Gawker's rebuttal to the British journalist who thinks New York has lost its "edge" is quite funny.
The main point of the Gawker piece is that New York's "got better stuff than everywhere else in America." This is 100% true.
Whenever people ask me why I love New York, that's about all I can say as well. We have the best food, the best shopping, the best people, the best grid, the best entertainment -- the list goes on. London, as romanticized as it can be, just doesn't have the kind of awesome crap we have.
Read the full Gawker article here.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Who You Gonna Call? Geesebuster!
Among some of the crazy things my parents have taught our dogs (growling when a person says "Gaaa," hunting cats when my mom throws the back door open and screams "pussy cat patrol!" and hunting squirrels and chipmunks like a panther), they have added "Geesebuster" to the list.
Jozie has been instructed to speed as fast as possible into a about 50 Geese across the street, chasing them as they angrily honk and fly away.
As always, its extremely entertaining.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Follow That Bird!
In the New York Times blog "Arts Beat", Big Bird, from the Sesame Street fame, responds to questions from his loyal fans.
I think my favorite part is when they address the "rumors" that Snuffy was an imaginary friend of Big Bird's. Not only does Big Bird answer the question, but so does his puppeteer, Carol-Lynn Parente -- just to make sure the issue is fully cleared up:
Hello Mr. Bird,
Snuffy was always a figment of your imagination. After revisiting the show during a wave of nostalgia, I noticed everyone is now friends with Snuffy. How did the change come about?
—Janis Haddock
BB: “Snuffy’s my best friend, he was never imaginary! It was just a matter of poor timing. Sometimes I would ask Snuffy to wait for me in one spot, then while I was away he would leave to go put on a tie or brush his teeth. And then when I came back he would be gone! But then one day he finally stuck around, and everyone could see that my friend Snuffy was real after all. I was so glad that day, because then I knew that my grown-up friends on Sesame Street would always believe me when I told them something that unusual but still true.”
CAROL-LYNN PARENTE: “It was always unclear whether Snuffy was real or just conveniently absent when anyone other than Big Bird was around. We decided to confirm that Snuffy was in fact a real friend of Big Bird in the mid ’80s when there were several incidents of child abuse in the news and there was some concern whether the investigations done with children could be believed. We didn’t want to model the adults in the community not believing Big Bird and an episode was written for his big reveal.”Read the full interview at Arts Beat on the New York Times website.
Monday, November 9, 2009
"The Poison Pill"
I was excited to hear that the US House passed the Health Care Reform Bill last week. I was disappointed, however, when I read about the Stupak Amendment (which Rachel Maddow lovingly refers to as the "Poison Pill"). The Stupak Amendment is a part of the Health Care Reform Bill that could qualify as the biggest restriction on abortion funding since the Hyde Amendment and the biggest restriction on abortion access this generation has seen.
Probably the scariest part of the bill for me is the fact that it would only support a very narrow selection of cases:
"Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion." -- Jessica Arons
As much as I support Obama, and understand the importance of universal health care -- I believe that health care reform without comprehensive women's health care is in fact NOT health care reform. Adding that amendment to this bill is a sad and insulting breach to women's rights. It gives me a flash of a world that I see as scary, unsupporting, misogynistic and backwards.
Read the article at the Huffington Post for the reasons why the Stupak Amendment is a monumental setback for abortion access.
Probably the scariest part of the bill for me is the fact that it would only support a very narrow selection of cases:
"Plans in the Exchange can only cover abortions in the case of rape or incest or "where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death." Given insurance companies' dexterity in denying claims, we can predict what they'll do with that language. Cases that are excluded: where the health but not the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy, severe fetal abnormalities, mental illness or anguish that will lead to suicide or self-harm, and the numerous other reasons women need to have an abortion." -- Jessica Arons
As much as I support Obama, and understand the importance of universal health care -- I believe that health care reform without comprehensive women's health care is in fact NOT health care reform. Adding that amendment to this bill is a sad and insulting breach to women's rights. It gives me a flash of a world that I see as scary, unsupporting, misogynistic and backwards.
Read the article at the Huffington Post for the reasons why the Stupak Amendment is a monumental setback for abortion access.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Life Shouldn't Be What Happens When You're Waiting For a Table
Today in the New York Times, Bruce Buschel wrote the first installment of his post, "100 Things Restaurant Staffers Should Never Do." Having worked as a waitress for many years, I'm just about inclined to agree with all of them, but the rule below really stands out:
3. Never refuse to seat three guests because a fourth has not yet arrived.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves in New York City. JUST SEAT US. We're obviously going to eat at your restaurant and the table size from 3-4 will not change. In fact, if you seat us, you will probably make more money because we'll order a round of drinks while we wait for our friend. Not seating me will make me grumpy and that will not lead you down a path to a good tip.
And sometimes, life happens, and people are late. Why should I suffer if I'm on time for my reservation? And even once a while, friends want to show up to a meal half-way though just to talk and have a drink. LET IT HAPPEN, NEW YORK. PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, LET ME SIT DOWN.
Read numbers 1-50 on the staff rules here.
