The Modern

Recently the wife and I went to dinner at The Modern. The Modern is Danny Meyer's funky restaurant in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) that opened in 2005 and specializes in Alsatian cuisine (meaning it's kinda French, kinda German). It was an interesting dining experience but I have to say that my impressions of it were rather mixed.

The decor is very stripped down and sleek. The lighting is dim. The Modern's interior doesn't really look that different from any other "hip" New York restaurant although I think this is the first time I ever had dinner while sitting in a leather swivel chair. One cool thing is that the restaurant looks out on MoMA's sculpture garden but your table has to be near it -- and ours wasn't.

Now the service is great and friendly. No complaints there. My water glass and bread plates were always full. Best of all, they recommended some very good wines (a delicious Riesling and a glass of some kind of red wine) to accompany our meal and that was much appreciated.

But the food was a mixed bag. We had the Chef's tasting menu and it was good if not exactly memorable. As hor'derves, they gave us roasted fava beans (tasted like baked pumpkin seeds) and little balls of goat cheese (personal favorite of mine). We had a very good, if not exquisitely delicious, ravioli with snails and a little egg. For the first time I had lobster cappuccino which is basically a cup of cappuccino with tiny bits of lobster and and lobster juice. There were some good seafood dishes including one with white fish and salmon but, again, it wasn't amazing. That said, the dessert was really good -- ice cream and lots and lots of chocolate.

This is not the kind of meal you can get in just any restaurant so I give The Modern credit for originallity. However, if you've eaten at Nobu or per se, it falls short of that standard and that's what The Modern begs comparison to. So if you're looking for an interesting dining experience, I reccommend it but, if you're looking for a mind blowing meal, I can't quite go there ... yet.

P.S. My view is shared by Frank Bruni who wrote this review of The Modern in 2005.

Remembering Rocky

Wacky governors and Vice-Presidents have been in the news a lot lately -- including one particularly bizarre Governor who might have been Vice-President. We've heard all about the various financial, ethical, and zipper problems that Blagojevich, Palin, Sanford, and Spitzer have suffered in the last year. And whether its the sinister, creepy Dick Cheney or the gaffe-a-minute Joe Biden, our Vice-Presidents have been providing lots of comedic fodder to keep the American people amused. All this talk of Governors/Vice-Presidents got me thinking about the last New Yorker who ever served in high office. That would be Nelson Rockefeller, "Rocky" as he was known popularly known, who was Governor of New York from 1959 to 1973 and then Vice-President under Gerald Ford from 1974 to 1977. His last name tells you everything you need to know about his background. Born to amazing wealth and privilege, Rocky was at the very top of the very top of the ruling class. Elected New York State Governor four times, he tightened drugs laws, created the SUNY system, conserved huge amounts of land, built massive construction projects, and took Robert Moses out of power in 1968. He ran for the Republican nomination for president three times but lost in 1960 and 1968 to Richard Nixon and in 1964 to Barry Goldwater. Just goes to show you that money can't quite buy everything. Rocky's private was also a bit ... rocky. While he was still governor in 1962, he divorced his first wife and then married his mistress Margaret "Happy" Murphy the next year. As you might imagine, this was a considered a huge scandal at the time. In an era when America was still very much in a conservative 1950s frame of mind, venerated politicians -- and a Rockefeller no less! -- simply did not dump their wives and marry younger women. It was considered quite gauche and had a lot to do with Rocky not getting the GOP nod in 1964 (which many people at the time felt he was owed since he didn't get it in 1960 and Nixon had then subsequently lost the general election to JFK). Rocky quit the Governorship in 1973, returning to his life of privilege and considering another run for president in 1976. But history came knocking on his mansion door. After Gerald Ford became president in 1974 when Nixon resigned because of Watergate, Ford tapped Rocky to be his Vice-President. Rocky was confirmed by the Congress in December 1974 and served until Ford left office in 1977. Sadly for Rocky, Ford dumped him from the GOP ticket in 1976, replacing him with Bob Dole and thus ending Rocky's political career. Rocky returned to NYC and lived here for the last two years of his life. The circumstances of his death have became somewhat legendary. The official version is that he was found dead in his office on January 24, 1979 slumped over his desk while working on a book. In reality, he died on that day in his townhouse while engaging in an ... amorous embrace ... with his 25 year old secretary. So here's to good ol' Rocky, the last New Yorker who served in national office. He political career was impressive, his service to our state and nation admirable, and his private life worthy of the tabloids. And compared to our modern day politicians, he was unquestionably a giant.

