A brutal line from a brutal piece, about a nonprofit founder that took advantage of post-George Floyd fundraising largesse to enjoy a lavish lifestyle while producing nothing.
Tim Scott made a profound statement when he said: "Black families survived slavery. We survived poll taxes and literacy tests. We survived discrimination being woven into the laws of our country. What was hard to survive, was Johnson’s Great Society, where they decided to take the black father out of the household to get a check in the mail, and you can now measure that in unemployment, in crime, in devastation. If you want to restore hope, you’ve got to restore the family, restore capitalism, and put Americans back at work, together as one American family."
Eliminating the welfare state, which lures 16 year old black girls into having illegitimate children, will solve a host of problems. Crime, poverty, and excessive spending on welfare programs will be reduced if we stop giving cash payments, medicaid, free housing, food stamps, etc to young girls who drop out of school to have a baby.
Nearly 70% of all Black babies in America today are born to unmarried mothers, and 64% of all Black children grow up in a single-parent home. Tragically, fatherlessness strongly correlates with negative outcomes in nearly every aspect of a child's life. There would be a lot less black on black crime if the welfare system were reformed.
There are a lot more whites than blacks in the US. Eliminating payments and other handouts to whites would be helpful a well.
"There would be a lot less black on black crime if the welfare system were reformed." I lived in Chicago. I'm quite familiar with black on black crime. Does this opinion come with any evidence?
I'm with both of you regarding the downside of single parent (especially teen parent) families. What I wonder is how teen pregnancy went down 75% without shutting down the welfare system. We got a positive result (75% less teen mothers) without taking away financial support. Why do you guys think "black on black crime" and teen pregnancy rates would benefit from providing less financial support to poor mothers. Do you have any studies or statistics? Have you ever spoken to a 15 year old who said that she was "lured" into pregnancy for the money? Do you even know any poor people? Jesus.
The large reduction in the teen birth rate is misleading. The rate increased dramatically between 1986 and 1991. The rate in 1991 was astoundingly, unpresentedly high. The rate today is still higher than in other developed countries. The teen birth rate should be much lower. Jesus.
It is obvious that if the number of teen births decreased, the number of children living in poverty, on welfare with single mothers would decrease. Fewer children living in such situations with all the inherent pathologies, would lead to fewer school dropouts and less crime, including black on black crime. A study isn't needed to realize this. Jesus.
They aren't lured into it for the money but if you take away the knowledge that all the money and other benefits will be theirs, then the system encourages them to have illegitimate babies. The 1996 welfare reform included a provision to exclude single women 25 years and younger from receiving welfare benefits. This, unfortunately, was left out of the final bill. Jesus.
Perhaps 'support' or other forms of meddling _is_ the problem. What if treating black people like they're handicapped is what's actually handicapping them.
"And as the months drifted by and it became clear that the American establishment was perfectly able to absorb what was happening, despite all the angst, and as the forces of culture war steadily pecked away at that short-lived feeling of unity, the inevitable discovery of million dollar mansions bought with donated cash helped push a lot of previously-excitable liberals into their quite and embarrassed era."
I repeat myself over and over.
If the Establishment is good at nothing else, it is very good at figuring out who can be co-opted, who can be bought off, who can be neutralized, who can be ignored.
"What the hell happened to liberals and to the media that they controlled? Why did the default media worker morph from being a center-left technocratic Ezra Klein wannabe into an intersectionality-worshipping radlib with vague economic politics? "
Because intersectional dipshittery, endless and endlessly performative namecalling, demands for more diverse oppressors, none of that changes the way the economic pie gets sliced.
"As I point out in the relevant chapter of the book, even nonprofits that are guilty of no illegality have exquisitely fine-tuned systems for turning your money into ash."
Look at The Clinton Foundation, which is basically an influence peddling scheme and jobs program for Friends Of Bill.
I do believe these foundations are much more than that ... think of the possibilities. Foundations can donate fully funded staffers to congressional offices ... to work on legislation —let me send a fully funded lawyer to your office to write the bills I want written.
I cringed at that exact line in the piece when I read it, and also had a pretty good feeling this piece would be on your radar.
But yeah, the cringiest part of the whole story, by far, is the fact that the guy was originally just designing an app that could consolidate police complaints (I guess?), but once that much-simpler idea couldn't be accomplished, he went in a total tech-bro type of direction and claimed they were going to create an alternative to 911. I'm literally laughing as I type that out.
Worth noting there was another piece in the NYT recently about the money being spent by the CEO of GLADD. It's a different concept, but there is a larger theme there as well. GLADD won nearly all their battles, and now they don't exactly know what to do with their organization (nor its money!).
