Photo Courtesy of Alissa Fleck

The NYPD’s Night Out Against Crime in Union Square last night promised a “neighborhood block party,” but a party, it failed to deliver. The annual event, celebrated by police precincts nationwide to “strengthen neighborhood spirit and heighten drug and crime prevention awareness,” was entirely overwhelmed by ordinary Union Square traffic, and no one—the NYPD least of all—seemed to mind. In fact, I might not even have found the event had it not been for the two NYPD shirts meandering in the vicinity.

Rather than connecting with the public in any real or symbolic way, two police booths were cordoned literally behind a steel barricade, out of the way of general Square merriment. At the FBI booth, a woman who gave the name Dinah, handed me a coloring book and various pamphlets geared toward children, including one on “how to spot a terrorist.”

“Do you have kids,” she asked, and when I replied that I did not, she said: “What about nieces and nephews?” as she continued to pile the cartoonish pamphlets into my hands.

I asked Dinah if she could talk me through the purpose of the event, but as I reached for a notebook she stopped. “You’re not going to take notes, are you?” she asked.

Two girls with braces at one NYPD table (the other was abandoned) encouraged me to take more pamphlets, as they fumbled for an explanation for why they were there. A police officer ate a hot dog nearby and struggled to stay out of people’s way.

Finally I was directed to an NYPD spokesperson. “Can you tell me what this event is about?” I asked. She replied, as the woman next to her poured butter into the popcorn popper, it was a nationwide event with the intent of showing community members police departments were serious about crime prevention.

“So it’s about building relations between the NYPD and community members?” I asked.

“Yes,” she said.

“Do you feel these relations have been suffering lately?”

“I’m not going to answer that,” she said.

I asked if she would provide me her name.

“No, I will not,” she said, covering what I presume was a name badge.

The friendly faces I encountered at the renewable energy table were a welcome relief. “Please, talk to me,” I said, as I dropped my stack of pamphlets onto their table. After they recited their congenial spiel, I asked what they were doing at the NYPD Night Out Against Crime event, squeezed between a Jamba Juice booth and one hawking keychains. “We just sort of show up to events like these,” they said. “We don’t really know what this is about.” Confusion seemed to be the ambiance of the day.

At the Starbucks table—an added perk of the event was the NYPD’s stated desire to “connect with local businesses”—a man stood behind a spread of iced beverages. “Yes,” he said, seemingly exasperated, as I approached, in the voice of someone tired of being the main attraction for all the wrong reasons. “Yes, yes, yes, before you even ask.” I sheepishly grabbed a complimentary iced coffee and booked it out of Union Square.

As I left the area, a man stopped me. “Hey, are they giving away free iced coffee?” he asked, indicating the small blur of blue tents.

Fox reports six people were shot in NYC on National Night Out, putting a damper on the night’s success.

Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

MTA police officer John Barnett was stabbed at 9:30 a.m. yesterday morning in Queens, before shooting and killing his assailant, reports Fox NY. 

The incident took place at the Long Island Railroad station on Sutphin Boulevard and Jamaica Avenue in Jamaica. Barnett was stabbed in the left eye, out of nowhere, by 46-year-old “emotionally disturbed” Edgar Owens. Barnett then opened fire on Owens, who reportedly has a history of aggressiveness toward police.

Barnett was rushed to Jamaica Hospital following the incident and is expected to recover from the “devastating wound,” reports Fox. Governor Cuomo applauded Barnett’s bravery in a statement following the attack.

Doctors say it will be days before Barnett will know if he will regain sight in his left eye. Service to the LIRR was not disrupted by the incident.

—Alissa Fleck

Photo Courtesy of Wiki Commons

Alec Baldwin went to City Hall yesterday with fiancée Hilaria Thomas to obtain a marriage license, when an altercation broke out that provoked a witness to tell the Daily News something is “wrong” with the star.

Baldwin is now at the center of a criminal investigation after allegedly assaulting a photographer on scene. According to the alleged victim, Marcus Santos, Baldwin “look[ed] mad” and urged the paparazzi to get out of his way, Fox News reports. Santos says Baldwin went after him unprovoked, while Baldwin claims he acted in response to aggression. The Daily News reports Baldwin threw punches. Witnesses may back up the photographer’s account, but they might be a little biased.

Baldwin tweeted about the incident later and even alluded to the controversial Trayvon Martin case: “I suppose if the offending paparazzi was wearing a hoodie and I shot him, it would all blow over…” Unfortunately his remark will probably only escalate matters.

