The Sun Won't Come Out Tommorrow for Little Orphan Annie

After eighty-six years -- 86! -- New York's favorite orphan is going away. The final Little Orphan Annie cartoon is running today, and tomorrow -- tomorrow! tomorrow! -- her newspaper life will be no more. With the decline of newspapers and the cartoon industry, Annie was currently appearing in less than 20 newspapers. So the end was nigh. But eighty-six years is a respectable, ripe old age and marks an extraordinary run.

And yet tomorrow Annie fans will have to clear away the cobwebs and the sorrow.

The first Annie cartoon ran on August 5, 1924. At that time, Calvin Coolidge was President, the Charleston was the hot dance craze, movies were still silent, F. Scott Fitzgerald was still writing The Great Gatsby, and Adolf Hitler was just some nut hanging around German beer halls. To say it was a different time is a bit of an understatement.

I will admit that I never really read the Little Orphan Annie cartoons. Also, I was a little too young to go to the musical when it was still on Broadway. (The Annie musical ran from 1977-1982 and is now legendary because one of the Annies was a young girl named Sarah Jessica Parker.) Apparently there is a planned Broadway revival for 2012.

However, my first movie going experience, or at least the first movie I can remember going to, was the 1982 Annie movie. It wasn't a great movie in retrospect but at the time I loved it. Even though it was set at the depths of the depression, Annie was such a bright, fun little girl who was so nice to everyone that she was exactly the kind of friend a little five-year boy like me wanted. And the movie presented a romantic, beautiful New York that can only exist in the movies. Thus I've always had a little affection for Annie and am sad to see her go.

So goodbye, Annie. You made generations and generations of people happy. And remember:

"When I'm stuck a day
That's gray,
And lonely,
I just stick out my chin
And Grin,
And Say,
Oh!

The sun'll come out
Tomorrow
So ya gotta hang on
'Til tomorrow
Come what may
Tomorrow! Tomorrow!
I love ya Tomorrow!
You're always
A day
A way!"

A Great NYC Show: "Northern Exposure" at 20

It's so hard to believe but it was almost twenty years ago this summer when a funky little show called Northern Exposure premiered on CBS. Long before Sarah Palin, this was the thing that really put Alaska on the map (and was so much more appealing). And, ironically, it was also a great NYC show.

It was about a young Jewish doctor named Joel Fleishman who owes the State of Alaska several years of service in exchange for the state paying his medical school fees. At first he's going to be sent to Anchorage but then he's exiled to the tiny town of Cicely where he tends to the maladies of an eccentric bunch of people who wouldn't be out of place in NYC (take that, Wasilla). At its heart it was a New York Jew "fish out of water" story but it was also about how a bunch of people formed a special community and learn to love and depend on each other.

Northern Exposure was a funny, heartful show with razor sharp writing, great characterizations and, amazingly, it contained a lot of New York grit than most shows actually set here (take that, Friends). It lasted five years (1990-1995) and was really ahead of its time. Quirky shows like this were forerunners for later groundbreaking shows like The Sopranos, Lost and Mad Men and for that we owe it a debt.

Northern Exposure Showdown - Alaska vs. NYC

NYC: The iPhone App

The New York Times has created an iPhone Application that boasts to be "An Inside Guide to New York." It's essentially the city at your fingertips and consists of lists of restaurants and bars, shows and events happening around town, and "Only in N.Y." sightseeing experiences.

Sounds like a cool, very useful thing.

I have not yet downloaded or tested it yet but I plan to do so shortly. If you'd like to get a head start on me, you may do so yourself here.

Gotta Love New Yorkers

Grace under pressure is a most noble virtue. And New Yorkers have it in spades. I just saw a great example of it today.

This afternoon on the subway a truly horrible man walked onto my crowded train, cracked open a Bible, and began ranting about how gays are going burn in hell. Yes, he was that original.

This guy was something else. Loathsome in every way. He talked about how we might all die at any moment, how our dinner tonight might be the last meal we ever eat, and then he hit a real low by saying that if there were any gay earthquake victims in Haiti that now they are now "being fried."

Wow! It truly stuns me, the vile hatred that some people can hold in their hearts. It would never occur to me to think that, let alone say (or yell) it out loud.

This guy kept yakking about how gays can only be saved if they are "born again" and "accept Jesus." Then he talked about how he used to be a drug addict until he himself was born again. Apparently, in this guy's warped mind, spewing virulent hatred has made him a better person than when he was on drugs. In my opinion, he was a better person then.

God must be shaking his head, depressed that guys like this make Him look ridiculous.

