Hearing GOP candidates talk about immigration, they paint an unending scourge of disreputable characters eager to take jobs from hard-working (white) Americans. Illegal is illegal, there is black and there is white and there is nothing in-between, and we “need to secure our borders.”

American immigration being simplified into an economic issue or merely a domestic one is a damn shame. It ignores the reasons many flee their homelands for these borders, the unrest and turmoil and outright danger they face back “home.” Such as the case of Fernando Quinteros-Mendoza.

From The New Republic:

In El Salvador, in the spring of 2004, Fernando Quinteros-Mendoza was dating a woman who lived in a rough neighborhood riddled with gang violence. When Fernando started passing through the gang’s territory, its members noticed. Within a short time, the gang made Fernando’s life unbearable, and later that year Fernando fled to the United States. Today, he is trying to prevent a forced return, and a new Obama administration policy encourages immigration authorities to allow him to stay. But uneven and lax implementation of that policy means that Fernando could be headed back to El Salvador—and, perhaps, the gang that was targeting him—in a matter of months.

The attacks on Fernando became regular—three to five times per week, with gang members attempting to extort money from him each time. Eventually, the intimidation spread beyond his girlfriend’s neighborhood. On one occasion, according to Mendoza’s aunt, Iris Argueta, gang members “even put a knife to his head on the bus.” They accosted him outside his church, threatening (as records from a 2008 court hearing describe it) to hurt him if he continued to attend. Finally, Iris says, they told him they would “burn down his house and kill his father unless he gave them money.” Fernando was getting desperate. “There was no peace,” Iris told me. “He was always afraid.”

Fernando’s case is not isolated by circumstances or nationality. Fleeing circumstances of life or death is a reality for many immigrants, even if it is not as extreme or obvious as his case. Yet we cheer on little people with huge ambition that pound podiums and demand the guns be turned on men, women, and children fleeing from human rights violations, economic strife, and socio-political turmoil. It’s a sickening lack of empathy, context, and hindsight considering the creation and growth of our nation throughout its history.

In 1900, the island of Manhattan had 47% more residents than it does right now in 2011. Most of that is due to the vast influx of immigrants at the turn of the century. Of course, times are different now. We’re not on the peak of the Industrial Revolution. Technology and social mores have evolved. And a famine isn’t enough anymore.

Tagged with:
 

I signed up for NaNoWriMo. In case you’ve been living under a rock and/or don’t have acquaintances who write trite fantasy novels where the protagonist is the heir to an empire but doesn’t know it while a friend of his has to deal with being half-elf, NaNoWriMo is the awkward and clumsy short form for National Novel Writing Month. It takes place every November and the goal is for writers to hit the 50,000 word mark within the 30 days allotted to the calendar month.

It sounded like a good idea two days ago. Now, though, I’m not so sure.

 I have a novel I’m working on that has been put on the back burner due to other commitments, and also because I didn’t like the direction certain things were going. So I decided to walk away from it a bit. I don’t want that to be this, because anything in NaNoWriMo is going to inherently be a rush job. What I’m working on has too much promise for me to waste on an exploratory exercise.

 There’s also the matter of me needing to spend more time focusing on writing and working bits for my stand-up.

 So would NaNoWriMo actually be a useful exercise? Possibly. It might also produce something that’s worth expanding on or revisiting.

 On the other hand, it might also just be an excuse for me to not do the things I should be doing: working on the real novel, working on the comedy, and working on myself.

 I keep going back and forth on this.

 After work I’m going for a run, which is always an opportunity for thinking about things (both to my advantage and detriment). Then I’ll be downtown for a comedy open mic. Then, maybe, I’ll see how long it takes me to start with 1,500 words on a novel about…I don’t know. Let’s say zombies. I’m sick to death of them, but I do miss the days when they would actually rise from graves rather than be infected with a virus. Oh, and maybe tie it into a conspiratorial plot. I don’t know. Why not?

 We’ll see.