The next day Baldwin was seen around town wearing a sheet over his head, likely a response to General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association Mickey Osterreicher’s comments that Baldwin should wear something over his head if he does not want to be recognized, Fox reported.

It sounds like a classic case of finger-pointing.

—Alissa Fleck

Photo by Andrew Schwartz

After four years as editor in chief of The Onion, comedian Joe Randazzo is leaving the paper, and America’s self-proclaimed “finest news source” is relocating its offices from New York to Chicago. City & State editor Morgan Pehme talks with Randazzo about his tenure at the helm of the popular satiric publication and asks him if there’s anything funny about Andrew Cuomo.

City & State: What’s so funny about politics?

Joe Randazzo: You have a high concentration of egotistical people who oftentimes put their worst qualities forward to get noticed and to be recognized, and this lack of compassion, humanism and altruism often leads to success in politics. These are the worst qualities of humankind that people who are being put forth to represent all of humankind are embodying, so that inherently is a tragically hilarious juxtaposition.

CS: How seriously does The Onion take itself?

JR: I think it’s understood that there’s this bedrock responsibility to speak truth to power, to call out bullsh-t when The Onion sees it or hears it, and to always try to fall on the right side of issues, to never be against the victim—and not to try to maintain objectivity but to keep any target open, so Democrats are just as open to ridicule as Republicans. But in order to get to the good jokes that make The Onion successful, all the writers have to do is make each other laugh. I think a responsibility to the broader social conversation is genetically encoded in The Onion as an institution and that rubs off on the writers, but on a daily basis Onion writers aren’t thinking about their responsibility or taking themselves very seriously. It just needs to be funny jokes.

CS: At The Onion, are you a journalist first or a comedian?

JR: I come from a little bit of a journalism background. I majored in journalism at Emerson and I worked for NPR, but I’m definitely a comedian first.

CS: Earlier this year, Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana mistakenly thought a story in The Onion about a planned “AbortionPlex” was genuine. On other occasions The New York Times and Fox News have reported on your articles as fact. How blurry is the line between real news and fake news in the current media environment?

JR: That one was really wonderful, because the whole point of the AbortionPlex story itself was to try to give as much credence to what we imagined every right-wing nut job’s worst nightmare of Planned Parenthood could be and to explore that and give it The Onion treatment, which is to present it in a very dry, authoritative way. That’s our formula; that’s the lens through which we observe the world—that’s where 90% of our comedy comes from—so when we do it really well, sometimes people who aren’t familiar with us take it seriously. I think it does to a degree speak to—especially during the Bush Administration and the rise of FOX News, not that Rupert Murdoch is an evil person, per se—this sort of reinventing news as entertainment that that has really taken hold in American culture.

I think in [Rep. Fleming’s] case, he’s a pandering guy who’s not that intelligent, who thought that something obscenely ridiculous like the AbortionPlex could ever possibly be real. But actually, one of the things that lent it some credence was that somebody went and created an actual Yelp site for the AbortionPlex—we didn’t solicit this, they just did this of their own accord, organically—and hundreds of people who were in on the joke started giving it thumbs up or thumbs down and writing reviews like “It was great! My husband and I are going to go there every year for our anniversary” and stuff like that, which sort of gave texture to this world we created that we never could have done on our own. I think that story, paired with that kind of real-world response to it, painted this picture that for some people made it much easier to believe that it was real, even though the story itself was ridiculous. I mean, it’s a $7 billion AbortionPlex or something like that, where they’re killing, like, 1500 babies a minute. There’s waterslides, and you can have a martini while you wait. It’s like there’s no way that would ever be real, even from Planned Parenthood. It’s delightful when people take that stuff seriously.

CS: Does constantly mocking hypocrisy and ineptitude in government make you hopelessly cynical about the state of our country?

JR: I think a lot of comedians are cynical. I’m generalizing, but comedians tend to be fairly sensitive people who have to kind of harden their souls to the fact that they’re going to get hurt, and that everybody’s going to get hurt, and that people are imperfect and that, you know, ultimately we’re all going to die. I think that’s actually the background of every comedian’s mind. So, I think there’s a side to that sensitivity that hopes for good, that wants to be optimistic, that wants to be idealistic, but that’s a vulnerable place to be, and rather than going out and trying to collect names for Children’s International, comedians write nasty jokes about Rush Limbaugh. Personally, I wouldn’t say that I’m cynical, but I’m not an activist.

I think that our country, if we continue on this path which is consumed with the endless obsession with consumption—that’s physically unsustainable, spiritually unsustainable, and culturally unsustainable. Politics is just a reflection of that, trying to keep order out of all these different types and groups of people, who are all basically just trying to get by in a material world—I think Madonna said that at some point. So I don’t actual think I’m cynical, but I’m not holding out a lot of hope for, like, big change. For one thing, we’ll probably have to wipe out, like, three quarters of the population maybe before anything good can happen, and that’s okay, I’m comfortable with that. I’m just enjoying my life while I can before the big purge comes.

CS: As a comedic journalist, when scandals like the ones that brought down Anthony Weiner and Eliot Spitzer hit the papers, do you just think to yourself, Thank you!?

JR: Something like Eliot Spitzer or Anthony Weiner is a little more in the purview, from The Onion point of view, of late-night talk shows, like one-liners and zingers. The Onion tends not to really comment on those types of little blips, and when we do it tends to be more of a comment on the media’s take on something. We try to write stories that can be evergreen, that you can read in 10 years and they would still make some sense. We try to look at it with more than a 24-hour news cycle mentality. When Anthony Weiners come up I think we actually say, “Sh-t!” because we have to either figure out a joke that nobody else has done, or we won’t be able to cover it at all.

CS: The Onion hasn’t really run a satiric article featuring Andrew Cuomo since his days as HUD Secretary. Is there just nothing funny about Cuomo to write about?

JR: I don’t think there is. He’s boring, right? That’s his whole thing?

CS: In 2009 The Onion was awarded a Peabody, and last year you actively campaigned for a Pulitzer. Does The Onion really deserve journalism’s highest award or was that just a shameless publicity stunt?

JR: I think that we would all actually really like to win a Pulitzer—and now that I’m leaving in two days, I think I can say that The Onion absolutely does deserve a Pulitzer. In terms of commentary I don’t think there’s anyone who has consistently done a better job with sort of more integrity that The Onion has. The Onion also does lots of stupid, horrible jokes that have no business being published, but I think there isn’t any other organization that has for 20 years observed the American condition as consistently as The Onion has. It’s been amazing to be able to work for them for six years. The Pulitzer campaign was definitely tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to be sort of a comment on awarding prizes for journalism, which is kind of a weird thing. In many ways, even though you are talking about things that are supposed to be good for the community, it can get wrapped up in just as much vanity as the Academy Awards can. So we thought it would be funny, instead of pretending we don’t care about prizes like many news outlets do, just shamelessly going for one and saying we will actually just buy one from you, if you allow us to do it.

To read the full article at City & State click here.

By Rachel Khona

When most people get engaged, it’s met with rounds of congratulatory remarks, hugs, and champagne. However when pro-birth control activist Sandra Fluke announced her engagement to longtime boyfriend Adam Mutterperl, conservative Fox News (shocker!) pundit Monica Crowley made like a 16-year-old and took to her Twitter account to react the news “To a man?” she tweeted. Clearly any female who supports a feminist agenda and doesn’t have long shiny tresses—befitting a Pantene commercial—must clearly be a lesbian.

Fluke took the news in stride demonstrating the same level of class she displayed when she was verbally attacked by Rush Limbaugh for being a slut. (Note to Rush: a woman in a monogamous relationship is the opposite of a slut. Though calling someone is slut is effed up regardless.) On The Ed Show, Fluke stated that she thought Crowley’s comments were homophobic and that Crowley should issue an apology to the LGBT community. Though I respect her opinion, I couldn’t help but think Fluke was missing the more obvious jab. In suggesting that Fluke is a lesbian, not only is Crowley mocking women who stand up for women’s rights, she is making a subtle dig at Fluke’s appearance. With her long blond hair and perfectly made up face, Crowley is your typical glamazon. If this was Mad Men, She is Joan and Fluke is Peggy. Minus the goodwill.

But this isn’t just an issue of a conservative going after a liberal. Infamous sex blogger Lena Chen remarked, “When people saw what I looked like, they were surprised. Like I wasn’t attractive enough to be having sex or talking about sex.”

Sandra Fluke

Apparently she didn’t get the memo that only supermodels and Hollywood starlets have sex. But more importantly why are women categorized as sluts or lesbians because of their political stances or points of view? The interesting thing about female degradation is that women take an equal part in putting down other women. Whether it’s to feel superior or because they themselves are scared to rock the boat, it only serves to do a disservice to womankind. Don’t agree with a woman’s opinion? Call her a lesbo! A dyke! That’s the way to engage in political discourse!