I really hate people like this guy. The most insufferable people are those who used to be "bad" -- drinking, drugging, whoring, committing crimes, etc. -- then are "saved" and replace their addictive behavior with religion. Then these people go around and try to "save" everyone else "come to the Lord." Apparently they can't believe that some people in this world can be neither a degenerate or a religious freak.

Our last president was a guy like this. The entire horrible presidency of George W. Bush, another bad boy turned "good" who was "born again" -- who thought God wanted him to be in office, who pushed a radical religious agenda down our throats, who invaded Iraq after consulting, not his own father who was also president and fought against Iraq, but his "higher father" -- was an example of this.

At least this prick on the subway today didn't have access to the most powerful military on Earth.

But I digress. What impressed me today was how my fellow New Yorkers reacted to this guy. Namely, they didn't. Nobody said a word, no one tried to shout him down, and thankfully no else encouraged him by shouting "right on" or crap like that. They just ignored him. They didn't get rattled. They just let the baby cry. A handful of my fellow New Yorkers kept their cool and behaved like adults -- and believe me, I'm sure I wasn't the only one who wanted to slug him (I actually had a fantasy of kicking him in the nuts just as I was getting off the train but thought the better of it).

So you, my fellow New Yorkers on the train this afternoon, made me proud. Thank you.

Life in the Theater

Many years ago I worked in various aspects of the New York theater world -- both on stage and off. I was very young at the time and never seriously considered working in theater as a career (it's a really hard way to make a living unless you "breakthrough" or "make it" and that was never going to happen for me). So I went on to have a square life and career and have never regretted it.

That said, I fondly recall what life in the theater was like -- daily life. And this short article from today's Times reminds me of what it was like and inspired a wave of nostalgia in me: you work at night and your days are free (except Wednesdays and Saturdays when there are matinees). During the day, you can catch-up on your sleep, do your errands, and enjoy the day. Then, as dusk settles over the city, you go to the theater to your small temporary family of actors and crew. Even though most of the shows don't run that long (even people who work on hit shows only usually work on them for a year at time), it does feel like a temporary family, contra mundum. Working on a show is a unique experience that will never be replicated.

You can almost understand why so many movie actors say that their first love is the theater.

The most fun you have is when the show is actually going on. There's a tension in the air, everybody feels it -- that thrill of doing the performance and the relief that comes when it's finally over and been a success. In most shows, not every actor appears on stage every minute so there's nothing more fun than shooting the breeze with other actors and crew members backstage. You're all in this together and you become like a "band of brothers" -- with women of course. While it can be frightening and horribly embarassing when a show goes wrong, the joy that comes from when it goes right can't be described (I won't say it's better than sex but, well, in some ways it is).

Of course, and this is the reason I didn't pursue a theater career, it's very hard even find a job in the theater. Most shows come and go very quickly and the rejection that can come from getting fired or getting bad reviews is absolutely brutal. But when life in the theater is good ... it's very, very good.

I don't know if any theater people read Mr NYC but, if they do, I'm sure they know what I'm talking about and I would love to hear what their lives in the theater are like.

Who Pays the Rent?

In NYC, we have something called rent regulation. These are certain apartments that fall under either rent control or rent stabilization. In case you were wondering what the difference is between control and stabilization, it's basically this: rent control is a fixed rate that applies only to people living in apartments since 1971 that were built before 1947 (once people move out or die, the apartments become rent stabilized); rent stabilization applies to apartments only built before 1974 and sets maximum rates for rent increases, keeping rents relatively low.

We are really the only big city in the country to have rent regulation and it's always been controversial. Fierce defenders of rent regulation think that the laws have been watered down and weakened over the years (they have) and that the laws have been too complex. People on the opposite side of the spectrum think that rent regulation interferes with the free market, warps the city's economy, and should be gotten ride of. Because of rent regulation, thousands and thousands of apartments have been made affordable for the middle class. But over the years there have been many attempts made by landlords and developers to phase out the rules which has only made them more complex.

The hub of the current controversy over rent regulation is that there are some people who live in rent controlled or rent stabilized apartments who could, otherwise, afford market rates. A new study by the business-friendly Citizens Budget Commission estimates that there are roughly 100,000 relatively affluent families living in these apartments. They believe that, in this case, people who can afford market rate apartments should not be allowed to rent these regulated apartments and should have their protections lifted. These people are, the CBC argues, hogging apartments intended for less affluent. And the CBC believes, over all, that rent regulation is bad and should be gotten rid of because, really, it hurts the people it's intended to help.