Tagged with:
 

The Shakespeare controversy, which emerged in the 19th century (at that time, theorists proposed that Francis Bacon was Shakespeare), was one of the origins of the willful ignorance and insidious false balance that is now rotting away our capacity to have meaningful discussions. The wider public, which has no reason to be familiar with questions of either Renaissance chronology or climate science, assumes that if there are arguments, there must be reasons for those arguments. Along with a right-wing antielitism, an unthinking left-wing open-mindedness and relativism have also given lunatic ideas soil to grow in. Our politeness has actually led us to believe that everybody deserves a say.

The problem is that not everybody does deserve a say. Just because an opinion exists does not mean that the opinion is worthy of respect. Some people deserve to be marginalized and excluded. There are many questions in this world over which rational people can have sensible confrontations: whether lower taxes stimulate or stagnate growth; whether abortion is immoral; whether the ’60s were an achievement or a disaster; whether the universe is motivated by a force for benevolence; whether the Fonz jumping on water skis over a shark was cool or lame. Whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is not one of these questions.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. Climate change skeptics do deserve to get told that their theories are unsound. Truthers propounding the idea that 9/11 was an inside job deserve to be told “yes, and bin Laden just took credit for it because he was bored, you twit.”

Enough with fake fairness, folks. As Marche points out, there are times when you can have a debate and times when you can say “that is so stupid it doesn’t deserve mention. Except wait, no, it does deserve mention. I am mentioning it right now so that I can tell you how stupid that is. Now be quiet. Adults are talking.”

During shooting of "Anonymous," Rhys Ifans often had to avoid a fellow actor who was convinced Obama was born in Kenya and wouldn't shut up about it.

It’ll be easy enough to judge the film on its own merits once I see it, and all indications are that I will enjoy it immensely. However, that’s going to require me to treat it as a work of fiction rather than a conversation starter, which is exactly what Emmerich and the film’s producers have been purporting in the film’s marketing and even in interviews with legitimate press. They act convinced, even though I suspect they know full well that the theory is bunk and not worth nearly as much as the artistic and creative energies put into making the film itself.

But with all that, I think Patton Oswalt put it best in an unrelated rant off his latest album:

“Hey, you have to respect everybody’s beliefs.” No you don’t! That’s what gets us in trouble. You have to—look, you have to acknowledge everyone’s beliefs. And then you have to reserve the right to go ‘that is fucking stupid. Are you kidding me?’ I acknowledge you believe that, that’s great, but I’m not gonna respect it. We have an Uncle who believes he saw Sasquatch. We do not believe him, nor do we respect him. “

Oswalt’s latest album, Finest Hour, is available now. Get it via mp3 or via mp3.
Read the rest of the article from Stephen Marche, himself an expert on Shakespeare. And please, for God’s sake, never mistake Hollywood for history or bally-hoo for belief.

Tagged with:
 

American sports fans have a curious relationship with professional athletes. They either love them or hate them, and the emotional energy fans invest into their favorite players can either lionize them or transform them into demigods. These men are, after all, like family. They visit every Sunday and are given round the clock coverage through a plethora of media outlets. Rarely does the thought cross those fans’ minds that there could be more to a man’s life and story than what’s presented, because they seem so warm and gracious, thuggish and unsympathetic, or cold and aloof.

But the idea that you can know a man simply from watching him on and off the field through the lens of television cameras and beat writers is, to put it kindly, foolishly naive. Due to the combined efforts of organizations like the NFL and the athletes’ own representation, their image to the public becomes a carefully cultivated persona that might not entirely be true to the man behind the helmet. It can delude, conceal, or outright fabricate details of an athlete’s personality and life story, feeding into the fans’ eagerness to believe.

