People Wait For Tomorrow's UWS Apple Store Opening
FIT Students Busted For Drug Dealing Get Probation
Oreo The Dog Is Dead, Blame Game Is Not
Giuliani Livid Over Bringing 9/11 Trials to NYC
Digital Billboard Wreaks Havoc on Canal
Hmm. Gothamist certainly supports a notion of community, being a part of a New York we can be proud of, and volunteer work. But no way are we volunteering for the convention - we still have beef with the GOP for the whole cruise ship thing. Full page ads for NYC2004 are running in the city's newspapers (click the image above to see the full ad), and there will be outdoor ads as well. Gothamist does think this picture of an elephant trying to eat Ed Koch is pretty sweet. [Slightly related: Gothamist on Ed Koch's movie reviews.] The NY Times's Michael Slackman writes about the effort, "Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican who has been cautious about appearing too close to President Bush, and Mr. Koch, a Democrat who has endorsed Mr. Bush for re-election, sounded as if they were trying to persuade New Yorkers to behave when the Republicans come to town."
If the volunteer effort is extended past the convention, then Gothamist is totally on board. In the meantime, some great NYC volunteering opportunities: NY Cares (a variety of activities, such as teaching computer skills to seniors); God's Love We Deliver (help prepare or deliver food to those with HIV and their families); Big Brothers and Big Sisters (be a big sibling!); and ask your nearby hospital, community center, etc., if you can help out - they'll most likely say yes.
Gotham Gazette has a nice two-sides-of-the-story look at the Republican party and New York City with one column about why the GOP is not like NYC and another about why NYC could like the GOP. The GOP hasn't set up with its convention site yet, but the NYC GOP has one. There are also the Counter Convention and RNC Not Welcome in NYC sites.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
the GOP = 666. go fuck up someone elses city. stop using 9/11 for political gain. instead of clogging up our city like cholesterol, give us our homeland security money as promised.
I'm rooting for al qaeda. it would be sooo sweet if they could kill them all in one shot, preferably something really slow and painfull.
Easy now - just because some of us want some Republicans gone doesn't mean we should wish them dead - there are some fine Republicans out there just as there are some crappy Democrats. I'm justing amused by the Mayor trying to convince me, you, others, that volunteering is nonpartisan.
Simon -- that would mean destroying the Garden and that's a baaaaad idea.
Let's also remember that should a disaster strike the convention, it will likely strike a variety of New Yorkers, as well. People are people-- human lives-- no matter how far of a stretch it might be to see it that way.
A grudge against the GOP regarding the cruise ship? Well... but aren't there just a couple other things (you know, the lies that brought us to war in Iraq, the huge budget deficit, black box voting, energy policy shenanigans, anti-gay bigotry, stripping environmental regulation, etc etc etc etc etc) worth mentioning before the cruise ship thing?
Why would the loss of the Garden be a bad thing? It's such a hideously ugly building. It would be sweet retribution for the destruction of the beautiful Penn Station.
The loss of human life, on the other hand, would indeed be regrettable. Though I'm not totally convinced that folks like Rove and Cheney (and Condi, Rummy, Wolfy...) qualify as humans, exactly.
this is such an example of liberal bias in the media. damn media.
I don't think that there is a liberal bias in the media. I think there are other factors that make the media appear to lean slightly left.
1. Conservatives tend to watch bad television instead of watch/read the news, so the media tends to cater to its larger audience of non-conservatives.
2. If watching the news, conservatives tend to not know how to interperet the news properly (example: "no WMDs found" and "forged Nigerian documents" never seemed to really click with them)
3. Conservatives tend to lie about major world-changing events, and the media exposes liars, therefore it seems like the media is against conservatives specifically
The large media outlets are actually owned by right wing corporations, such as Clear Channel Viacom and News Corp. That "left wing media" thing is really just a bunch of bullshit propagated by conservatives.
I plan on PROTESTING the gop when theyre in town. Still cant decide what my sign will say:
1) LIAR - MURDERER - THIEF
or
2) WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION
hmm, maybe it can be a double sided sign and say both.
i hope everyone knows that i was being sarcastic.
hey simon howsabout "bush, dick, colin: what the FUCK are you doing?"