Food Bank for New York City

The largest hunger-relief organizing in the five boroughs, the Food Bank for New York City has been feeding the poorest of New Yorkers for over 25 years. This is an important organization that helps people who can't help themselves, and you can check out their site if you would like find out more info.

Walter Cronkite RIP

The New York City Charter

The whole hubbub about whether or not Governor Paterson can appoint a Lieutenant Governor made me wonder: what if the Mayor's office fell vacate? Who takes over then? What's the deal?

From what I understand, the first in line is the Public Advocate. If the Mayor dies, resigns, is removed, or becomes incapacitated at any point during the first three years of a term, the PA takes over for 60 days until a special election can be held. Whoever wins then finishes that term. However, if the Mayor's job is vacated in the fourth year of a term, the PA serves as acting Mayor until the end of that year and term (there's no special election since in that year there's already a regularly scheduled Mayoral election). Also, an acting Mayor does not have the full powers of an elected Mayor (can't appoint or fire people, can't sign bills, etc.). Got it?

However, I took a quick look at the City Charter today and found a confusing clause: apparently, it doesn't have to be the PA who necessarily takes over. It can also be the Comptroller or some other unspecified official. There's all kind of clauses and rules and confusing jargon in here that makes it unclear precisely who becomes acting Mayor and for how long. There's paragraphs of stuff about succession upon a vacancy and a lot of it is contradictory. It's very odd.

To me this seems ridiculous and dangerous since it can create a vacuum and battle for power. Also, holding a special election 60 days after a vacancy creates unneeded political turmoil and makes a proper and smooth transition problematic.

I think this is dumb.

We should revise the City Charter and make it clear: one person, one elected city official (either the PA or Comptroller) should become Mayor upon a vacancy. That person should then complete the end of that term with full mayoral authority.

Either that or a Deputy Mayor should be elected with the Mayor like a VP is with the President or an LG is with the Governor. That way there doesn't have to be an uncomfortable or confusing political situation - for example, if a Democratic PA succeeds a Republican Mayor, the new Dem Mayor might have different policies than the old GOP Mayor. Seems smart to me.

WNYC Buys WQXR

Big news today in the world of New York radio: two of the oldest stations in town are merging.

Well, sort of: public radio station WNYC and the media company Univision have bought classical music radio station WQXR from The New York Times Company. They have actually bought two radio band signals: 96.3 FM and 105.9 FM. WQXR will be moved from 96.3 FM to 105.9 FM and, presumably, 96.3 FM will become a Spanish language station.

The good news is that classical music radio in NYC will be saved. In the last couple of decades this has been an endangered species. The bad news: the 105.9 FM band isn't as strong as the 96.3 FM band and it will probably not be as easy to find or get as many listeners.

Still, we should be glad that there'll be some classical music on New York radio as opposed to none. And by having it become a public radio station, this relieves it of commercial pressures.

So now an 84 year old station (WNYC) owns a 73 year old station (WQXR). Both stations are legends. And this tribute to a former WQXR broadcaster from 1983 gives you a flavor of what an important and amazing legacy this station has.

Canadian Donuts Invade NYC

If you like They Might Be Giants or the girl who played Juno in Juno, then you might like the newest Canadian import that's hitting NYC this week -- Tim Hortons. Little known in the USA (they have some stores in the Midwest), they're now taking the biggest city in the country by storm.

Tim Hortons has shrewdly managed to take over more than a dozen Dunkin' Donuts franchises including ones in Penn Station and Times Square. They are even going to be a couple of stores in Brooklyn (in fact, I think there already are). These new stores virtually materialized overnight and it's been catching some of our fellow New Yorkers off guard. One day it's a Dunkin's and the next it's a ... Tim Who?

This is quite an audacious business move. Whoever said Canadians weren't good capitalists?

So is Tim Hortons as good as Dunkin' Donuts (which I love)? Sorta. I actually go to Canada a lot and have eaten there several times but never had the donuts. Tim Hortons also sells sandwiches and soups and full meals (at least in Canada) and the food was pretty good when I had it. As for the donuts (including maple donuts), I can't say but I'm willing to give them a shot.

Still, for my money, nothing in the world can beat Dunkin' Donuts coffee.

So welcome to NYC Tim Hortons. If you can make it here, etc.

Now if only we could get In'N'Out Burger in NYC then Mr NYC would be really, really happy.

Why are NYC addresses so crazy?