So when Sports Illustrated published an excerpt of Jeff Pearlman’s new book Sweetness, a biography of NFL Hall of Fame running back Walter Payton that included episodes of depression and abuse of prescription pain medication, an angry mob formed of NFL fans and pundits. When he was alive, Payton cultivated an unrealistic image of the perfect family man that was maintained by his family and friends after his death. It was a standard that was impossible for any person to live up to, but was none the less accepted by a public eager to find any reason at all to love the man. When fans were told the man was far from perfect, the reaction was outrage and condemnation. Insults and threats abounded from anonymous fans on the internet flexing their keyboard muscles. Former jocks and professional acquaintances frothed at the mouth. Payton’s former head coach Mike Ditka, who was interviewed for the book and quoted extensively, promised to spit on Pearlman the next time he saw him. Others confronted Pearlman in interviews and editorials, accusing him of attempting to destroy the lives of athletes, even going so far as to calling him disgraceful for detailing the Payton’s private life. Some even went so far as to call him an outright liar.

None of them read the book.

Pearlman interviewed hundreds of individuals and spent three years working on the life story of Payton. More importantly, though, the excerpt published in Sports Illustrated portrayed Payton at his absolute lowest. Context matters, especially when you consider that Sweetness comes in at a whopping 430 pages. Although the excerpt published was honest and forthright, it amounts to a hiccup in the life of a man who you come to know and love, warts and all, through Pearlman’s exhaustive research and unparalleled gift for relatibility through his prose.

And boy, are there warts. Contextualized, though, they amount to nothing worse than what the average person goes through but might not publicize to the world. Walter Payton had his flaws, and some of them were spectacular, but he was after all a spectacular human being. The man’s motto became “never die easy” because of his smash mouth style of play, but that was rooted in a strong personality that approached everything in life with the same crushing tenacity he displayed on the field. If you were to isolate those moments where he was less than perfect, then he could seem like a bad person. But he wasn’t, and Pearlman’s chronicling of his life makes that obvious. The penultimate scene in the book comes in its final pages, when Walter is dying and asked to speak to a young fan. I would run the excerpt here, but don’t want to deprive you of that moment. But let’s say it was Walter at his weakest being Walter, and it was wonderful and moving.

If you were to base your view of the book on the reaction seen on the internet, you’d come out thinking that Sweetness was a tabloid expose that violently ripped the veil off the Payton mystique. The truth, however, is quite different. Sweetness is, instead, the story of a man who overcame tremendous odds: an alcoholic father, a town fiercely devoted to segregation, institutional racism that severly limited his collegiate options, and the rigors of playing the most physically demanding position in the most physically demanding team sport in America, just to name a few. You come out of reading this biography not thinking of Walter Payton as a flawed man, but as a man who, despite having shortcomings as all of us do, rose to greatness in and out of his sport.

I’ve always been a fairweather football fan. I’ve never had a favorite team, save for the few years in middle and high school when I adopted the New England Patriots on a whim (I dropped them before their epic run of playoff and Super Bowl victories). I know enough about the sport to understand what’s happening and get invested in a game I’m watching, but I rarely if ever go out of my way to watch a game of my own volition. Despite that, I was completely wrapped up the last week in Pearlman’s book and transfixed by the most minute details of the game and Payton’s life. I came to adore the man so much that when the book reached the inevitable point where Payton dies, a fact I was already well aware of, my eyes welled up. Not because I thought he’d beat it, because Pearlman conveys Payton’s fate unequivocally from the moment he’s diagnosed. I teared up because for the first time since his death twelve years ago, I knew who Walter Payton was.

Credit goes to Jeff Pearlman for writing what was, in all honesty and sincerity, the best biography I’ve ever read. And especially to Walter Payton, a man who gave so much to the world and never lived, or died easy.

You can purchase Sweetness on Amazon and at most bookstores.

Tagged with:
 

Economist and policy-shaper Jared Bernstein for The New Republic:

Once again, the GSEs are ostensibly just protecting the taxpayer, but these protections are blocking a critical exit ramp from the recession. One mechanism that’s supposed to be helping the economy right now works through the Federal Reserve getting interest rates down—which they’ve done—and homebuyers responding with refinancing and new purchases. But the policies of the GSEs, motivated by the FHFA’s mandate to avoid losses and protect taxpayers, are blocking refinancing and therefore jamming the machine.

