The New York Times's very excellent (and poorly teased) story about homelessness in New York City through the eyes of a child has just been handed a devastating rebuttal from The New York Post, who have the courage to argue that the city is "too generous."
The Post's editorial board writes:
Yes, the family’s housing has problems, including mice and reports of sexual assaults and other crimes. But the Times and Elliott, like much of the liberal establishment, seem to think it’s the city’s job to provide comfortable lives to outrageously irresponsible parents. In this case, that’s a couple with a long history of drug problems and difficulty holding jobs.
So, to recap: the city is at fault for deciding that having a roof over one's head is "comfortable" living, rather than just a basic necessity, and also, who cares about the leering possibility of violence, sexual or otherwise? New York's social safety net is guilty of "providing so much that neither the father nor mother seems much inclined to provide for their kids."
NY Post to Homeless Kids: Drop Dead http://t.co/TkQbcBmbmy— Heidi N. Moore (@moorehn) December 10, 2013
OK so quick poll: Which paragraph is the most heartless and gleefully cruel? I vote 6. http://t.co/32oq9KgHgr— Tom Gara (@tomgara) December 10, 2013
New York Post editorial, completely missing the point of the complex, nuanced NYT story on homeless kids. http://t.co/0KztAy0CEj— Matt Apuzzo (@mattapuzzo) December 10, 2013
"These people have a ROOF, for Chrissakes! How is that homeless?" http://t.co/TwN5zuqoNl— Stefan Becket (@stefanjbecket) December 10, 2013
sometimes the complete moral bankruptcy of the Post seems cute and funny but sometimes not so much— alex pareene (@pareene) December 10, 2013
We would call this editorial a masterful piece of trolling, except that 'trolling' is when someone says something that they don't necessarily believe, just to get a rise out of someone. The editorial board of The New York Post is not trolling.