I did :)
Wow, lots of mass hysteria in these comments... let's not overlook the obvious: bringing in any large group like this is good for NYC tourism. The city needs the extra tax revenue.
dont try to belittle my disdain for the gop with a b.s. comment like "mass hysteria"
yojimbot is also completely correct in pointing out that the reason they are here is to exploit the REAL mass hysteria of post 9 / 11 for their political purposes, which I find disgusting.
"Wow, lots of mass hysteria in these comments... let's not overlook the obvious: bringing in any large group like this is good for NYC tourism. The city needs the extra tax revenue."
the beginning of selling out?
the city doesn't need the extra tax revenue that comes from offering up our hearts and souls to the mindless mechanical operations of the GOP. I swear it's almost like the pseudo-apocalyptic ending of the Invisibles.
The old Republican moderates are being replaced by young die hard conservatives, and all you can do is stand there and wonder about how much money we can make of the tourist tax dollars and temporary job benefits? This F*Ckin idea is worse that the idiots that cooked up the NYC Olympic bid.
Simple Simon,
How about:
"Up with Dictators!"
"Nice Start Al Qaeda!"
"Facist Iraqi Strongmen are People Too!"
"GOP to The Camps!"
Just make sure you mount it on a nice round pole so it won't hurt too much when I ram it up your ass, you piece of amoral trash.
If the GOP, the party now in control of the house, the senate and the whitehouse, really gave a damn about New Yorkers, they would have made sure that we received the lion's share of Homeland Security money--or at least the same amount percapita as, say, some tiny midwest town. How many times has our City been attacked by terrorists and how many plots to attack our City have been uncovered? We are a huge target, and yes nothing can guarantee safety 100% of the time but, darnit, holding the convention here isn't going to do a damn thing for us. Mark my words, NYC is not going to break even with convention after all the added security costs are factored in.
Jimbo, how a nice big cup of shut-the-fuck-up, you brain washer collaborator
I think it's telling that Wyoming gets far more in homeland security funds per capita than New York.
Simon,
Does that taste like the new Dunkin' Donuts lattes?
"Brain washer collaborator" sounds like a job description for the city morgue or something out of Pravda. In any case, I prefer Capitalist Running Dog.
Have a nice day, and be sure to let everyone around you (say on the Subway) know that you welcome another al qaeda attack on NYC, I'm sure you'll get a lot of hugs and thumbs up...your ass.
As a general matter, it's good for a city to host a convention. It's not an endorsement of a party. Hell, it's a great opportunity to protest, if that's your thing. Ed Rendell, former head of the DNC, was happy to have the 2000 GOP Convention come to Philadelphia. It brings tourist money, national attention, etc. to the city--no shame in that.
The problem here is that New York is not as desperate for national attention as Philadelphia was, and more importantly, the Republican party is using 9/11 to promote it's political agenda. That, in my opinion, is mixing the sacred and the profane: shame on them.
its amazing how many people who visit this site have absolutely no sense of sarcasm
Simon,
Yeah, that's me, I don't get that high-falutin' humor they have nowadays. I mean, when folks go and say something like "I'm rooting for al qaeda. it would be sooo sweet if they could kill [the GOP] all in one shot, preferably something really slow and painfull," the extra L in painful should have told me that it was LOL funny! I guess I need to buy the latest Red Foxx comedy album and get hep to what's going on. Sorry, fellow Gothamites.
simon,
i agree. To tell you the truth, when I got 'al qaeda' tattooed on my ass, all the airhead floozies from the gothamist personals that i used to get it on with all the time started to give me attitute.
I think that's why i eventually made friends with jimbo. republican handjobs are better than nothing at all. (truth is if i took my pant down he'd see the 'al qaeda' tattoo and i'd probably be 'outed' again.
oh the dilemna!
I dunno, I think Jimbo has such an ass fixation, he might put his political differences aside just to get a piece
You're so right (oops, I mean correct, wouldn't want to brain wash you)! I love to play with asses, especially those on this board. Thanks for playing along.
at least you can admit to your shit eating habits. thats a step in the right direction.
looks like simon won again. but what has he won? self-satisfaction? admiration of his 'peers'?
oh wait... nothing!
get a life
p.s. happy earth day
Wow. Thank GOD for all you guys! I read this article and thought I'm the only one who's outraged! Oh, thank God for New Yorkers!