And yet you're writing this in the comment section for an article that excoriated the pieties of mainstream liberalism. Yeah, there's a lot of bias and stupidity in the media but even at the NY Times there's still people that do good work.
They "do good work" ... months or even years after it's socially acceptable to do so in their peer circle. No bonus points are awarded for that, I'm afraid.
I don't know much about the Kresge Foundation, whose spokesperson gave that stunning quote about no expectations, even if plenty is available about it online. But that piece should make donors say: WTF
"the writer would have to be well-respected and have good liberal credentials."
There is no single person so well respected to pull this off. There has been a parade of respectable people who questioned what was going on, only to have some mild tweet from 2011 recast as incontrovertible racism and their entire career discredited. Even Obama would instantly be un-personed the moment he breaks ranks.
My mom used to say that the only way to convince someone your way was better was to let them try it their way. I thought that was cynical to the point of hopelessness, but it keeps being true.
Maybe it is as simple as getting Liz Warren to explain her turn from sharp Harvard Law professor with expertise in the financial services industry to a tweeting and meming machine seeking clicks and donations over policy and election wins.
Funny enough, if we put the whole Yelling Woke Era as 2012 thru 2022, that's nearly my entire 30s (I turned 40 in November 2023). Here's hoping my 40s deliver something better and less unpleasant.
I doubt any news org will step forward for a post-mortem of The Racial Reckoning. They're (most of them) clearly too busy selling us the new version of the Kamala I-phone.
1. Twitter put media, academia, the professional political and non-profit class, vain celebrities, and the shitposting rabble all in a panopticon for a decade.
2. Donald Trump became the President
3. We all got locked inside for months due to an unprecedented and confusing public crisis, leaving everybody unable to even momentarily escape #1 and #2.
The comments section every NYT article that spends some time critically analyzing the Dems/Kamala/etc. are full of tote-baggers lamenting the MAGA takeover of the grey lady.
I'm talking run-of-the-mill, toothless "this messaging needs to be more clear" opinion pieces written by paint-by-numbers liberals. It's goofballworld.
I read the NYT daily, and dive into comments sections quite a bit. Yes, there are some of these types, but I don't see it the same way you do. I don't find those reactions overwhelming at all.
Interesting. I have read the NYT for decades and generally scan the comments for articles where there should be decent discussion. There seldom is...usually one or two divergent viewpoints from the inevitably narrative-supporting article followed by a long Greek chorus of how the NYT has lost its way and how can people with such thoughts be allowed to read it. Maybe you get a different edition...
I think we both know I don't get a different edition, but yeah, have definitely never read anyone stating they're not sure how people with such thoughts be allowed to read it. Ever.
Oh, I get annoyed by those types. I just think the vast majority of readers/commenters actually largely agree with most of Freddie's readers. Anecdotally, that's true of most liberals I personally know as well.
Interesting. Anecdotally, I've begun to find that most of the liberals I personally know agree with Freddie except when related to their primary obsession or interest, meaning they've pulled back from full wokeness except for one aspect of it, the aspect that is most clearly linked to their own identity concerns.
I suppose that is a good example of where we differ, because I just looked at the comments, and I see a bunch of people criticizing Stephens' piece, but I don't see people bemoaning the fact that Stephens is writing for the NYT, or people lamenting a MAGA takeover of the NYT.
Stephens is a conservative who dislikes Trump a great deal, dislikes Democrats a great deal, and his pieces reflect that, which I think is totally fine.
You keep saying this, but they are very few and very far between and they seldom if ever delve into topics like this which is where they should be focused.
Tim Scott made a profound statement when he said: "Black families survived slavery. We survived poll taxes and literacy tests. We survived discrimination being woven into the laws of our country. What was hard to survive, was Johnson’s Great Society, where they decided to take the black father out of the household to get a check in the mail, and you can now measure that in unemployment, in crime, in devastation. If you want to restore hope, you’ve got to restore the family, restore capitalism, and put Americans back at work, together as one American family."
Eliminating the welfare state, which lures 16 year old black girls into having illegitimate children, will solve a host of problems. Crime, poverty, and excessive spending on welfare programs will be reduced if we stop giving cash payments, medicaid, free housing, food stamps, etc to young girls who drop out of school to have a baby.