But is the FHFA really protecting the rest of us? Like I said, I understand and respect their rationale, but I think they’re wrong. Without shaving off principal from a number of these loans, they will default, and who foots the bill when that happens? That’s right—Fannie and Freddie themselves, because they either own or insure the loans. In this respect, they’re doing the same “extend and pretend” shuffle that private banks are doing, hoping that home prices reverse course and what’s now underwater will eventually be sailing on the surface. For a lot of borrowers, however, that’s just not going to happen. Granted, there are loans that would be okay without reductions, and I’m not suggesting it’s a cakewalk to figure out the best ones to bet on. But as discussed here, some private banks are already finding promising ways to do just that.

The article and analysis calls for, amongst other things but principally, a restructuring of those mortgages still underwater from the 2008 housing collapse so that the extent of the debt on the homeowners is lowered and more accurately reflects what their homes are now worth.

The typical cries of socialism and culpability will invariably accompany this suggestion, but that belies the responsibility that the Fannies and Freddies had in creating this situation. The speculative bubble and its subsequent burst are not just the result of Americans getting in over their heads, but also the unwatched and unmitigated speculation and things like NINA (No Income No Assett) loans that were so wild in concept and reckless in execution that they were, in many cases, criminal acts that went unprosecuted in the wake of the disaster.

Fannie and Freddie and their ilk got bailouts. They’re still kicking around because they were “too big to fail.” Yet those people whose mortgages are underwater were not and will not be given the benefit of such extensive government intervention to save their financial lives, credit, and livelihoods. I’m rolling my eyes at even the suggestion asking where the bailout is for the American people, because it seems like such trite pandering.

But is it?

No small amount of fault lies at the feet of those who got themselves into this situation. But that’s not just homeowners. What things like NINA loans did was allow scoundrels to feed a flawed system of speculation and smokescreens, in some cases using fantasy numbers to convince recipients of mortgages they could afford monthly payments while turning to lending institutions and exaggerating or in some cases wholly fabricating income and assets. And those institutions gladly accepted them on the knowledge and pretense that they were likely bunk. Why the Hell else would you even invoke a loan that requires “No Income and No Assett” verification?

So while Fannie and Freddier were given a break, that same charity is not extended to those who were less accomplice and more victim of a broken, out of control system.

How is that just?

I have a few problems with the way the Khadafi/Qaddafi/Gaddaffi killing went down, and not just because we’ll never know the correct spelling.

All joking aside, there’s a reason for all the different spellings: the absence of formally recognized standards for translating to English. Because there’s no standard, the spelling depends on where you’re looking. We know who or perhaps what he is and can pin down the pronunciation, but don’t know where all the letters fit or even which ones to use.

Was he executed, murdered, or put to death? Depends on where you’re looking.

We cannot be surprised that he was killed by an angry mob. Qaddafi (the spelling we’ll go with for the time being) used deception and manipulation to pit factions and even family members against each other, until one day the people of Libya were awoken by the angry shouts of neighbors to the East. Libyans didn’t know reality and truth let alone democracy for the better part of four decades, so of course they reacted first and foremost in an anger that bubbled over into violence. Qaddaffi didn’t help matters when he turned his guns on his own people, an unusually desperate tactic from a man who so brilliantly co-opted resistance movements in the past and warped them into new systems of patronage that actually strengthened his regime. Mix that with values that differ from our Western mores (even though we compromise them on a nigh daily basis) and you have a recipe for assassination, regicide, or justice, depending on the vantage point. Rebel forces weren’t an organized collective of the oppressed guided by the free world, they were what we saw on cable news outlets all weekend: the aforementioned angry mob that was let loose in a particular direction. What happened is inherent in the nature of rebellion, and nobody should be surprised by it.

But that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a better way. Christopher Hitchens (if you don’t love the man’s writing even when you disagree with him then I don’t want to know you) put it best in a piece for Slate:

It is some time since the International Criminal Court in the Hague has announced itself ready and open for business in the matter of Libya. But now Muammar Qaddafi is dead, as reportedly is one of his sons, Mutassim, and not a word has been heard about the legality or propriety of the business. No Libyan spokesman even alluded to the court in their announcements of the dictator’s ugly demise. The president of the United States spoke as if the option of an arraignment had never even come up. In this, he was seconded by his secretary of state, who was fresh from a visit to Libya but confined herself to various breezy remarks, one of them to the effect that it would aid the transition if Qaddafi was to be killed. British Prime Minister David Cameron, who did find time to mention the international victims of Qaddafi’s years of terror, likewise omitted to mention the option of a trial.