I work at 2 Penn and the RNC has set up shop on the 18th floor. I have to ride the elevators with these pricks (and man can they fart!). Ugh.
Ed Koch... what a dissapointment. "The Republicans are here... be nice." I suggest everyone take out a Sharpie and write "FUCK THAT" over that card.
Simon, I understand you're outrage. But remember, stuff like that is exactly what the GOP emeny wants to think of us... that we're down with the terrorists and not patriots. But we are the true patriots. (You might also be intereted in this fact: During the Clinton years, this button was spotted at a Christian Coalition convention: "Lee Harvey Oswald, where are you when your country needs you." Real Christian, eh? But an interesting sentiment).
I LOVE NY!! WE ROCK!!
TN , Brooklyn
This is very nice. You clowns just can't help yourselves. I can't tell you how eagerly I'm awaiting the convention - the bad behavior of lefties in Manhattan will repulse the rest of the country and guarantee a Bush win. Thanks!
And people wonder why I left the area - eventually even my patience for your intolerance, bigotry and self-righteousness wore out. You imbeciles! You look at a small-town Chamber of Commerce and you see Nazis? Is your experience so narrow, your worldview so pathetically limited? Do yourselves a favor - leave New York for awhile - move to a small town down south, or in the midwest. Take steps to come to turns with your demons. Find out how real people look and think.
Sterling, your criticism of New Yorkers might sound just a tiny bit less hypocritical if you didn't call us imbeciles and say that we're not "real people."
I like the slogan, "The Republicans are coming. Be nice." That's exactly what my parents would say to my brother and me when when they had people we didn't like coming over for dinner. It's a bad sign for the organizers if they can't even pretend we want them here. (Personally, I don't mind having the convention here, although I would never vote for Bush.)
And we don't need the tourism business, either from this or the Olympics 8 years from now. It's almost impossible for NYC to have more tourists in August than we already do. All we get from these events is different tourists.
Jesse - "Hypocritical" does not mean what I suspect you think it means. Words have meanings. Look it up.
Anyone who believes the Republican Party is evil is a naif or a fool, with no conception of what real evil looks like. As a former NY-area Republican, it's my experience that most of the people who cry the loudest about the evil, red-eyed Nazi GOP don't actually know any Republicans. They also rarely have any conception of conservative principles, or any notion of coherent political principles in general.
I know you lefties think you own the civil rights argument, and that Republicans are somehow opposed to them. Here's something for y'all to chew on: The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed in the House with stronger Republican support than Democrat support. In the Senate, only six Republicans votes against it, versus 21 Democrats. So next time you're upset that Republicans are blocking some new civil right that you folks just invented, contemplate whether you've established to anyone other than yourselves that it really exists.
Sterling,
Nobody is wondering why you left, we're all just happy about it and wonder when NJ will get it's internet severed from the remainder of the world.
until then, you should take note that there are many reasons why we 'lefties' dislike your ilk, and that it is not simply based on a few civil rights issues. The movement in the Republican party as I see it is beginning to be a backlash to a more conservative stance. I'll admit that Bush seems like more of a moderate than these new conservatives, but I'd like to point out that his rhetoric and his staff are following many of the political tools of deception first proposed during Nazi Germany's rise.
Oh, btw many of us do have Republican friends unfortunately. They are also usually the ones that rant and go red in the face when politics comes up over drinks. They, like you, tend to pull up single examples to champion, without an understanding of the larger picture.
Sterling, dude, you're living in the past. The age of the enlightened GOPer died with Rocky. What about the GOp gaining the South by racial division? Jesse Helms's ads convincing the electorate that a black gain is a white loss? Different breed of GOPer then than now, my friend. If you think the GOP is so enlightened, how do you address the rampant bigotry at the core of the gay marriage issue? Do you subscribe to the David Brooks theory that the true conservative should demand gay marriage? Because other than him the only voices heard on the GOP side are laced with hatred of homosexuals.
