A decade later

It's difficult to believe that it's been 10 years since 9/11.

The Times has an excellent round-up of first-hand experiences from that day, as well as a round-up of all the implications of the attacks (in literature, on our economy, in the Arab world, etc.)

Of course, every publication did something this week to memorialize that horrible day.

The New Yorker's coverage was particularly heartbreaking. The great George Packer (The Assassins' Gate) and the great Adam Gopnik (Paris to the Moon) wrote twin pieces about American erosion in the past 10 years (how veterans came back from Iraq and Afghanistan with virtually zero prospects of getting a job, and a general decline-of-the-west article, respectively) that both left this schlub feeling depressed -- particularly Packer's. (Unfortunately, the articles are firewalled.)

New York magazine had an interesting idea to treat the issue as a 9/11 encyclopedia. Entries start at Abbottabad and end at Zazi, Najibullah (the failed, homegrown terrorist) with everything from "Survivor, Last Pulled Out" to "Freedom Fries" in between.

The Post has a huge tribute issue out today -- but earlier in the week, your humble correspondent got to do one of the more upbeat stories: How the Financial District rebounded after everyone thought it was as good as dead. And, indeed, (with some massive hiccups along the way which I didn't have space to get into) it did just that.

And, perhaps, I should leave it there.

Inside the nefarious Kochtopus

Jane Mayer does (as always) a yeoman's job reporting the Koch empire's deep and dark reach in this issue of the New Yorker.

This was made doubly imporant in that it served as a necessary counterweight to what was a pretty shameless puff piece in New York magazine last month. (I mean, I suppose the piece could have been worse... but I remember reading it and thinking, "What. The. Fuck?")

If you've never heard of the Koch family, they're among the most pernicious political actors on the right wing stage. (I first read about them in Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas?) They've done everything within their power to destroy environmental regulation, progressive taxation, a national health care system -- and any other vestige of the welfare state. And they have literally billions at their disposal to do so.

They should be hated and scorned. Praise be to Jane Mayer for some seriously excellent reporting.

NY mag to Gross: No, seriously -- drop dead!

NY Mag's cheap eats issue is out this week...

...and unfortunately, it really looks great.

You have no idea how much this upsets me.

Here I was actually doing well on my diet -- exercising, eating right, getting my weight down to datable levels, etc. -- and now this happens.

Not only is Rob and Robin's list chock full of places I had never even heard of before, but the ones I do know are extremely well chosen (like, for instance, Pies 'N Thighs, or Bauhaus) -- which makes me extremely nervous.

In fact, I haven't even had the issue for more than three days, and already tried out the Mia Dona meatball cart yesterday afternoon. (This is a little cart that gives out meatball sandwiches for $7 and little bowls of meatballs for $5 outside of Donatella Arpaia's UES restaurant Mia Dona.) The meatball sandwich is amazing. The meatballs are moist. The bread is a nice and salty foccaccia. At $7 it is well worth the price, even if I felt bloated, logy and guilty for the rest of the afternoon.

But the guilt wasn't nearly strong enough to make me not plan future trips to at least three more of the 9 meatballs they showcased.

I want to sample a few more of these restaurants before I praise Rob and Robin to the skies.... and I will also say that (as always) the list is short on Queens restaurants. But otherwise it looks like a real tour de force. (I mean 18 magazine pages! Interviews with Sara Jenkins and Marcus Samuelsson! A survey of two dozen food trucks?! Quite a feat!)

But I would recommend going out and plunking down the money for this issue because there are at least three other articles I would recommend.

First, there is a terrific column by John Heilemann on why President Obama's immigration strategy is shrewder than people are giving him credit for.

Second, there is an almost heartbreaking account by Joe Hagen about the dissolution of John McCain's once great party bucking persona. It's one of those articles I sort of wondered why I hadn't seen... every reporter knows that the best stories never take place in the locker room of the victorious team: They take place amongst the losers. John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, of course, gave a wonderful account of the losing team in Game Change. But I had always hoped, when the campaign was said and done, that McCain would be a gracious loser; that he would do his best to reach out and reclaim his maverick status. You almost want to look away in this latest account.

Third, there is a nice interview with Gary Shteyngart.

There's also a piece about Avi Weiss, which I haven't gotten to yet, but c'mon. Give a guy a chance to breathe! In any event, hats off to Adam Moss.

NY mag to Gross: Drop dead!

In yet another blatanat attempt to get Max Gross to violate the terms of his diet, New York Magazine has a list of the 51 best sandwiches in the city.

The list has its share of problems.

