Yankees Opening Day: A-Rod Scores!

The Secret World of Poker Clubs

This you gotta read. 

A story about the illegal poker games that float around NYC -- in private apartments, the basements of buildings, the backrooms of bars, and other places you might not think were housing organized crime (well, bars maybe). 

Not that there's any killing or hooking or kneecapping going on at these places. Just a bunch of drunk middle aged guys playing cards while chowing down food. The author of this article used to work as a waitress at some of these games and would supply the players with food and drink while they gambledtheir life savings away. 

It's like something out of Goodfellas. Fortunately there's no stories of "Hey Spidah' go get me a drink!" and no one seems to have gotten their foot shot at -- yet. 

What's interesting about this story is how cloak and dagger these games are. How they are everywhere and nowhere and how operate in their own secret world. But what's most fascinating is how Old School this is. It's hard to think that, in the second decade of the 21st century, these kinds of games still go on. Considering that there's legalized gambling in much of the country now, along with Vegas and Atlantic City, along with the new avenues for gambling on the Internet, it's amazing to see that some guys just can't shake the old ways. They still just want to sit around, gamble, and eat. Technology and casinos just can't compete with that.

Memo from NYC

Let's call this post Requiem for a Lunatic.

Now that former -- FORMER -- Senator Slicky Ricky Sanitorium is no longer running president, part of me feels sad. 

See, while he is completely crazy and hopefully will never be elected to anything ever again, at least he wasn't a political weather vane like his opponent -- Mr Willard Mittens Romney of Massachusetts/Michigan/Utah and wherever else. No, Santorum was a man of principle. Granted, they were principles that were probably cutting edge in the latter decades of the 16th century but principles none the less. Most people don't have any principles at all these days.

Willard's only principle is his own ambition. Santorum actually believes in something besides himself.

The only good thing to come out of this is that Santorum's exit from the race has provided wonderful opportunities for jokes. This man, who doesn't believe in contraception (!), has been forced to "withdraw." He has "aborted" his campaign and some feel, like me, that he should be forced to "carry it" to the end. 

Now the GOP is saddled with perhaps the most phony, dishonest, arrogant, vile, out-of-touch elitist presidential candidate it has ever had -- and considering that this party nominated George W Bush twice, that's quite an accomplishment. Most Republicans are about as excited about him as high school students are about the SATs. Democrats hate him -- as they should. There's something about this guy that I find nauseating -- like two week old leftovers in the bottom of the fridge.

Fingers crossed -- Obama will beat him like a drum and, after November, Willard Mittens Romney will vanish from our life once and for all.

But tonight we raise a glass of some beverage or other to Rick Santorum. Bye bye.

TV on the Movies

This is a must read: Vanity Fair culture critic James Wolcott makes a very convincing case that today, in the second decade of the 21st century, TV shows are better than movies. In terms of quality, originality, writing, acting, excitement -- Wolcott says TV is whipping the movies' tuchus.

And I agree. 

Very rarely these days do I get excited about a movie. I don't care for the big Twilight/Harry Potter/Hunger Game "event" movies. They're all noise and action without really interesting plots or characters. Plus, they're all skewed to teenage girls which, at last check, I'm not. I'm more interested in movies by really great directors with good stories and characters but, honestly, most of our great directors aren't making such great movies these days. 

To whit: with the exception of Midnight in Paris last year, Woody Allen hasn't made an exciting movie in a long time. Scorsese used to make exciting movies but they have become less so over time (Goodfellas? Exciting! Hugo? Uh....). Robert Altman is sadly dead. Spike Jonze and David Russell make very few films. I still get excited whenever Quentin Tarantino makes a movie but he seems only to make one every five or six years. And don't get me started on Cameron Crowe and James L. Brooks: Say Anything ..., Almost Famous, Terms of Endearment and Broadcast News are some of my favorites ever. But their most recent movies have been unwatchable. It's like watching great athletes who used to win every competition come in last. 

TV, however, has been an autre histoire. 

In the last ten years there have been some TV shows that have gotten me crazy excited: The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Rescue Me, The Wire, True Blood, Lost, 30 Rock, The Office, Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire, Downton Abbey, Portlandia, Modern Family and lots of others -- really great shows with complex characters, interesting stories, brilliant film making, and amazing production values. And right now I salivate (well, almost) over Game of Thrones and Mad Men. The fact that they're on back to back on the same nights has sent me into geeky heaven. (Heck, even Saturday Night Live is funny again for the first time in 20 years.) 

I'm stunned at the quality of these shows and amazed at how much I'd rather stay at home and watch them (on TV or Netflix) instead of schlepping to the movies and plunk down ten bucks -- only to sit next to or behind douches who talk during the movie or have their cell phones go off. Increasingly, not only are the movies bad but the movie going experience has gotten expensive and annoying.

