This weekend the NYTimes sent two of its intrepid reporters out to Vegas to cover the high and low of Vegas. I'll spare you Vegas on $1000/day. But here's Vegas on $250/day. Can I just say: this guy's an id-jit. If your budget is only two-fiddy, why in the hell would you drop more than half of it on a hotel room? I mean, in Strip context, $150 is not a lot for a room. But there's more than one casino where you can get rooms for under $50 a night. Another stupid thing -- Bellagio's art gallery is brushed off as too spendy. But that's after he's blown most of his remaining budget shooting machine guns. Not, mind you, that I've got any opposition to shooting off some machine guns. Except that this was supposed to be an article on how to see Vegas on a tight budget, not an homage to Hunter Thompson. So, yes, he tips Peppermill and Liberace Museum. Got to give him cred for that. But a $12 sammich? At Barbary Coast?!? Hell, most of the sammiches at 'wichcraft (MGM Grand) are less than that and they're probably a good deal beyond "no better than mediocre." No mention of Fremont St. Experience, Bellagio fountains, or any of the free lounge entertainment. Not even a mention of every budget-Vegas writer's favorite joint, Mr. Lucky's 24/7. But, really, all you need to know is: he went to the buffet at Circus Circus. (the horror...) Seriously, if you're ever in Vegas do not under any circumstances go to the Circus Circus buffet. Not only is the food relentlessly mediocre but the atmosphere of ambience still barely disguises the high school cafeteria that it is at heart. Bally's or Luxor or Aladdin... sure they're more expensive but if you're gonna go for an all-you-can-eat, shouldn't the food actually be worth eating.
(I guess in the post-Blair, post-Miller era I shouldn't be so surprised that the bar for getting an article published in the NYTimes is so low)