This is a bunch of crap. The CBC is a cynical, sneaky, mean-spirited attempt to strip poor and middle class people of their affordable apartments. Here's the deal: even though some people who can afford market rate apartments live in these protected units, vastly more of the people who live in them cannot afford market rates. Also, rent regulations are not meant to protect only the poor: they are meant to protect all tenants in NYC, to shift the market so as to keep all rents relatively affordable (not that it's an easy task). The CBC's suggestions would decrease the number of rent regulation apartments available in the city and this would weaken rent regulation even more.

This a slippery slope, bit-by-bit attempt to chip away at some of the few remaining law left to protect ordinary people, gradually setting the stage for full elimination of rent regulation.

The folks behind the CBC report know that getting of rent regulation one fell swoop is impossible. Politically, the backlash would be so severe it might actually strengthen rent regulation. So they instead suggest this small, at first blush seemingly reasonable suggestion to tweak the laws so as to make them more "fair" and "sensible"... when in fact their goal is to do away with all protections all together.

The only people who would benefit from this are landlords, developers and financiers. The rest of us? We'd get hosed.

You think the housing crises in this town is bad, just imagine it (or don't) if they got rid of rent regulation. So I urge you to fight against any attempts to weaken rent regulation.

C'mon LeBron

David Garth: New York's Boss

Anyone paying attention to presidential politics for the last twenty years has born witness to the rise of the political consultant as celebrity. These are the campaign strategists, the brains of the organization, the men behind the curtains, the power behind the thrones who have helped elect -- some may use the term "make" -- presidents. No longer do presidents win elections themselves -- they are "made" by people of mystical genius and scary powers to influence an entire nation.

Lee Atwater made George Bush Sr in 1988, James Carville and Dick Morris made Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Karl Rove made George Bush Jr in 2000 and 2004, and David Axelrod made Barack Obama in 2008.

Some young budding politicos no longer dream of becoming president -- they dream of "making" them.

In NYC, mayors used to be "made" by the clubhouse. Political bosses like the infamous William Tweed in the 19th century and Carmine De Sapio in the 20th ran Tammany Hall and hand-selected candidates for mayor, oversaw their campaigns, and the results of the elections were basically a fait accompli. Since the fall of Tammany in 1961, the rise of party primaries, and the all-consuming power of television advertising, no longer do political bosses run the city from behind the scenes. Instead, the campaign consultant dominates.

Surprisingly, since 1965, one man has been responsible for helping to elect four of our city's last six mayors. Political strategist David Garth worked on the campaigns of Mayors John Lindsay (1966-1973), Ed Koch (1978-1989), Rudy Giuliani (1994-2001), and Mike Bloomberg (2001-2013). He has played a hand in determining who has run this town for 40 of the last 48 years.

Wow. Talking about reach. Eat your heart out Karl Rove (and company).

And not only that but Garth is responsible for not only making four of our last six mayors, he also helped to un-make the two others he didn't work for. Woe unto those mayors who ran against a Garth client: Mayor Abe Beam lost to Ed Koch in 1977 and Mayor Dinkins to Rudy Giuliani in 1993.

Put simply: the guy was good.

Why? Because he understood television and how to make his clients connect with voters and their concerns. He was a master of the sound-bite. He would create ads that summed up the problems the city's electorate faced and his potential mayor would offer a simple solution:

For example, in 1977, he had Ed Koch say in an ad: "Abe Beame says he wants four more years to finish the job. Finish the job? Hasn't he done enough?" In 1993, the Giuliani campaign slogan was "One City, One Standard."

Garth was something of a political chameleon for his entire career. He worked for both Republicans and Democrats and, for a man who dedicated his life to politics, his own political beliefs remained elusive. Unlike today's hot-shot political consultants who appear on TV and blab their mouths off, Garth shunned publicity, operated stealthily, and worked quietly to alter the course of the city's fate. And he did it for almost half a century.

Today David Garth is 80 years old and very ill. Although the mayors he worked for are known to every New Yorker, Garth is a mystery man to 99.9% of them. But his clients want that to change that: recently Giuliani, Bloomberg and Koch got together to start a fundraising drive to create a special professorship, a "chair" as it is known, at CUNY named after the man who made their careers (David Dinkins was noticeably absent for this event; Lindsay and Beame have been dead for years). I

If their plan works out, Garth will be remembered by our city's educational system for years to come. (Although why billionaire Bloomberg can't fund this chair himself is just strange.)

So know you know more about the man who made or unmade our city's last six mayors. If our city has had a political boss for the last forty-plus years, then it was him. You may hate or love the men he elected mayor but, whatever your feelings, you can't deny that David Garth made NYC what it is today.

Whatcha talkin' about? A Small Gary Coleman Tribute