Posted in music | tour dates | veggie on October 2, 2006

Cyndi Lauper & Nellie MCKay

When: Wednesday, November 15th, 2006 at 6:30PM
Where: Theater for the New City (155 First Avenue)

Nellie is also playing the Beastie Boys benefit this week, and coming out with a new album



Comments (10)

Coincidentally, I also got an email today discounting tickets to Protest! The Concert to Closer Guantanamo, which also features Nellie McKay.

"Silence in the face of injustice is an assault on the dignity of all humanity. Don't miss this event celebrating our essential American freedom--where protest songs and statements are presented by musicians and artists from a chorus of outrage.

See Marshall Crenshaw, Nellie Mckay, Utah Phillips, Angelique Kidjo, Rutha Harris, The Mammels, The Klezmatics, Tom Paxton, Rinde Eckert, Staceyann Chin, Suheir Hammad, Kahliah Ali, Nicole Burdette and many more! The concert takes place at Town Hall as part of the Culture Project’s Impact Festival."

type in PROTEST for $20 off. front row center seats available now for $30!

Posted by Qbertplaya | October 2, 2006 2:22 PM

hey q...

under what section do i type that???

so many choices..

Posted by matt | October 2, 2006 2:54 PM

it works under "Promotions and Special Offers"

Posted by Qbertplaya | October 2, 2006 4:00 PM

League of Humane Voters? No offense, BV, but are these the crackpots who want to enact legislation to force all landlords and apartment building managers to accept tenants with pets? Before anyone voices the knee-jerk anti-landlord reaction, please know that building liability insurance costs a lot more for buildings that allow dogs because when someone gets bitten by a dog, the property owner is legally on the hook for damages.

Posted by C-I-L-L THE CRACKPOTS! | October 2, 2006 11:16 PM

"these the crackpots who want to enact legislation to force all landlords and apartment building managers to accept tenants with pets?"

According to their website, they're behind the "pets in housing bill" which will "prevent landlords from reviving and enforcing the no-pet clause in a rental tenants lease once it has been waived".

That's very different than what you described.

And their main purpose:

"The League of Humane Voters of New York City (LOHV-NYC) campaigns for the election of animal friendly candidates to public office."

Posted by brooklynvegan | October 3, 2006 1:43 AM

"That's very different than what you described."

Granted. Perhaps what I described is a position they held and later abandoned, or a position held by some other group. (It was on a flyer I read a few years ago.)

A couple of thoughts about the position you quote: Currently, the rent stabilization regulations say that if the lease for a rent-stabilized apartment has a no-pet clause and the tenant sneaks in a pet, the landlord/agent is deemed to have waived the no-pet clause if he discovers the presence of the pet and does not begin proceedings to enforce the clause within 60 (or whatever) days of the discovery. But the landlord/agent is deemed to have discovered the presence of the pet if one of his agents -- even just a repairman who is a contractor and not his employee -- sees the pet, even if the agent doesn't tell him. So I say that a legally recognized waiver of a no-pet clause must be in writing.

Furthermore, if one tenant in a rent-stabilized building has a certain type of pet (e.g. a cat), then all of the building's tenants are entitled to have a pet of that type. Of course, some people are responsible with pets and others are not. I say the landlord/agent of a rent-stabilized building should be allowed to permit pets on an tenant-by-tenant basis.

Posted by C-I-L-L THE CRACKPOTS! | October 3, 2006 12:07 PM

Crackpot has no idea what he's talking about. For accurate information, read LOHV-NYC's memo on the pets in housing bill at

Grant Aleksander and Peter Max will also be appearing at the League's 5th anniversary. Details at

Posted by John | October 22, 2006 11:01 AM

Leave a Comment