Hitchens is correct in taking us to account for not even suggesting there might be a process in place to bring the man to justice. If nothing else, our leadership here and abroad cheered on this mob and only raised questions after the fact as a formality to keep up appearances. And if we’re serious about building nations that respect the inherent rights that we cherish and champion, then we owe it to them to discourage this sort of thing, even if it’s in a passive manner.

I’m not sad that a terrible man died. Rather, I’m sad that Libya has exorcised the wrong demon. Qaddafi was weak, bloody, injured, hungry, and desperate when he was given up by one of his own and dragged by the collar to face the gathering of freedom fighters that had assembled in the wake of his government’s collapse. But even at the height of his power, he was always alone with that golden gun. It was the allure of that metal that allowed many Libyans, even those who were brave enough to demand reform, to be glad-handed into extending the Qaddafi regime well past its expiration date. The story of Libya in the latter half of the twentieth century bears at least one similarity to the story of Germany in the first half: one evil man with no shortage of willing accomplices. The Libyan people didn’t just put a bullet in Qaddafi’s skull, they executed their culpability at point blank range.

Toppling a totalitarian regime is like demolishing a dilapidated building. It requires careful planning. Bring it down the wrong way and the whole thing will collapse down on top of you. We’ve seen it before in Russia and Eastern Europe, which exchanged royal patronage and oppressive fascism for brutal Soviet totalitarianism, amounting to the same injustice but with a different set of seasonings to modify its flavor. Libya itself has has seen it before: in 1969, when the people cheered as a small portion of its military led by an opportunistic young Lieutenant named Muammar rolled into Benghazi, deposed King Idris, and abolished the monarchy. The coup was quick and bloodless, its leader lionized, and forty years later, Muammar was killed by an angry mob while the leader of the provincial government promised its people that the new country would adhere to Islamic law.

The world would not be better off with Qaddafi kicking around, but the manner in which he was killed has set a tone for the new nation.

Or, even worse, it may have continued it.

Required reading:
How Qaddafi Fooled Libya and the World – Max Fisher for The Atlantic on Qaddafi’s unusual but effective coup and subsequent reign.
The New Libya’s First Mistake – Hitchens on the death of Qaddafi

Tagged with:
 

A review of last Friday’s Josh Ritter concert at The Egg. Better late then never, right?

A night after seeing Andrew Bird at the Troy Music Hall, which because of the artist and venue was guaranteed to be a positive experience, I entered more unfamiliar territory with Josh Ritter at the Egg. I’d only heard of him tangentially vis a vis praise heaped on him by a handful of music publications and my company for the evening.

Entering the Egg’s Swyer Theater, my ticket was taken by a confused volunteer usher who stared at it blankly for what felt like an eternity before telling us to simply take any two empty seats we could find together in the row. Thankfully, it was at least the correct row and the ovular design of The Egg’s performance spaces made the fact that our tickets were on the other side of the section a non-issue.

I was accompanied once again by my concert buddy from Andrew Bird, and true to our form, we entered late into John Wesley Harding’s opening set. Harding (real name Wesley Stace, which is the name he goes by as a novelist) takes his name from one of Bob Dylan’s best albums, but his style owes more to Great Britain’s working class industrialist songwriters, with splashes of Pink Floyd and The Who providing color for his take on traditional folk. In between songs, Harding was comfortable and engaging. His charisma carried through to his performances, so I forgave what little I heard that bothered me (such as when the closing number “Devil in Me” devolved into preachy hackery).