Tim is exactly right. I have a fair enough "conception of conservative principles" to know that they're not the same principles the GOP stands for these days. Too many fundamentalists is the problem, whether they're wearing a turban or cowboy boots (or both, if they're Saudis visiting Crawford)...
blah blah blah.
how's it feel being pawns?
I don't know about any other native New Yorkers but I am sick to death of Ed Koch. He was a self righteous, self important blowhard who spent his terms as Mayor as the star and audience of his own Broadway Musical. He polarized the City, angered all of the minorities as never before and has earned the lasting hatred of all us in the Boroughs. Nothing would please us more then to see his ugly fat head on a pink silk pillow.
The good thing about the convention is the Republican inbred, beer drinking, whore-masters will be spending some of there 100 million dollar war chest at local business. It's the only way we will ever see D.C. cash.
Regardless of how you feel about the GOP, I think this campaign to get volunteers is about as smart as asking Mets fans to support the Yankees because they're in the World Series...only slightly less partisan.
Simon, I look forward to seeing you on "game day" with a big foam #1 Al Qaeda hand and some watery beer.
My takeaway from the responses to my posts is that none of you know what you're talking about. Gay marriage, for instance, isn't a conservative issue at all. We didn't ask for it to be raised, and we're no more interested talking about it than talking about granting voting rights to dogs. It's absurd on its face.
If there's to be a gay marriage amendment to the Constitution, here's what I'd like it to say:
1) Gay marriage is not to be imposed on any state through judicial fiat or dictate.
2) The only legal means for a state to ratify gay marriage are through legislative action, or through public referendum, to be determined by each state. A majority is required in either case.
3) Neither the federal government nor the government of any state shall be obliged to recognize unions between members of the same sex until such time as 50% + 1 of the states have ratified gay marriage in the prescribed manner.
Of course, this demands that the gay agenda be advanced democratically, through the ballot box - a tactic the left in America has abandoned, since it knows it can't get the votes. So for the left, it's democracy no, judicial tyranny yes.
Oh, and by the way - as for gay rights, Bush is the first western leader in decades to forcefully confront the thugs in the Middle East who stone gays to death (or castrate them) under Sharia law. So when you're getting ready to throw the "evil" label around, chew on that first.
Or you can join Mullah Omar in opposition to W.
Sterling, on the gay marriage point, I think your requirement of a majority vote on the issue (while perhaps superficially appealing) is a bad precedent. On issues involving civil liberties and civil rights, many liberties and rights have been vindicated by courts precisely because the democratic majority would suppress that right. The schools were integrated by courts, not democratic majorities and free speech is routinely protected by courts. Communities are sometimes bigeted, boorish and mean. I'm not saying that there is anything bad about democratic majorities (quite the contrary). A majority, however, is no panacea for the protection of constitutional rights.
Marriage for gays is not a civil right - I'm not sure marriage for anyone is a civil right.
The rationale for the institution of marriage is to create and raising the next generation of society. Same-sex couples are incapable of creating offspring within the relationship, so that rationale is negated. On the matter of raising children, I know two gay couples that have kids (one adopted, one found a surrogate mother), and I think they both do a very good job of raising them. But this is anecdotal and in general I think it's preferable for children to be raised by a Mom & Dad.
The point is, marriage doesn't exist so people can feel good about themselves - it exists so competent, socialized, productive people can be brought into the world, to take the places of those who are alive today. It does this by binding a man to one woman, and giving her a measure of security.
Institutions arise over hundreds or thousands of years, through people trying many different things and then settling on the ones that work. Marriage as an exclusive union of one man and one woman has been a Western fixture for over a thousand years. I'm willing to entertain all of these topics, and I'm reluctant to seal them off forever with a Constitutional obstruction. But since the institution of marriage is already barely limping along, I don't see much harm in waiting twenty or thirty more years before the Federal Gov't recognizes gay marriage.
Let's see how it plays out in Vermont, and how their kids turn out. If, in 2020, those marriages have a very high rate of survival, and have produced a rate of high-functioning young adults that is similar to or better than the rate produced by heterosexual couples, then hardly anyone will obstruct the way.