Plus, snobs who used to ignore TV seem to be ignoring the movies these days. 

Wolcott writes: "Even in cine-mad Manhattan, where the admonitory ghost of Susan Sontag haunts theaters by night, the new movie that everybody’s talking about is being talked about by a shrinking number of everybodies. It’s seldom the presiding topic of cocktail chat and intellectual quarrel, as it was when critic Pauline Kael led the wagon train. (Her successors at The New Yorker, David Denby and Anthony Lane, might as well be tinkling the piano in the hotel lobby for all the commotion they create.)" He also makes the point that it's pretty sad when a cliched, plodding movie like Bridesmaids is acclaimed as one of the best comedies of the year. 

I couldn't even get through it. It just wasn't that funny. 

Wolcott also says Reese Witherspoon is an example of what has happened not only to movies but movie stars: she used to give great performances in fun or excellent movies like Legally Blonde and Walk the Line. Now she's stuck in drivel like This Means War. When was the last time Tom Cruise had a good movie? He used to have one every year. Now everyone talks about Mad Men's Jon Hamm and Tom Cruise is better known for his weird Scientology worship these days. 

Wolcott even asks a great rhetorical question: "Does anyone think The Artist is better than Mad Men?"

Hear hear. 

We really do seem to be living in a golden age of TV and a dark ages of movies. Maybe this will change. But probably not for a while. Movies must respond to the demands of moviegoers -- who are increasingly kids and dopes who care more about spectacle than story. Meanwhile, as TV has gotten more niche driven and cable has found a business model to thrive, there are more outlets for original, daring stuff. Ultimately, like everything, it comes down to money: if the studios can only make money with big noisy junk and TV can make money producing quality -- guess what? That's what you're gonna see!

I'm a culture geek and I want movies and TV to be equally good and compelling. Hopefully, some day, a business model will emerge where great movies can be produced again. But as of now, the David of the small screen has conquered the Goliath of the big screen.  

DNAinfo.com

Have you heard of DNAinfo? I hadn't until recently, when a number of news sources cited it in relation to the "Madame Gristina" hooker scandal as well as some other intriguing stories about town. 

Technically this site is a "Manhattan Local News" one, so it's obviously specialized. But hey, if it's happening in Manhattan, eventually the rest of the city will hear about it, so it's a good site to know about. I've link to it over yonder -- in case you're interested in checkin' it out.

Gracie Mansion

Bloomberg vs. Gracie Mansion

Since 1942, NYC mayors have had the privilege to live in a beautiful riverfront home called Gracie Mansion. Nestled on the Upper East within Carl Schurz Park, it is the old home of magnate Archibald Gracie that was gifted to the city and turned into a mayoral residence by city planner Robert Moses. The first mayoral resident was Fiorello LaGuardia and every mayor since then has lived there ... 

... until Michael Bloomberg.

Mike doesn't live there. He doesn't need to. As a multi billionaire, he has a mansion of his own on the Upper East Side. He also has homes in Bermuda, London, Colorado, Florida, and upstate New York. Obviously, unlike most New Yorkers, he's not hurting for space. He also doesn't need the tax-payer funded domestic staff that comes with it. And as a very rich man, the fact that he declines to live on the government dime is probably appropriate. When you already have your own mansion, why move into another?

But Mike thinks that no mayor should live in Gracie Mansion. He's saying that whoever succeeds him should follow his example and decline this privilege. And he's on the warpath about this for some reason -- as though this is something he even has any say in.

... Sigh ...  

See, Mike, most mayors aren't billionaires -- or even millionaires -- and most don't have mansions and domestic staffs of their own. When you're running the biggest city in the country, you should be able to be committed to the job 100% -- you shouldn't have to worry about paying household bills or getting your place cleaned or going grocery shopping or picking up your dry cleaning. And what about security? The NYC mayor is a big terrorist target -- shouldn't he or she live some place that's totally secure and doesn't put other people -- like his or her neighbors -- at any kind of risk?

Besides, NYC is bigger than 40 of our 50 states and most of them have governors mansions -- why shouldn't the mayor of the nation's biggest city not also have an official residence? 

It's times like this that our mayor shows how elitist and out of touch he is.  

It's times like this that I can't wait for the Bloomberg era to be over.

Happy NYC

NYC is a tough place. A rough place. 

It's a great place, true, but few would call it a happy place.

But certain spots in NYC are associated with being happy. Places people go to ... find happiness within the urban swirl of craziness.

There's a blog called OneHappyBird that is doing a survey of some of happiest places in NYC. People can go on there and indicate the places in this town that make them happy.

