To Choice, to The Village Voice!

"This is the voice of the people, the village people, the village voice."

Is it me or is the New York Times just too goddamn overrated? Is it truly necessary to enhance our vocabulary to the point that we either confuse ourselves or cause discomfort amongst our peers, therefore isolating ourselves from everyone else? Does educated mean civilized?

So what is the difference between the two periodicals? The New York Times, in my opinion is composed mostly of liberal republicans, or a more appropriate, yet quite ironic dubbing would be a liberal conservative. You know, those who vote for Bush but are secretly having donkey for dinner. They are those who feel that since they are in the republican party, it is an obligation to them to vote for that party, not with their common sense as to what is right, unable to make the difference. I sit on the train in the morning coming from westchester county, also known as bumblefuck, USA (you might also have heard "hicksville, USA" or "town of fuckahoe" or "suffern, NY"), and I look at the people reading the Times as I do my daily SuDoku from the Metro. They are all the same, all of them: dressed in three-piece suits, the serious face that's been deprived of laughter for ages, a maturity infected with coldness, deprived of any humane warmth.

Back in high school, I had a very strange group that I hung out with: a religious asian, an immature italian, a republican jew and me, a black liberal homosexual. We always used to joke that if we lived in the same house, we'd make a kick-ass FRIENDS series. But enough nonsense. Thing is, I was in stage crew. We were the backbones of the theatre shows that the school produced. We did lighting, sound, set and all the props. We were also crazy liberals that would make republicans shit in their pants. This is the area that I never agreed on with my jewish republican. He hated the fact that I was friends with "these hoodlums", he called them, people who were different than him and did not agree with him. We can look at this the way RENT potrayed it: The New York Times is Calcutta and The Village Voice is Bohemia. The New York Times raises the society that works hard to earn its money, try their hardest to move up the corporate ladder, while raping as many poor unfortunate souls as possible. Bohemia favors the life of friends, slacking off, not being a slave to the system, being unique in your own and "unethical" way.

My main point here is this: because of what our society deemed as civilized, which is making your way to the top, by any means possible, we forget moral values and adopt a series of superficialities to give us the materialistic happiness we worked hard for. Then loneliness knocks on your door, depression enters, not because we chose it but because we are human and there are some things that money just cannot buy.

The island of Manhattan is a perfect example for this. As I get out of Grand Central, most people take out their blackberrys, ignoring the person next to them, not even noticing the poor bum asking for some change, giving me a sick feeling of hopelessness and cellophane. Only when I get below 14th, that I truly feel at home: liberals unite, protests about everyone and everything and against everyone and everything, random stranges breaking into some indie song with you in the middle of the street, that sense of comfort where you feel you are noticed, that you're not just made of air, that with all that bulk, someone is bound to see you there. And reading about it for free in the Voice, only makes my day oh so much better.


FUCK GEORGE W. BUSH AND VIVE LA VIE BOHèME!!!