.
Barely a month goes by without an NYT column going viral for making some inane claim or another.
And on Thursday, the paper once again hit it out of the park with a column by Charles Blow, the liberal black columnist who has been one of the paper's fiercest defenders of "Black Lives Matter" and one of the biggest opponents of the aggressive police tactics that are largely responsible for reducing crime across the US.
Blow attacked former NYC Mayor and current presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg on Thursday, accusing the mayor of callously expanding stop-and-frisk. The policy was a critical component of the Giuliani administration's "broken windows" program of law enforcement that helped bring the NYC murder rate to historic lows never thought possible.
Like many liberals, Blow doesn't spare a thought for stop and frisk's role in making NYC a much safer city - a city where hundreds of thousands - even millions - of minorities didn't feel trapped in their own homes. He simply cites a stat showing that the actual number of guns seized by stop and frisk was relatively small, and leaves it at that.
As we've argued before, Bloomberg has been apologizing for stop and frisk when he really should be praising its effectiveness.
Because the policy was at the core of a new, aggressive NYPD that made it known on the streets that if you're out committing crimes, you might get randomly stopped. Because of the increased chances of getting randomly stopped, fewer criminals were willing to chance it in the streets with a pistol.
With fewer people carrying guns, fewer aggravated disputes erupted into murders.
Some estimate that stop and frisk help save more than 20,000 minority lives during Bloomberg's 12-year tenure. And also helped make an enormous difference in quality of life.
For whatever reason (probably because he's pandering to SJWs), Blow insists the "damage" done to those unfairly stopped somehow outweighs all of this (well, Blow and his ilk simply deny the obvious evidence that the policy helped lower the murder rate).
SJWs insist stop and frisk was "racist" because the ethnicity of those stopped didn't correspond to the ethnic breakdown of the city's population. However, evidence shows that the ethnic makeup of those stopped correspondent with the descriptions of criminal suspects.
He also attacked Bloomberg over audio that recently surfaced in which he can be heard saying "95% of your murders - murderers and murder victims - fit one MO".
Nearly 90 percent of the people stopped were completely innocent. He knew that. They were the collateral damage in his crusade, black and brown bodies up against walls and down on the ground, groped in the middle of the city by strange men with guns, a vast expanse of human psychological wreckage about which he couldn’t care less.
A recording from a speech Bloomberg delivered at the Aspen Institute in 2015 underscores just how callous and cavalier he was in his thinking about this racist policy.
"Ninety-five percent of your murders - murderers and murder victims - fit one M.O.," Bloomberg said. "You can just take the description, Xerox it and pass it out to all the cops. They are male, minorities, 16 to 25. That’s true in New York. That’s true in virtually every city."
He goes on to say: “One of the unintended consequences is, people say, ‘Oh my God, you are arresting kids for marijuana, they’re all minorities.’ Yes, that’s true. Why? Because put all the cops in minority neighborhoods. Yes, that’s true. Why do we do it? Because that’s where all the crime is.”
Later he says, "The way you get the guns out of the kids’ hands is to throw them against the wall and frisk them."
Blow goes on to slam Bloomberg for his "explicitly race-based policy".
First, Bloomberg didn’t see individual criminals, many of whom happened to be minorities; he saw a class of criminals who were minorities. “They are male, minorities, 16 to 25.” Many of these were children.
He was articulating an explicitly race-based policy.
He spoke nonchalantly about giving these young people criminal records for marijuana, ignoring the enormous harm these criminal records cause to individuals and whole communities. And a vast majority of those people and communities were minorities.
And Bloomberg defended the practice by saying that the only way to get the guns out of the kids’ hands was to throw the kids against a wall. But nearly 90 percent of these young people were completely innocent. They had done absolutely nothing wrong, let alone possess a gun.
The Columbia Law School professor Jeffrey Fagan produced a report that became part of a class-action lawsuit against the city in 2010. It found that "[s]eizures of weapons or contraband are extremely rare. Overall, guns are seized in less than 1 percent of all stops: 0.15 percent. … Contraband, which may include weapons but also includes drugs or stolen property, is seized in 1.75 percent of all stops."
As Fagan wrote, “The N.Y.P.D. stop-and-frisk tactics produce rates of seizures of guns or other contraband that are no greater than would be produced simply by chance.”
Here's that clip. While Bloomberg's nonchalant tone has offended SJWs, nothing he is saying is untrue. As conservatives like to say: facts don't care about your feelings. Critics also like to point out that the tactic was declared unconstitutional by a federal judge, but her ruling didn't render it an illegal tactic, rather, she mandated that the NYPD needed to adopt a written policy for how stops would be carried out. The judge did not rule the tactic itself unconstitutional - she just said the way the NYPD went about it was wrong.
Given that he's a member of the NYT's editorial board, we suspect that Blow, like many liberals and SJWs, is extremely financially comfortable by American standards, so we don't expect him to be able to empathize with people who live in poorer neighborhoods that suffer from endemic crime.
Sure, blacks don't like to be searched by the police for no reason - but they don't like to be shot and killed, either
President Trump's law and order platform actually enjoys relatively strong support among black Americans: Polling suggests Trump has the support of more than 30% of African Americans, a higher number than past Republican candidates.
We wonder: Why does Blow think this is?