May. 03 2015 — 6:03 pm | 1993 views

Your Guide to NYC’s Hottest Tourist Attraction, the Fabulous Meatpacking District

By Lewis Grossberger |

  1. Stay the fuck away from me. I live here and I don’t like you.
  1. Visit the wonderful, iconic High Line. It’s packed rail to rail with people just like you and it overlooks some of downtown Manhattan’s most scenic parking lots. 
  1. What’s that? It’s that way. No, not that way. That way. Right, just keep walking east and you’ll hit it.
  1. Stay the fuck away from the restaurants I frequent. Not that there are any left. 
  1. I recommend you make your New York home the Standard Hotel. It’s trendy, snooty, super-expensive and best of all, it overlooks the High Line.
  1. Get off my damn street. You’ll know you’re on it when you hear a bitter old man screaming from his window, “Get off my damn street!”
  1. The new Whitney is nice—if you can fight your way through the crowds, the hot dog vendors and the pickpockets. Bonus feature: it overlooks the High Line.
  1. Pastis is the one restaurant not to miss in the meatpacking district. For fine cuisine, authentic French bistro atmosphere and celebrity spotting, you can’t beat it. Only drawback: It closed a year ago.
  1. Most neighborhoods on the planet don’t have even one Christian Louboutin shoe store. Mine has two. By all means, spend a year’s salary and buy a pair. Then walk out onto the quaint cobblestone street. I’ll be the one laughing while dialing 911. 
  2. Just one block west of colorful, bustling Washington Street, main artery of the fabulous meatpacking district, is the historic Hudson River. Climb over the railing. Jump in.


Sometimes, very early in the morning, the neighborhood magically snaps back to the past.

Sometimes, very early in the morning, the neighborhood magically snaps back to the past.


Feb. 19 2015 — 4:04 pm | 1956 views

The Real Reason Why Obama Must Denounce Islam

By Lewis Grossberger |

Screen Shot 2015-02-19 at 3.36.47 PMThe big outrage this week in the strange world of the right wing is: Why, oh why, in his ritual denunciations of terrorism, Obama leaves out the word Islamic.

Or Muslim. Muslim would be good, too. Either one.

See what the New York Post did with its cover?

They put a blindfold on the Prez. Witty. I would’ve gone with an ostrich cartoon myself, but OK. Blindfold’s funny. They’re laughing on Staten Island. They’re rolling around their desks at Fox News.

The ever calm and sensible right wing is convinced that if the President of the U.S. would only call the Islamic terrorists Islamic terrorists, a great blow would be struck against the enemy. ISIS would wilt. “OMG,” the Isisians would cry. “They’ve found out! Who gave us away? Find the traitor!”

And Americans would finally wake up to the fact that those Middle Eastern guys who call themselves the Islamic State and yell “Allahu Akbar” when they behead people are really Muslims, and not the Mormons and Scientologists they’re so easily confused with.

Of course there’s a problem with a policy whereby U.S. leaders go out of their way to denounce the entire Islamic religion: eventually we’d piss off every single Muslim in the world—not just the millions who already hate us, but all 1.6 billion of them. That’s 23 percent of the world’s population.

But, hey, who needs allies among the Muslims? Who needs Iraqis, Kurds, Saudis, Turks, Egyptians, Qataris, et al to help us fight ISIS when we could just ship over another couple of million American kids to spend a decade or two in the desert getting killed, maimed and post-traumatically stressed?

What, take advantage of fissures in the Muslim world to help us in the war against terrorism? Nah? Who needs that? Not us.

Better to give in to simple-minded, blind rage and scream that all Islam is evil and must be eradicated. Because there’s a big advantage in doing that. Which is, namely, um…

I mean there’s a good, logical reason that Obama should do Islam bashing rather than just terrorist bashing, and that reason is very simply that er…

Well, I’m sure the righties will get around to explaining it sooner or later. I mean there has to be a reason, right?


Feb. 04 2015 — 8:54 pm | 4892 views

Guess Which Word Inside Of This Headline Is Heinously Wrong

By Lewis Grossberger |

Screen Shot 2015-02-03 at 6.07.01 PMI’m here today to tell you recalcitrant dimwits that if you keep inserting the word “of” where it isn’t needed, you will all die.

Okay, maybe that’s a little harsh. Maybe I’ll just kill a few of you as an example to the rest.

I don’t understand why this evil is happening now (in truth, I don’t understand why anything that’s happening now is happening, but let that go), but the sticking of “of” into sentences where no “of” is necessary is getting out of control.

Just the other day, Laura Ingraham said, “I just don’t think measles is that big of a deal.”

I know, you’re thinking, hey, it’s Laura Ingraham, she’s an idiot Republican, they’re wrong about everything, so of course she wouldn’t be content just to be wrong about fucking measles, she’d have to do something else wrong in the sentence to flaunt her heroic, epic wrongness.

Yet I’m seeing extraneous, superfluous, gratuitous and totally useless ofs promiscuously inserted everywhere by all kinds of people.

In particular, “inside” and “outside” are words that seem like irresistible provocations to the ofmongers., which is not exactly the language-challenged Buzzfeed, ran a subhead on an article about poverty in the suburbs that began, “More people with low incomes now live outside of cities…”

A few days later, in an article about God knows what, it recounted the saga of a nineteenth-century chess robot that checkmated all comers “because there was a chess master hiding inside of it.”

I suppose the writer would argue that if the chess master had merely been hiding inside it instead of of it, the sentence would never have fully conveyed the stunning drama of the occasion.

And in the Washington Post about five minutes ago, I spotted this atrocity about some Congressman’s baroque office decor: “‘It’s actually based off of the red room in Downton Abbey,’ said the woman behind the front desk, comparing it to the luxurious set piece at the heart of the British period drama.”

Shouldn’t that be “based on of the red room?”


I could give you a few thousand more examples of this loathsomeness, but they’d soon become depressingly tiresome. Just take my word of it.

Look, I have nothing against the word itself. Of is a modest little preposition with few pretensions, aside from the fact that it’s pronounced as if spelled uv, but English is full of such nonsense, so I forgive of.

What I can’t forgive, however, is the growing proliferation of ofs where no of should tread, especially in the news business. News people are trained to eschew excess and slash surfeits.

At least they used to be.

Maybe the new media find copy editors, with their dedication to crisp economy and their outrageous demand to be paid, an unnecessary luxury today.

Or maybe, just maybe, the invasion of ofs is a conspiracy by the nation’s hicks. Isn’t the yokel population always trying to slip its tater tots into the national word casserole? These are the subliterates who won’t be happy until we’re all saying, “Where’s he at?”

I don’t know it’s them for sure but I have my suspicions.

Whatever the reason, the excess ofing must cease. So be wary, be vigilant, keep it pure and don’t make me mad of you.