Ritter, by contrast, was far less confident being the sole musician onstage. Keeping time was clearly an issue without a backing band, though it only became a distraction when the audience attempted to clap along to his more livelier efforts. Singing with his eyes closed and up into a raised mic stand, he smiled and tittered throughout the set and would excitedly take tiny steps backwards and forwards during his songs as if his feet were bound. It was precocious, but it was genuine. Women throughout the crowd closed their eyes, swayed, and fell in love with the adorable Ritter. One woman two rows in front of me leaned forward to take him in while her boyfriend aggressively rubbing her back in an attempt to draw her attentions back to him. She leaned further forward, but unlike Ritter, the boyfriend’s rhythm could not and would not be broken.

Ritter's isolation was a handicap early in the set, but became a strength as the night wore on.

But one should not let Ritter’s inherent charm overshadow his strength in telling a story. Most of the set’s first half was devoted to how pretty girls are and how much he enjoys spending time with them. Thankfully, his skilland natural charisma kept it from becoming overbearingly trite. The lowlight of the evening came when he performed “Southern Pacifica” and I became convinced that he’d wholly plagiarized it from Calexico (“Cruel” off 2006’s “Garden Ruin” LP). As I thought more about it, I rationalized it as my familiarity and preference for the latter clouding my perception. And, if anything, any similarity was likely unintentional. I’ve posted both videos below for comparison, so you can judge for yourself.

In the second half of his set, Ritter abandoned his libido and showed more versatility as a songwriter and a performer. My favorite was “Another New World,” a maritime ode to a shipwrecked vessel inspired by the last known poem penned by Edgar Allen Poe. Another highlight came when he asked the lights to be gradually brought down during a performance of “California,” followed by him performing the heartbreaking “Lantern” in complete darkness.

Ritter ended the evening and while I didn’t rush home to pick up every album he’d produced, I’d been sold on an artist that I’d been hesitant to embrace due to the nature of his material. It’s easy to listen to songs like “Good Man” and think of him as a pandering neo-folk songbird, but there is clearly more depth to him than that. You just have to stick around a bit to hear it.

See also: Nippertown’s review
Below: Calexico’s “Ruin” and Ritter’s “Southern Pacifica,” for comparison’s sake. Maybe it’s just me.

Tagged with:
 

Last month, Lou Reed and Metallica released a snippet off their forthcoming collaborative LP “Lulu.”

Here’s what I wrote at the time (which actually got mentioned in a blog post by one of the editors over at The Atlantic):

On the plus side, this is so bad that we can, for the most part, avoid that lengthy and tired discussion about whether or not this band is “back” or still “has it.”

Guys, please, just tour. Thanks.

Well, Metallica has released the full track of that aforementioned song (“The View”) along with a thirty-second preview of every other song on the album.

Before I give you my reaction, I want to show you the cover of “Lulu.” Take a good look, examine it closely, and in particular gaze into the eyes of the (I assume) titular figure:

What do those eyes say to you? To me, they convey a creature that is suffering; one that didn’t ask for this existence but was thrust into it anyway. Worse, she has been reduced to a near useless torso and her hair has not been attended to. She is a patchwork of suffering constructed by men who did not for one second think of the consequences of their actions, not just on her but on the people around her.

It’s perfect. I see it as both symbolic of this enterprise and of the listener. I empathize with Lulu, because I have listened to these tracks. They are monstrosities willed into existence by men who lean on their egos and do the unconscionable just for the sake of saying they did it.

In that sense, we are all Lulu.

You might think I am being cruel, unfair, and overly harsh considering that these are only thirty second snippets. But trust me, it’s enough, and you’ll understand when you hear them for yourself. These are the sounds the ATF played to try to get David Koresh and his followers to leave their Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas. Thirty seconds is all you need to hear to know that only further suffering and psychological distress awaits.

Check out the preview for yourself, followed by my dramatization of the recording of the album:

Lulu (30-second Samples) by Lou Reed & Metallica

[Metallica walk into a room where Lou Reed is reading his shitty poetry out of a Marble Composition Notebook]

Lou Reed: I AM THE GOLDEN GHOST, YOU ARE THE HAUNTED VISAGE OF MY LOVE. I AM—-

Lars Ulrich: Hi thar, Lou.