In the cell-phone/e-mail/digital age, people don't send letters much anymore. But people still have to live someplace and therefore still have physical addresses. If you live in New York City then, you know that our addresses make absolutely no sense.

The typical address is "number, street name, apartment or unit (if any), city, state, zip code." In NYC, however, it's the "city" part that gets a little confusing.

Too whit: there are five boroughs that are all part of the City of New York. Therefore, logically, every address here should be "New York, NY" or "City of New York" or "New York City." But no! Only if you live in Manhattan do you get a "New York, NY" address. And that's not because you live in New York City -- it's because Manhattan is co-extensive with New York County. So the "New York" part actually has nothing to do with the city.

And there are no correct addresses that are "Manhattan, NY" or "New York City" or "City of New York." Why? I don't know!

And it gets odder. In the Bronx, Brooklyn and Staten Island, almost all city addresses are "Bronx, Brooklyn, and Staten Island." I say almost because, in the Bronx, if you live Riverdale, then the city name is "Riverdale." But the rest of the Bronx is "Bronx, NY" or "The Bronx, NY" and Staten Island and Brooklyn are always "Staten Island" and "Brooklyn." And this has nothing to do with these boroughs' county names (like with Manhattan/New York County) because only The Bronx is Bronx County -- Staten Island is Richmond County and Brooklyn is Kings County.

But where it gets REALLY confusing is in Queens (i.e. Queens county). There are no Queens' addresses that are "Queens, NY." Instead, the city part of any address in Queens is by neighborhood i.e. "Flushing, NY", "Forest Hills, NY", "Long Island City, NY", "Astoria, NY", "Woodside, NY", Fresh Meadows, NY" and on and on. So if you live in Queens, you better know what your specific neighborhood name is or else you'll have problems.

I know that NYC is a huge city and, since it extends over five boroughs, it's impossible to have a uniform city address. But why can't it be easy? You know "Manhattan, NY", "Bronx, NY", "Queens, NY", and "Staten Island, NY"? Why does it have to be so inconsistent and confusing?

I've done my best to answer this question, asked everyone I know who might know the answer, even scoured the web but have found no clear explanation. If you know the reason, please let Mr NYC know.

Sonia's Turn

Next week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings to the US Supreme Court begin down in our nation's capital. These hearings certainly having the makings for good political theater: the Democrats will call on some of the most expert and respected legal minds in the country who support her nomination to testify on her behalf; meanwhile the Republicans will trot out blowhards and Neanderthals who oppose her to explain why the most qualified jurist in over a century shouldn't ascend to our nation's highest court.

Oh, and Mayor Bloomberg will be there too in order to testify in support of Judge Sotomayor.

This should be interesting.

Yet with her confirmation all but assured, it looks like Sonia will be leaving NYC in a few months time and heading to DC in order to become our nation's newest Associate Justice. Since most Justices remain on the court until right before they die, she'll probably never live in our fair city again.

But while she may be leaving New York in her rear view mirror, as this great in-depth article explains, Sonia is and always will be a quintessential New Yorker. This city is imbued in her values and experiences. She grew up in a housing project in the Bronx, excelled in our public schools, won scholarships to Princeton and Yale, worked in the Manhattan DAs office, loves the Yankees, theater, and the opera, resides in Greenwich Village, and is a 24-hour a day workaholic.

This is one very tough lady and her path to the Supreme Court has not only been well earned but also has a distinct NYC edge. And I'm sure she'll be a great Justice and do our city proud -- hopefully for decades to come.

It's Over (For Now)

If we still lived in the days of pimply-faced newsboys with funny caps standing on street corners, holding a stack of papers and waving another one in the air, this is what we'd probably hear tonight:

"Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Espada returns to Democrats! State Senate deadlock over! Extra! Extra!"

And so it goes.

That of model of selfless public service, Pedro Espada, has returned to the Democratic fold, giving them the party 32 votes. Along with the new LG Richard Ravitch, it looks like the final nail has been wedged into the coffin of this power grab by the Republicans. For the time being (nothing is ever permanent in politics), the New York State Senate can go ahead and be its regular dysfunctional self instead of its irregular dysfunctional self.

Espada actually apologized for putting this state through hell for the last 31 days. Oh, what a gent. I guess he realized that this new arrangement wasn't going to give him any actual power so he made the best possible deal he could to end it. So now the Democratic party once again gets to be home to this criminal opportunist. Aren't they lucky?

The unanswerable question, of course, is are we?