This sounds plausible until you look at the facts. Teen birth rates are down 75% since 1991 and there are far more 16 year old white mothers than black ones. Teen birth rates are highest in shitty southern states that provide the least financial support for poor mothers. https://opa.hhs.gov/adolescent-health/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/trends-teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing
Nearly 70% of all Black babies in America today are born to unmarried mothers, and 64% of all Black children grow up in a single-parent home. Tragically, fatherlessness strongly correlates with negative outcomes in nearly every aspect of a child's life. There would be a lot less black on black crime if the welfare system were reformed.
There are a lot more whites than blacks in the US. Eliminating payments and other handouts to whites would be helpful a well.
"There would be a lot less black on black crime if the welfare system were reformed." I lived in Chicago. I'm quite familiar with black on black crime. Does this opinion come with any evidence?
I'm with both of you regarding the downside of single parent (especially teen parent) families. What I wonder is how teen pregnancy went down 75% without shutting down the welfare system. We got a positive result (75% less teen mothers) without taking away financial support. Why do you guys think "black on black crime" and teen pregnancy rates would benefit from providing less financial support to poor mothers. Do you have any studies or statistics? Have you ever spoken to a 15 year old who said that she was "lured" into pregnancy for the money? Do you even know any poor people? Jesus.
The large reduction in the teen birth rate is misleading. The rate increased dramatically between 1986 and 1991. The rate in 1991 was astoundingly, unpresentedly high. The rate today is still higher than in other developed countries. The teen birth rate should be much lower. Jesus.
It is obvious that if the number of teen births decreased, the number of children living in poverty, on welfare with single mothers would decrease. Fewer children living in such situations with all the inherent pathologies, would lead to fewer school dropouts and less crime, including black on black crime. A study isn't needed to realize this. Jesus.
They aren't lured into it for the money but if you take away the knowledge that all the money and other benefits will be theirs, then the system encourages them to have illegitimate babies. The 1996 welfare reform included a provision to exclude single women 25 years and younger from receiving welfare benefits. This, unfortunately, was left out of the final bill. Jesus.
Perhaps 'support' or other forms of meddling _is_ the problem. What if treating black people like they're handicapped is what's actually handicapping them.
"And as the months drifted by and it became clear that the American establishment was perfectly able to absorb what was happening, despite all the angst, and as the forces of culture war steadily pecked away at that short-lived feeling of unity, the inevitable discovery of million dollar mansions bought with donated cash helped push a lot of previously-excitable liberals into their quite and embarrassed era."
I repeat myself over and over.
If the Establishment is good at nothing else, it is very good at figuring out who can be co-opted, who can be bought off, who can be neutralized, who can be ignored.
"What the hell happened to liberals and to the media that they controlled? Why did the default media worker morph from being a center-left technocratic Ezra Klein wannabe into an intersectionality-worshipping radlib with vague economic politics? "
Because intersectional dipshittery, endless and endlessly performative namecalling, demands for more diverse oppressors, none of that changes the way the economic pie gets sliced.
"As I point out in the relevant chapter of the book, even nonprofits that are guilty of no illegality have exquisitely fine-tuned systems for turning your money into ash."
Look at The Clinton Foundation, which is basically an influence peddling scheme and jobs program for Friends Of Bill.
All totally legal and vetted by pricey lawyers.
I do believe these foundations are much more than that ... think of the possibilities. Foundations can donate fully funded staffers to congressional offices ... to work on legislation —let me send a fully funded lawyer to your office to write the bills I want written.
Good point. I guess that comes under "influence peddling"?
Excellent Freddie!
I cringed at that exact line in the piece when I read it, and also had a pretty good feeling this piece would be on your radar.
But yeah, the cringiest part of the whole story, by far, is the fact that the guy was originally just designing an app that could consolidate police complaints (I guess?), but once that much-simpler idea couldn't be accomplished, he went in a total tech-bro type of direction and claimed they were going to create an alternative to 911. I'm literally laughing as I type that out.
Worth noting there was another piece in the NYT recently about the money being spent by the CEO of GLADD. It's a different concept, but there is a larger theme there as well. GLADD won nearly all their battles, and now they don't exactly know what to do with their organization (nor its money!).
When is the media critical of themselves? Can you say Matt Lauer? Brian Williams? How long did their shenanigans go on before action was taken?
Let’s face it. The media in this country is lazy, lacking curiosity and they get used constantly. And who likes to admit they got played?
More like "abuse me more, I like it!"
And yet you're writing this in the comment section for an article that excoriated the pieties of mainstream liberalism. Yeah, there's a lot of bias and stupidity in the media but even at the NY Times there's still people that do good work.
They "do good work" ... months or even years after it's socially acceptable to do so in their peer circle. No bonus points are awarded for that, I'm afraid.