Lou Reed: YOU’RE NOT REALLY THERE. HALLUCINAAAATION!

Lars Ulrich: So, ahm, I thought we’d, ah, ya know, get to playin’ some tracks behind ya. Whatcha think?

Lou Reed: SEETHING THROUGH CLENCHED TEETH, I CELEBRATE TET TO THE DEATH.

James Hetfield: Fuck. He’s gone.

Lars Ulrich: Alright, suit up.

James Hetfield: Lars…

Lou Reed: —IN THE RAIN OF COSMOS, YOU ARE THE STAR POND—

Lars Ulrich: Ja?

James Hetfield: He doesn’t even know we’re here.

Lars Ulrich: Time is money. Play your fucking guitar.

Lou Reed: —TOASTING YOUR HAIR WITH HOT METAL WIRES, BABE, I LOVE YA, BABE.

[Metallica keeps playing despite Lou’s ramblings. Lou keeps rambling despite Metallica’s playing.]

FIN

NOTE: I made up all those lyrics, except the line “you’re not really there…HALLUCINAAAATION!” That one’s real, it’s on the track “Dragon”, and when I heard it I literally spit out my water.

Tagged with:
 

All Over Albany, God bless their little hearts, set out to find out what people from around the area are called according to their residence. Troy is Trojans, Albany is Albanians, etcetera. But did you know that residents of Delmar really are Delmartians? And if you’re from Cohoes, you’re a Cohosier!

The winner for coolest resident moniker, though, has to go to Schodack’s SCHODACKERS.

For all their digging, though, most either don’t have monikers or they’ve been lost to time. So I took it upon myself to name the rest. Consider this the final word on all residents of all municipalities throughout the Capital Region.

You’re welcome.

Averill Park – Averill Parkers
Ballston Spa – Spa Ballers
Berne – AOA says “Berners seems to be a natural,” and I’m hard pressed to find fault with that logic.
Bethlehem – Jews
Charlton – Charlatans
Clifton Park – Cliffords
Coeymans – Don’tgetwhyitspronouncedthatwayians
Colonie – Colonists
Day – DAYYYYOOOOs
East Greenbush – Greenbushmen
Edinburg – Eddies
Galway – Micks
Glenville – Glenners
Greenfield - Greenies
Hadley - Haddocks
Halfmoon - Halfmooners (duh.)
Hoosick - Hoovillians
Knox - Knockers (“check out those Knockers!”)
Malta - Maltballs
Mechanicville - Mechanics
Milton - Miltonasians
Moreau - Moreausers
Nassau - Nassauivillianers
Niskayuna - Niskies
North Greenbush - Northerners (so as not to confuse them with nearby East Greenbushmen)
Northumberland - Northumberlandiandianers
Petersburgh - Petersburghers
Poestenkill - THE POESTENKILLERS
Providence - Provincials
Rensselaerville - Theotherrensselaerites
Rotterdam - Rotterdamnits
Schaghticoke - Schaghticokeheads
Schuylerville - Schuylees
Scotia  – AOA recommends “Scotians?”
Stephentown - Stephenians
Stillwater - Stillerites
Waterford - Waterfordiskians
Westerlo - Lo Downs

 

There’s one bus stop in downtown Troy which, like so many stops in so many cities throughout the nation, is one that you avoid. The reason being is that for whatever unknown reason, the most morally bankrupt, drugged-out individuals congregate there. It is a place where if you’re, say, reading a book, you’ll get harassed and when you tell the guy to fuck off, he calls you a queer and hits the newspaper vending machine as he skulks away (true story and it happened tonight).

There’s a better bus stop if you’re just willing to walk a couple blocks North. There, you can read and not be called a queer, not be harassed, and not have to listen to wild theories, tall tales, and factually inaccurate accounts of their day to day lives.

And this is why I don’t bother watching the GOP debates anymore. You know that you’re just going to hear some crazy shit and get yelled at for being smart. So why even go there when you can go anywhere else?

Besides, the reaction on Twitter is much more enthralling.

 

Tagged with: