new nfl jersey cheap, 2013 new nfl jersey sale, nfl jersey 2013, cheap baseball jerseys
http://www.jersey2shopsale.com/ sf giants jersey cheap
baseball jersey for sale, cheap ncaa jersey, wholesale nba jerseys, wholesale nhl jerseys, discount nhl jerseys,
http://www.jersey2shopsale.com/Nike-NFL-Je… wholesale nike nfl jerseys
nike nfl jersey wholesale ,new nfl jersey wholesale
cheap mlb jerseys, mlb jerseys cheap cheap nhl jersey
http://www.jersey2shopsale.com/NBA-Jerseys… cheap nba jerseys
wholesale mlb jerseys cheap nhl jerseys wholesale nhl jerseys, basketball jerseys cheap, nba jerseys for sale. college ncaa jerseys
how could Lenny Williams cause i love u not be on this list,
Re: Brooklyn Heights Promenade and Squibb Park Bridge
How did you manage to get a pic of the Squibb Park Bridge (which opened just a few months ago) but still include a really old picture of the dock warehouses below the Promenade? News flash, the warehouses have all been torn down for Brooklyn Bridge Park.
does it come with the lotion?
Kristen Iversen wrote "That's the thing with these Times Styles pieces. They all come from such a rarefied tier of privilege that all they manage to mock is the idea that anyone could be living in a way other than the one that the Times mandates as being normal."
This claim blew my ironometer. Seriously? While Henry Alford's curious omission of the *cost* of being a Williamsburg hipster might give the impression that they aren't at least as privileged as most Manhattanites, the reality is quite different. The aforementioned detachment from reality is typical of naval-gazing 20-somethings, but to claim that the occupants of this absurdly expensive little enclave aren't themselves privileged is lough-out-loud ridic.
What is more "privileged" than a Williamsburg hipster on his $1,000 Bianchi fixie, blogging on his $2,500 MacBook Pro, wearing $225 shirts from Carter & Sons, getting $40 straight-razor shaves from Barber & Supply, eating $16 cheeseburgers from Roberta's, and paying $2,000 a month for a studio? Do you really expect anyone to believe that the girl working at Molasses Books is earning enough from her job to support that lifestyle? It is _only_ the trust-funders and the techie paper millionaires who can afford that lifestyle.
I'm all for creating an alternative community, but it ain't gonna happen except in the most superficial way in a neighborhood where studios go for $2,000 a month and everything else costs many times what it would cost in say, Iowa. Or even in far-off New Jersey.
great article :)
I actually thought the Times piece was kind-hearted and generous- he was genuinely exploring facets of a cliche, with full awareness of his uncoolness. There was nothing in the article to merit the kind of takedown you were so desperate to write: you actually completely misrepresented Alford's attitude. It's neither satirical nor is it mean-spirited (ahem). It was quite well written too. Even the comments on the article were (those I read) reasonable and interested, not in the slightest bit trollish. Do you have a chip on your shoulder about something?
@Lapin Agile: Oh snap.
You forgot to mention every old woman in every borough. They seem to be the most vocal. Why old women? I don't know but just check out the angry demographic at all these meetings.
"Unclear to me which is the worst headline." You know this is incorrect, right?
Also, a Catskills-style humor piece is an oxymoron, and wrong- "Catskills humor," does not exist: it's known as Borscht belt humor, or comedy, sometimes just jewish humor, and is spoken, not written.
I suggest that if you want to tackle criticism you learn something first. Like what it is you're trying to say? And how to say it?
And I agree with Dennis, and Samyu. You are the one who has no business writing about the trendifying/ gentrification machine you and your shoddy publication feed off of. Are you defending it, or just jealous of the real writers at the Times, who actually do know what they're talking about, even if they sound (on purpose) like stodgy Manhattanites?