Substack is the redoubt of independent journalism. Racket News has been a bright star. But who got the Pulitzers?
thanks. My money will flow to those I want to give it too.
Thanks for letting me know that all (if not most) non profit organizations are in it for the money....and their cause.
Who's not.
I don't know much about the Kresge Foundation, whose spokesperson gave that stunning quote about no expectations, even if plenty is available about it online. But that piece should make donors say: WTF
"the writer would have to be well-respected and have good liberal credentials."
There is no single person so well respected to pull this off. There has been a parade of respectable people who questioned what was going on, only to have some mild tweet from 2011 recast as incontrovertible racism and their entire career discredited. Even Obama would instantly be un-personed the moment he breaks ranks.
My mom used to say that the only way to convince someone your way was better was to let them try it their way. I thought that was cynical to the point of hopelessness, but it keeps being true.
Maybe it is as simple as getting Liz Warren to explain her turn from sharp Harvard Law professor with expertise in the financial services industry to a tweeting and meming machine seeking clicks and donations over policy and election wins.
She tried the wonk route, being super planned for everything. It only worked about a tenth as well as tweeting nonsense. So I get why.
I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed.
What has tweeting nonsense accomplished?
Funny enough, if we put the whole Yelling Woke Era as 2012 thru 2022, that's nearly my entire 30s (I turned 40 in November 2023). Here's hoping my 40s deliver something better and less unpleasant.
This does seem entirely coincidental but also seems like there is something to this as it maps my experience as well.
I doubt any news org will step forward for a post-mortem of The Racial Reckoning. They're (most of them) clearly too busy selling us the new version of the Kamala I-phone.
The 'how' is pretty obvious, right?
1. Twitter put media, academia, the professional political and non-profit class, vain celebrities, and the shitposting rabble all in a panopticon for a decade.
2. Donald Trump became the President
3. We all got locked inside for months due to an unprecedented and confusing public crisis, leaving everybody unable to even momentarily escape #1 and #2.
It was a perfect storm.
“Why haven’t we had a real postmortem about all of this?”
Because anyone who did it would immediately be coded as right wing. One of your pervious pieces addressed it well.
https://open.substack.com/pub/freddiedeboer/p/it-seems-like-the-reckoning-has-become
The comments section every NYT article that spends some time critically analyzing the Dems/Kamala/etc. are full of tote-baggers lamenting the MAGA takeover of the grey lady.
I'm talking run-of-the-mill, toothless "this messaging needs to be more clear" opinion pieces written by paint-by-numbers liberals. It's goofballworld.
I read the NYT daily, and dive into comments sections quite a bit. Yes, there are some of these types, but I don't see it the same way you do. I don't find those reactions overwhelming at all.
Interesting. I have read the NYT for decades and generally scan the comments for articles where there should be decent discussion. There seldom is...usually one or two divergent viewpoints from the inevitably narrative-supporting article followed by a long Greek chorus of how the NYT has lost its way and how can people with such thoughts be allowed to read it. Maybe you get a different edition...
I think we both know I don't get a different edition, but yeah, have definitely never read anyone stating they're not sure how people with such thoughts be allowed to read it. Ever.
Well that's awesome you don't get annoyed by them.
I do.
Oh, I get annoyed by those types. I just think the vast majority of readers/commenters actually largely agree with most of Freddie's readers. Anecdotally, that's true of most liberals I personally know as well.
Interesting. Anecdotally, I've begun to find that most of the liberals I personally know agree with Freddie except when related to their primary obsession or interest, meaning they've pulled back from full wokeness except for one aspect of it, the aspect that is most clearly linked to their own identity concerns.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/27/opinion/harris-walz-interview.html#commentsContainer
Was reading the linked article, plugged my nose, and opened the comments, whose contents explain what I was getting at earlier.
I suppose that is a good example of where we differ, because I just looked at the comments, and I see a bunch of people criticizing Stephens' piece, but I don't see people bemoaning the fact that Stephens is writing for the NYT, or people lamenting a MAGA takeover of the NYT.
Stephens is a conservative who dislikes Trump a great deal, dislikes Democrats a great deal, and his pieces reflect that, which I think is totally fine.
Is there anything more pathetic than all of the fury and insanity of BLM in 2020 collapsing into "Vote Kamala"?
Also, the NY Times still has good people that do good journalism.
You keep saying this, but they are very few and very far between and they seldom if ever delve into topics like this which is where they should be focused.
I like Eli Saslow.
Name them!
Eli saslow.