3 hours ago The New York Post published a story last week titled “If you are not on board, go to a beach.”
The headline says it all: if you are a tourist or a tourist-friend, this is the first time you’ve heard that phrase in years.
The article’s title is so misleading that the headline is actually an insult to those who have visited the beach.
But that’s not the whole story.
It’s also an insult on behalf of those who visit.
The Post’s article was published during a time when many tourists are turning away.
Some are leaving because of health concerns, others are frustrated because the government has been slow to implement the Affordable Care Act.
The ACA requires all businesses to offer health insurance, but it’s unclear how many of them are willing to pay the full cost of coverage.
Many tourists, many Americans, are choosing not to visit the beach because they are afraid of the backlash of getting fined or getting a ticket.
There is no evidence that the majority of tourists are avoiding the beaches.
In fact, the article mentions that some of the tourists are canceling their plans because they’re afraid they’ll be penalized if they return.
And in an email, a spokesperson for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which administers the beaches, said that many tourists visit and stay in New York and that there are “several hundred” of them each year.
The spokesperson also said that some tourists might stay to celebrate a birthday or to make friends.
And it says, “If the beach is not on your bucket list, you are also not welcome.”
In other words, there is a danger that you’re going to get penalized by the city and by your fellow tourists if you go.
The fact that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is going to be taking away your beach ticket or canceling your visit is not the point.
The point is to make people think that the beaches are no longer accessible to them.
It is also a way for the tourist industry to get away with not providing health insurance for its employees and for not providing any kind of public benefits to its patrons.
So, how can the New Yorker explain its outrage about being punished by a government that’s clearly not on its side?
This article is not an advertisement for health insurance.
It may be that the government does not want you to know that the Affordable Health Care Act has forced many businesses to increase the price of their health insurance coverage.
It probably doesn’t want you, or your children, to know about the government’s involvement in this scheme.
The New Yorker’s article is the latest in a string of stories about the erosion of the beach experience.
It does not reflect the views of The New Republic, which in the past has praised the Beach Conservancy for its efforts to protect the beaches and the people who live and work on them.
This is the story of a country where the health of the citizens is being threatened by the erosion.
A public policy debate is taking place about what’s best for the people and the environment.
And the New Yorkers who want to stay in the country and the tourists who want their vacation to be as enjoyable as possible are being penalized.