It's clearly heavy on celebrity chefs. (I mean, Le Bernadin's salmon and caviar croquer monsieur? Come on people.) And I was a little stunned not to find a single BBQ sandwich on the list. (I guess Fatty Cue counts... but not really.)

Moreover, Katz's pastrami makes the list, but 2nd Avenue Deli doesn't? And what about Carnegie Deli? Yes, both of those places have gone somewhat down hill, but to have a list of NYC sandwiches and not have a corned beef on rye? Something feels tragically missing. (I guess they tried to make up for the absence of deli sandwiches by giving the new Canadian smoked meats deli in Brooklyn, Mile End, two spots in the top 11.)

And I thought there was an over abundance of Vietnamese and Cuban sandwiches on the list. (I guess you have to thank Baoguette's Michael Bao for that.)

And having tasted a few of these places (although not more than 10 of them) I will also say I question the list's order.

The churasco sandwich at Island Burger, for example, which landed as number 15 on the list is pretty mediocre, in my view. Where as, the chicken shwarma at Karam in Bay Ridge (# 28) is one of the tastiest things known to man. How is it possible that Andrew Carmellini's lamb sliders are 45th on the list?! (They should be much higher.) Where are David Chang's pork buns?

That said, this list made me very, very hungry. Sandwiches for dinner.

Lady Macbeth, I presume?

Wow... Every once in a while you remember how good New York magazine can be.

That was especially true this week with their cover story on John and Elizabeth Edwards (excerpted from John Heilemann and Mark Halperin's new book, Game Change -- which is already number 1 on Amazon.)

Christ... the Edwardses sound like walking nightmares.

John Edwards is, of course, a narcissist of the first order. Not that I care one way or the other about Edwards' sex life. But the recklessness of making a bid for the White House while sitting on this nuclear bomb is just unforgivable. Not after eight years of George Bush. Not when the country was reeling, and in need of a calming, soothing leader.

When Bill Clinton ran for President it was well established that he was a philanderer. He admitted as much fairly early in the process. But the voters embraced him, anyway. That's totally fair. But if the Democrats had been surprised sometime in October by this bombshell, I'm 95 percent certain that John McCain would be President right now.

That being said, if I was married to Elizabeth Edwards I might cheat, too.

At least that's what I came away with in this piece. She came off as a nightmare who intellectually belittled her husband in a way that would have driven me insane. ("Oh, he doesn't read books," she laughed when a friend asked Edwards if he had read some title or other. "I'm the one who reads books.")

She sounds as ambitious as her husband -- but more bullying. And had an air entitlement around her that sounds unbearable. She beat up the staff, and chewed out people who were trying to salvage her and her husband's political future. (I should say by way of fairness: I have a friend whose girlfriend worked on the campaign, and she says that the article badly mischaracterizes their relationship. Perhaps. But this sounds too detailed to be made up wholecloth.)

But the most fascinating thing about this piece is the way that the staff eventually came to piece together that Edwards was having an affair. And how they all reacted to this devastating bit of news.

It is really a fascinating piece of reporting -- take a look!

Heilemann vs. Weisberg

New York magazine's John Heliemann and Slate's Jacob Weisberg have dueling articles this week on Obama's first year --

Heilemann says Obama has gone off the rails. Weisberg says he's been a superstar.

Anybody who reads this blog know where this schlub falls: I'm with Weisberg all the way. A lot of Heilemann's points are fairly flimsy and not particularly serious. His proof that Obama has gone off the rails? His approval rating is down. As I argued last week, it was always going to go down.

But on more substantive charges, I suppose Heilemann deserves an answer. So here goes:

1) He says that Obama's stimulus plan wasn't big enough -- which is a standard complaint from the left. But then he ridicules Rahm Emanuel for saying that there was no other figure that could have gotten through congress.

How does Heilemann know that that isn't exactly true?

The stimulus plan did not get a single Republican vote in the House. Not a single one. The three Republican votes it got in the Senate were after scaling the number back to $787 billion. When the stimulus plan passed back in February, Arlen Specter was a Republican and Al Franken was not yet a Senator. In other words, the GOP could have mounted a filibuster if the administration didn't pick off Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Would that have happened if the bill had been $200 to $400 billion more?

I have no reason to disbelieve Emanuel (who is probably the best vote counter in the country) when he says no.

2) He repeats the standard claims that the White House mismanaged healthcare because (a) they didn't take the lead, (b) they should have waited until a less fraught time, (c) they haven't been standing squarely with the public option and (d) this is a "war of choice" for Obama (which is a new one.)