I would argue that you have even less of a sense of what Brooklyn is than Henry Alford does: looking at it as you do through the incredibly tiny window of your limited intellect and even more circumscribed sense of the borough. At least the Times covers parts of Brooklyn that aren't filled with kale, beards, and spoiled children of privilege pretending to be writers.
Sarcastic article serves to further inflame critics and alienate cyclists. Instead, step-up, grit your teeth, and invite them for friendly discussions.
The veggie burger at MOB is aaaaaamazing. AMAZING. There is some crazy sauce that they told us the totally normal ingredients of and I swear to you it is inexplicable and magical.
is there supposed to be more than one photo?
Hipster Dust is back. We’re doing a limited summer run of 500 tins. Get ‘em while you can!
And thank you, Samyu. You have said it best of all the commentary I have ever read in all the media venues covering "new Brooklyn":
"why don't YOU go out and take a look at the 'real' Brooklyn? you know, people of color, people who can't afford college, or food, or rent. people who don't speak english, people who have come here from places far away and work 18-hour days and send all their money home to another place.
cause you don't have any interest in poor people who can't afford $7 chocolate bars and $15 cocktails. And neither do your advertisers."
Yes. And sigh. Oh, SIGH.
I echo these other commenters in relishing Ms. Iversen's [and the L Magazine's] hypocrisy. Ms. Iversen's indignation is ostensible. In fact, she is irked that not all mass media is immediately and explicitly sycophant towards "hipster buzzwords made flesh." Let's make no mistake--Mr. Alford's article is hardly critical though quite comedic of hipsters, Williamsburg or gentrification. Such is the state of things that the tone of such an article constitutes "trolling" by the NY Times. It reminds me of that article by Goldson for the WG News, "We're All Hipsters," that claims, ludicrously, that mass media is somehow arrayed in full against "hipsters." Meanwhile, he is writing from a media organ created, owned and operated by "hipsters," like Ms. Iversen here--and yet there is no lack of projection.
Ms. Iversen needs do her homework: the NY Times did not recently discover or jump on the bandwagon or is late on gentrification in Williamsburg. WRONG. The NY Times was quite possibly the FIRST MASS MEDIA organ to solicit, forget 'discovering,' gentrification in Williamsburg, writing about "artists" and housing in Williamsburg as far back as 1983. It did not recently "begin" reporting on Williamsburg. In the past thirty years of gentrification in Williamsburg, the NY Times' Real Estate section has written MULTIPLE articles on Williamsburg in EACH decade, and respondents have each time attempted to mock the NY Times' reporting. All the while the mocking is inferior than the quality of the writing it mocks. So that other commenter talking about "envy" and being "so 2000" is more comedic than anything Alford can caricature. That commenter, like Iversen, is SO 1983.
What's a 'spare guest room' - does it mean that you have one guest room you use for your guests and one you don't? Or does it mean that the guest room is spare?
"Brooklyn is actually a place where millions of people actually live and work. And it's not all fixed-gear bikes and artisanal mayonnaise."
UMMMM, this website covers nothing but the college-educated artisanal-mayo makers riding fixies. are you seriously taking the times to task for that? when they cover everything, and you cover NAIL ART? you're so stupid you can't even see the insane hypocrisy of your own argument...
why don't YOU go out and take a look at the 'real' Brooklyn? you know, people of color, people who can't afford college, or food, or rent. people who don't speak english, people who have come here from places far away and work 18-hour days and send all their money home to another place.
cause you don't have any interest in poor people who can't afford $7 chocolate bars and $15 cocktails. And neither do your advertisers.
you're not a real journalist. because who needs to be? you're just someone who rehashes writing from real publications to flesh out a slapdash advertising pamphlet. which fills trash cans feet away from where it's handed out for free.
also elegant to use "actually" twice in the same sentence like that. that pulitzer will be in any day now.
If you don't like the way the shit smells why are you rubbing your face in it?
© 2013 Brooklyn Magazine
Website powered by Foundation