From Campaign Outsider’s Bad Sentence o’ the Day ® Desk:
New York Times op-ed contributor Charles Blow had a column in Saturday’s edition that addresses the movement of young adults in the U.S. “away from organized religion while trying desperately to connect with their spirituality.”
The bad sentence at issue:
So, anyone laboring under the delusion that the generation weaned on MTV would move us closer to being weaned of an abnormally high level of religiosity — at least when compared with other industrialized countries — may have to keep waiting.
That’s two shots at getting the usage of “wean” right, and neither one a direct hit.
Is it “weaned on?”
Or “weaned of?”
Actually, neither. It’s “weaned off (or from),” as in – according to the American Heritage Dictionary – “to detach from that to which one is strongly habituated or devoted.” (Think “to take nourishment other than by suckling.”)
Suckling that, all you loosey-goosey usagey folks.
Campaign Outsider 
Regardless of what you think of the content/message of the NY Times columnists/bloggers: most of them can’t write at all, period. They are so wrapped up in themselves and a) being smart and b) being oh-so-clever that their sentences often have mistakes and make little sense, or fail to connect and transition.
They need to step back and have someone else try to read their copy before they send it it–to see if it is coherent and makes any sense in the first place, or is even readable. They apparently write primarily to amuse and impress themselves rather than to enlighten their audience, or to make a convincing case about whatever their point is (which is often very hard to discern, frankly).
Gotta echo Bill S’s sentiment about writers not getting their point across. In the example Carroll cites here, even if the writer had gotten the usage correct it’s hard to tell what he was trying to say!