Not surprisingly, it's parks -- particularly Central Park -- that makes New Yorkers most happy. And within Central Park, it's the area around 76th and 77th streets that makes them the happiest of all. 

I'm not surprised by this -- this is probably the most beautiful, serene, lovely place in Central Park. It has very happy memories for me personally: as a kid I used to sail my milk box sailboats in the big lake around there. And last year, my wife and I walked around there after just learning that our baby was going to be a girl. 

So feel free to answer this survey and let Mr NYC know -- what parts of NYC make you happy?

Five Years of Mr NYC

Oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my ...

They said we couldn't do it. They said it wasn't possible. They said we would never make it this long. (Actually, there is no "they" or "we" and no one ever said anything but it sounds good to pretend that somehow the odds were against you and you overcame, "fought the power" and what not.).

Anyway, today marks the fifth anniversary of Mr NYC. 

Yes, exactly five years ago today -- Tuesday, March 27, 2007 -- this blog emerged into the world. Five years ago today this little cyber body spawned out of the great big bang that is the Internet. Five years ago today my neurosis took the form of Mr NYC and the world has never been the same since.

Can you believe? Better believe it now.  

For half a decade, yours truly has been (hopefully) entertaining you, my faithful audience, with my thoughts and feelings about this, the greatest city in human creation, along with various other tidbits and info. So much has happened in the years since this blog started that it seems more like a whole decade and not just half of one. 

Five years!

I've done over 1300 posts that has covered the history, culture, news, infrastructure, and lots of stuff you never knew about NYC. I've done interviews and reviews. I've shared some of the aspects of my travels and life (while maintaining my precious anonymity) and I've looked at how NYC relates to individuals and the world. I even became a dad.


Just run a search of this blog and you won't believe all the stuff you'll find. 

And thanks, most of all, to you my readers. You've kept this blog going. We're closing in on getting almost 100,00 hits which is pretty amazing considering that this is a non-commercial blog that doesn't advertise, doesn't promote itself, just basically hangs around online and hopes people find it.  

Thanks to all the people in the USA, UK, Germany, Russia, Canada, the Netherlands, France, the Ukraine, China, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Norway, Chile, the Philippines, and all the other countries of the world who have checked out this blog (I think we even had someone from South Africa leave a comment once). 

Thanks for making Mr NYC international! An international blog for an international city!


So here's to five great years. Hopefully you've enjoyed the ride.


More to come.

The Lady Who Might Be Mayor

Since I'm a man (at least the last time I checked) I don't do things like read Elle magazine. It's a "chick mag", for and about glamorous chicks, who live busy lives of being glamorous and famous and better than the rest of us. Usually articles in magazines like this are about actresses, models, singers, ya know, glamorous broads. But recently this magazine did a profile on someone who might not be that glamorous but is -- and could get even more -- powerful.

NYC's own Christine Quinn.

She's the Speaker of the City Council, the second most powerful person in town, and is considered a strong candidate for mayor in 2013. In her position as speaker, municipal legislation only gets introduced and passed if she wants it to be. She acts (or can) as a counterweight to Mayor Bloomberg, she can (if she wants to) act as his check and balance. Christine Quinn is one of the very few people in city government who Bloomberg can't directly control. 

Of course, one of the complaints about her is that she doesn't act as an effective enough counterweight, that she goes along with the Bloomberg corporatist agenda hook, line, and sinker, and that he does to some extent control her. Quinn obviously wants to be mayor very badly, and many think she's qualified. And the fact that she's a lesbian, even engaged to a woman who she's been with for ten years, makes her all the more interesting.

Christine Quinn is the very model of a modern 21st century NYC politician.

But as glowing and reverential as this Elle profile is, as much as it makes her possible elevation to mayor seem like a great leap for womankind, this glossy article glosses over some of Quinn's real liabilities going into 2013. Namely, a lot of liberal Democrats, her natural constituency, don't like her. She's continually sidelined progressive legislation like the living wage. She totally ignored OWS. She's made herself Wall Street and big business's best friend. She's done nothing to stick up for teacher's while Bloomberg and his allies have declared war on them. She's done from being a progressive activist to a business as usual politician.

Quinn is so obsessed with being viewed as "moderate" or "centrist" Democrat that she is losing the very Democrats she'll need to win a mayoral primary. 

One of the things that's interesting about this article is how clueless the author of it is about NYC politics or about NYC in general (even though the author lives here, she admits that she's never been to Staten Island or the Bronx). Part of the problem with the media is how little they understand the underlying dynamics of politics, how it works, and why people win or don't win elections. And if Quinn doesn't become mayor, the author of this article would be smart to find out why.