I think not taking the lead was a deliberate choice. When Bill Clinton presented Congress with a take-it-or-leave-it health care plan, Democrats and Republicans alike began jumping ship. Congress complained of being run roughshod over. The result was a bill that didn't even come up for a vote. Obama was simply avoiding the same mistake. "Want to feel included? Why don't you write the bill." Sounds sensible to me.

As for this being an inopportune time: I disagree strongly. I think the beginning of his presidency, when his approval ratings were at their highest, was always going to be the best time to pass a fraught bill like health care. He was never again going to have the majority that he has now, and that's the only way to get a behemoth like healthcare through Congress. And he gave himself the necessary recovery time to get over the teabaggers, et al. I think the timing was very smart.

I, too, would like to see a public option included in the final bill... but it's not President Obama's fault that Joe Lieberman is an asshole. The reforms that will likely be enacted are worth doing anyway, and if Heilemann thinks otherwise, well, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Finally, the "war of choice" thing. If you don't think that healthcare is a priority, then I'm not sure why anybody would support Obama (or be a Democrat) in the first place? Democrats have been waiting to pass healthcare reform since FDR. It is a major part of the Democratic platform. Is it the only part? No. But I don't think the 40+ million uninsured Americans should have to wait another year for something that should have been done decades ago.

Last week the Times had a heartbreaking story in which it included the fact that in 2007 62 percent of bankruptcies in America were due to medical bills.

What's even more shocking is that three-quarters of those people had health insurance.

"War of choice?" That's a war for sanity.

I don't think "Tummler" means what NY Magazine thinks it means

New York magazine came out last week with a cover story asking if the age of the Woody Allen schlemile is over.

As a professional schlub, I suppose I should weigh in on this. My considered answer is: No.

Of course, there is only one Woody. There will never be another.

And even though I acknowledge that a modern day funnyman like, say, Seth Rogen is not Woody Allen by any stretch, they're of a similar species. Rogen might not be as neurotic or apologetic as Woody Allen, but he's got the self-effacing quality down. Other comedians can come up with Woody's brand of heady, intellectual jokes.

In short, there will be similar variations on the Woody Allen persona for as long as Jews are doing stand-up comedy (which I think should be until the earth falls into the sun.) A "nebbish" and "schlemile" (which is essentially Woody Allen's schtick) are classic Jewish archetypes. Why would they disappear with Woody?

There is one other thing about the article that I'd like to point out:

The inside headline is "Twilight of the Tummlers." Now, I appreciate that you have to cut a headline a little slack, but Woody Allen isn't really a tummler.

A tummler, according to the great Leo Rosten, is:

1. One who creates a lot of noise (tummel) but accomplishes little.

2. A funmaker, a "live wire", a clown, a prankster, the "life of the party."

3. The paid social director and entertainer in those Catskill resorts that constitute "the Borscht Belt."

In other words, not Woody Allen or Larry David.

Turns out...

I picked a pretty good week to do my food blogging, because NY Magazine came out with their annual Best of New York issue, and there is much to discuss. (By the way, I know I said yesterday that I'd donate the entire week to Top Chef, specifically... but I think this is pretty much in keeping with the spirit. And it's my blog, I'll do what I want.)

As is usual with NY mag's food coverage, there is much that is interesting, much that is unassailable, much that is completely snobby, and much that is downright crazy wrong.

But I will get into the specifics over the course of the next few days. (This is my busy day at work, people. I can't do anything other than a cursory little post on Wednesdays.)

On a non-food related note about this issue: I was delighted to see them name Bonobos as the best place to get a pair of men's pants! My friend Adam is one of the guys who runs it!

Moreover, I have it on good authority that Bonobos sold Hosea (of evil TC fame) a pair of pants this week. And I also hear that they were a hair's away from outfitting the great Mickey Rourke for the Academy Awards!

You go, Bonobos!

Oh great...

It's official:

My diet is about to go completely to shit.

Rob and Robin of New York magazine are out with their cheap eats issue of 2008 (always the schlub's choice for best issue of the year) and this year's list looks really, really good. I haven't tried a single one of the burger joints on the list. And aside from Artichoke and South Brooklyn Pizza, the pizza joints are also all news to me. (I'm sort of excited...)

Also, lots of Thai places in Queens that I'm sure I'm going to wind up sampling over the next few weeks.

And I was even intrigued by the sort of oddball things. Smoothies and chinese food at Grand Sichuan House? (In my old neighborhood of Bay Ridge, no less!)

Oy... I'm totally screwed.