Absolutely would. We love stuff like this and like the annual pantsless subway ride specifically because we believe stuff like this could only happen in NYC.>> ^PlayhousePals:

Musta been tourists ... surely a true New Yorker would not succumb to such blatant frivolity [would they?] =oO

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^chilaxe:
New York city has a building where they send all the terrible teachers that they're unable to fire, and the teachers there get paid to just sit there everyday doing whatever they want.
Hopefully whatever area this guy lives in has something similar.

Umm what? You can't claim this without providing a citation and expect us to believe it.


Here's a New Yorker article about the Rubber Room.

@petpeeved thanks, I hadn't remembered that's what they call it.

Thank you for the sift! I'm a life-long New Yorker, and I'm gonna spend the next few weeks trying to find that place.
In reply to this comment by geo321:
Thank you for the quality! :
In reply to this comment by RhesusMonk:
Best sift in years. Magic, just magic.

Meh, they're just trying to make a buck... I actually like Time's LightBox two-page spread (http://lightbox.time.com/), with a single, large, usually topical image.

Time can be light on its international stories lately (certainly compared to, say, The New Yorker), but I've caught a few well written short articles on domestic problems recently.

My assessment of this is "Real" New Yorkers are generally more racist and nostalgic and...OH I think the word is Worse.

"You know, we're just better than people that don't live in The City." -- That's the most common one from New Yorkers that I know.

Oh, oh. And "Minnesota/Ohio/Wisconsin/Iowa/Kentucky/Indiana/Louisiana/Tennessee/Kansas/Idaho/Missouri? Is that near Chicago?"

>> ^mxxcon:

Hey! I don't say those things!


Tomato in your armpit ?

Your video, Sh!t New Yorkers say, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

New Yorkers talk too much!

>> ^marbles:

Well you got it mostly right, the fact is we're not suppose to be a democracy. We are suppose to be constitutional republic of individual sovereign states with democratic checks and balances. Democracy ≠ freedom.

Exactly. The premise of the video, that 5% of the time the "loser" won the election, is only true if you define "winner" as the candidate with the most popular votes. In fact that's a pretty arbitrary definition, even in a democracy. Even if you abolish the electoral college, you'll find all kinds of strains on fairness.


Continue the thought experiment: you'll probably want to start by wiping out the Senate, since it grossly overrepresents the vote of a Hawaiian relative to a New Yorker. Next, onto the Supreme Court. A whole *branch* of government unelected! Where's the democracy?

Now that we're casting our votes for Scalia or Kagan, there's a thorny problem with the numbers. Somehow, even with the electoral college gone, we're still ignoring the will of the 24% of the population under the age of 18. Don't forget the 20 million immigrants living legally in the United States. What happened to one person, one vote? Under what definition of "fair" do only adults and citizens get to determine their own destiny democratically?

After you've rectified that "indefensible" affront to democracy, you'll still find that, because of the typical ~55% turnout, 51% of the popular vote really only wins about 28% of the population. Why should that candidate be president, they don't even represent the will of the majority! How is that democratic?

Don't assume that electing the president by popular vote is somehow more fair. It's not, it's just more direct, and a different set of arbitrary rules. What we should really be concerned about is the same thing the Founding Fathers were thinking about: coming up with the most *effective* system of government within the framework of a constitutional republic. That may not be the Electoral College, but directly electing the president doesn't necessarily make anything better, or more fair.

Agreed. It was a bit too on-the-nose. >> ^xxovercastxx:

"We hate Republicans" doesn't sound like something a drunk New Yorker would yell at anyone. I would expect either something more intelligent or thought-out; or something far more crude, crazy and offensive. Also, despite being a 'blue state', there are shitloads of conservatives and Republicans in NY.
"We hate Republicans" is just way too... medium. That's not how we do shit in NY.

"We hate Republicans" doesn't sound like something a drunk New Yorker would yell at anyone. I would expect either something more intelligent or thought-out; or something far more crude, crazy and offensive. Also, despite being a 'blue state', there are shitloads of conservatives and Republicans in NY.

"We hate Republicans" is just way too... medium. That's not how we do shit in NY.

A couple were pointed out in the video:

-It stigmitizes AA women
-It targets AAs during black history month

I can add a couple more, though:

-I can bet from the POV of a black new yorker, who has to contend with trigger happy hoods and trigger happy cops, the billboard makes light of the dangers an AA faces
-The conservative groups that would be behind such a billboard traditionally only seem to care about AAs when they are in the womb.

so did I

tnx
>> ^Sagemind:

Fixed the link: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright
>> ^Trancecoach:
The New Yorker article and it's well worth reading.