I’m not sure what possessed Crowley to suggest Fluke is a lesbian. Perhaps she wants to seem cool in the boys club. Or perhaps she’s intimidated of a woman who has no fear of standing up for herself. Either way, all she did was show her ass, so to speak. And her ass is seriously not cute.

I enjoyed Ben Krull’s column, “Dissecting My Fox Fix” (May 20), with modest amusement. But I have a beef with one sentence: “Most of what I hear on Hannity’s show is lies and misrepresentations, double-talk and hyperbole.”

I can describe that wordage in two words: bovine residue.

Look, I’m a regular viewer of Hannity’s TV show and yes, he leans to the right—nothing wrong with that. But he always has liberals on the program to express their views. A little bird tells me that Mr. Krull is sorry he let that “garbage” slip into his column. I would expect folderol from a 14-year-old high school sophomore, but not from a seasoned and respected essayist as Mr. Krull.

So I ask readers who have not turned on Sean Hannity at 9 p.m. on the Fox News Channel to watch his show for as little as two or three evenings. I doubt very much that you will agree with Mr. Krull’s twaddle, but I could be wrong. You decide.

Joe Morrone
East 75th Street

It’s hard on my nerves and gives me nightmares. But like a rubbernecker who gawks at a highway accident, I am unable to look away.

I am addicted to Fox News; hooked on O’Reilly, Beck and the Obama-bashing Fox and Friends morning show. But my drug of choice is Sean Hannity.

A promo for Hannity’s book, Conservative Victory, summarizes his politics: “Hannity surveys all the major Obama players… He exposes their resulting campaign to dismantle the American free-market system and forfeit our national sovereignty.” His nightly show is a parade of Rush Limbaugh wannabes peddling books and Republican presidential aspirants, pandering to Tea Party types.

What differentiates Hannity from his snarling Fox counterparts is that his rants have a good-natured delivery. His congenial demeanor makes me want to punch his nose and say, “Wipe that smile off your face.”

Most of what I hear on Hannity’s show is lies and misrepresentations; double-talk and hyperbole. While watching him, I feel like kicking in my flat-screen, yet I am too enthralled to even change the channel.

You might wonder why a hardcore Democrat like myself is drawn to such toxic talk. I have come up with several theories: as a columnist I want to keep up with the latest journalistic trends; being a liberal, I want to know my enemy; I have a subconscious crush on Sarah Palin. But none of these reasons ring true.

I asked my psychologist-friend, Amy, what she thought.

“The anger you feel enlivens you,” she said. “That’s why some people like to feel pain—it makes them feel alive. Fox does that for you.”

While it is disquieting to think that my television viewing habits are akin to sadomasochism, Amy has a point. Even as it drives me nuts, Fox produces a surge of emotion that gives me a high.

Some of my politically minded friends watch MSNBC, Fox’s left-leaning competitor. But Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz and the network’s other Democratic cheerleaders do nothing to raise my blood pressure. Listening to opinions I mostly agree with is like watching a 3-D movie without the glasses: flat and boring.

I am also turned off by the network’s partisanship. While Fox’s emotionally charged rhetoric sucks me in, the same tone in liberal clothing makes me wince.

As a graduate-degree-educated, New Yorker-reading, PBS-watching (when I’m not watching Fox) NPR-listening liberal, I want the side of the political divide I identify with to be defined by rational, intelligent discourse. So when I hear my fellow travelers hyperventilating about the right (Keith Olberman on Sen. Scott Brown: a “homophobic, racist, reactionary… tea-bagging supporter of violence against women…”), it makes me embarrassed to wear my “YES WE CAN” T-shirt.

Despite my complaints about MSNBC, watching the network causes me no stress. Not so with Fox. I recently had a nightmare in which President Obama was overthrown in a coup. The plotters replaced him with George W. Bush, who was wearing a Caesar-like crown. The dream was so realistic that when I woke up I nervously turned on MSNBC to see if Morning Joe had been replaced by Joe the Plumber.

To preserve my mental health, I have taken a break from Hannity and his cohorts. To ease my withdrawal, I have been listening to sports-talk radio. Although the Yankee-haters (Richard from Queens: “Yankee fans are such hypocrites. They’re up in arms when Jeter gets plunked by Beckett, but said nothing when Clemens hit Piazza”) give me nightmares, it is less disturbing to have bad dreams about the Red Sox and bats, than red states
and pitchforks.

Ben Krull is a lawyer and essayist who lives on the Upper East Side.