The incident on the A train was very...unusual. By all accounts on the radio, both FD and PD, the victim was pronounced DOA, and the operation went from "rescue" to "recovery," and the police were treating it as a crime scene.

However, it seems that once they were able to reach the victim, his status was upgraded literally from "dead" to "alive," and they had CPR in progress as he was loaded into the ambulance.

RTFA -- as it turns out, Schumer doesn't live there. He just has an address that is similar to the building mentioned in the article.

Gothamist is so low budg, it's ridiculous.

I actually listened to the Rushkoff interview and thought he had a point. I don't think he's nearly as sanctimonious as some people were saying he is. He's essentially asking a very adult question: why the hell am I paying this much money for what is, essentially, agita?

Love the video billboard transformation.

Even better: transform every video billboard into a piece of public art that consists of a pile of broken glass, wrecked electronics, and a hastily discarded baseball bat.

Why is he paying so much for what he calls agita? Well, because not everyone is getting mugged every night. That's why. It happens in EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD no matter the rent. High rent does not get you better police protection, safer neighborhoods, freedom from crime, etc. That's why everyone's saying he's sanctimonious. Sure, it sucks he was mugged. But his reaction has been over-the-top.

Let's face it. I've lived in many areas for the past 10 years and only here in NYC do I find people making pathetic excuses such as "It happens in EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD". No, it does not and no it should not. We shouldn't be living as if we were in some dangerous 3rd world country. Heck stop making excuses when just across the Hudson River in New Jersey for the same price it is safer (and more convenient) than Brooklyn.

bad neigborhoods, poor people plus good neighborhoods, people with wealth divided by the subway equals crime.

As a native New Yorker who grew up in Brooklyn during the 80s, I can say that this city is now as safe as it ever will be. Unless someday the government surgically implants a device in everyone's brain which can eliminate deviant behavior or takes care of poverty (I'm betting on the former).

Thankfully, I've never been a crime victim. Maybe it was "street smarts" or more likely, plain luck.

One more thing, what's "agita" ? I looked it up and found out that it's Italian-American slang for heartburn or upset stomach. Unless, it was Attica [prison] he wanted to say.

Rushkoff's asking why he's paying what he's paying is fine -- it's when he tries to justify the decision by denigrating the neighborhood ("It's too dangerous" "There's nothing but soulless stockbrokers" "There's no community," to paraphrase) or tries to make it sound like he's taking a moral stand against gentrification that he grows tiresome.

As for sanctimoniousness, check out his latest blog post, where he dismisses anyone who disagreed with him here or elsewhere as not really existing: http://www.rushkoff.com/2007/01/sock-mobs.php

For all I’ve bothered to post a comment on this topic again, let’s hope this is the last we hear about it here.

Dude, server errors and multiple posts -- awesome!

Man, do I hate proxy errors.

No problem, next time just press the post button once even if it takes forever to refresh. As for Rushkoff, he can jerkoff in the 'burbs if he still feels violated.

I don't have much respect for the t-shirt in the photo.

Folks who had burned American flags did so because pro-war "patriots" had so abused the American flag, by violating the US Constitution, that it amounted to treason.

The irony is, the same anti-Vietnam War protesters the guy in the photo is reacting AGAINST had to win court cases to put the US flag on jeans, T-shirts, and backpacks.

THEY defended and won his right to wear that flag on that t-shirt. Talk about missing the point...

bad idea "jeans"?

Actually, poster #9, there is a game out already:
http://www.gsn.com/minigames/minigame.php?id=13
"Rosie vs. Trump"

"Rushkoff's asking why he's paying what he's paying is fine -- it's when he tries to justify the decision by denigrating the neighborhood ("It's too dangerous" "There's nothing but soulless stockbrokers" "There's no community," to paraphrase) or tries to make it sound like he's taking a moral stand against gentrification that he grows tiresome."

I don't remember his saying anything of the sort. He was saying that it was a neighborhood that's been flooded with money and is inhabited by many who, including him, were lulled into thinking it was some kind of Shangri-La. He never says Park Slope is "too dangerous" - he says it might be too dangerous for him to stomach paying out the nose to live there. He's not saying there's no community, he's saying that it's not the *only* place to find a community. I don't think he's hypocritically anti-gentrification, I think he's pointing out that people in gentrifying places need to think about the burdens that accompany the benefits of moving into such neighborhoods. I don't see any of this as unreasonable.

I, too, don't think any of these things are a revelation and have chuckled slightly at his naivete. I do, however, think a lot of people are taking what he's saying way out of context.

I don't think any reasonable person would consider any neighborhood in this city a Shangri-La, especially when you see "reality" walking next to you on the street everyday.