3. Never refuse to seat three guests because a fourth has not yet arrived.
This is one of my biggest pet peeves in New York City. JUST SEAT US. We're obviously going to eat at your restaurant and the table size from 3-4 will not change. In fact, if you seat us, you will probably make more money because we'll order a round of drinks while we wait for our friend. Not seating me will make me grumpy and that will not lead you down a path to a good tip.
And sometimes, life happens, and people are late. Why should I suffer if I'm on time for my reservation? And even once a while, friends want to show up to a meal half-way though just to talk and have a drink. LET IT HAPPEN, NEW YORK. PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD, LET ME SIT DOWN.
Read numbers 1-50 on the staff rules here.
Money Can Buy Everything
"Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have obtained a total of 1,400 doses of swine flu vaccine from the city of New York, while many pediatricians wait for doses. On the other hand, money is more important than babies." -- Gawker.com
Regardless of how true this really is, since Gawker is known, to you know, slant their reporting, the best part of this post is the comments that appeared after it went up. My favorite "conversation" was this one:
uncivilly obedient: If everyone at Goldman Sachs got sick from the flu or died, this country would collapse.
Beau Nerd: @uncivilly obedient: If that's the case, everyone at Goldman Sachs has been sick with the flu or dead for years now. Which renders the vaccine pretty much moot. So wasteful, these bankers!
Regardless of how true this really is, since Gawker is known, to you know, slant their reporting, the best part of this post is the comments that appeared after it went up. My favorite "conversation" was this one:
uncivilly obedient: If everyone at Goldman Sachs got sick from the flu or died, this country would collapse.
Beau Nerd: @uncivilly obedient: If that's the case, everyone at Goldman Sachs has been sick with the flu or dead for years now. Which renders the vaccine pretty much moot. So wasteful, these bankers!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Art For Whose Sake?
Last night I went to an art "happening" at a friend's gallery . There were a few components to the show, all centered around cake.
The first was a group of topless models, walking around with trays of cake to the tune of "Hey Mickey." If you walked up to a model and asked for a piece of cake, she would refuse to give it to you. If you walked up to the model and said, "Hey Mickey you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind," the cake was yours to enjoy.
No, this is not a joke.
The second part of the exhibit was a room, where a man sat in a chair with a book, and woman dressed in a scantily-clad maid's outfit, stood as well, staring at a painting. In the room with them was a chaise lounge -- but this wasn't any old couch. The chaise was actually made completely out of cake, and later on in in the night, patrons of the gallery could go into the room and eat the couch. Why there was a man and a maid in the room, I can not tell you.
The third piece of the night was a movie projected on a large wall right when you walk into the gallery. It was meant to be demonstrating some experiment where people were being fed cake that had a gold foil on it. The gold would get all over their lips, and then all the people who ate the cake would get their photo taken.
The entire night was completely ridiculous. It was funny, and I guess entertaining. Maybe that's the point of art -- to stimulate some type of feeling. But this...I wouldn't consider it "art" as much as I consider my brother's dog a work of art. (Ok, bad analogy, Rozie is CUT from MARBLE.)
But you know what I mean -- at the end of the night, how can these artists take themselves and their craft so seriously? And can someone please tell me what it all means?
The first was a group of topless models, walking around with trays of cake to the tune of "Hey Mickey." If you walked up to a model and asked for a piece of cake, she would refuse to give it to you. If you walked up to the model and said, "Hey Mickey you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind," the cake was yours to enjoy.
No, this is not a joke.
The second part of the exhibit was a room, where a man sat in a chair with a book, and woman dressed in a scantily-clad maid's outfit, stood as well, staring at a painting. In the room with them was a chaise lounge -- but this wasn't any old couch. The chaise was actually made completely out of cake, and later on in in the night, patrons of the gallery could go into the room and eat the couch. Why there was a man and a maid in the room, I can not tell you.
The third piece of the night was a movie projected on a large wall right when you walk into the gallery. It was meant to be demonstrating some experiment where people were being fed cake that had a gold foil on it. The gold would get all over their lips, and then all the people who ate the cake would get their photo taken.
The entire night was completely ridiculous. It was funny, and I guess entertaining. Maybe that's the point of art -- to stimulate some type of feeling. But this...I wouldn't consider it "art" as much as I consider my brother's dog a work of art. (Ok, bad analogy, Rozie is CUT from MARBLE.)
But you know what I mean -- at the end of the night, how can these artists take themselves and their craft so seriously? And can someone please tell me what it all means?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
True Legends Don't Wear Purple
My parents, sister and I went to Green Bay, WI this past weekend with a bunch of friends to watch the Packers take on Vikings at Lambeau Stadium. Brett Favre was back in town, this time wearing a purple uniform and getting booed by the same fans who used to adore and and worship him. It was a great trip -- and a really cool event to witness, even though the Packers fell short a few touchdowns.
I think my favorite part was seeing fans wearing Green Bay jerseys with the number 4 on the back -- but instead of the last name "Favre" above the number, it said, "Judas."
Packers fans pretending they don't remember his name.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)