Two things about Michael Jackson's death have surprised me (besides, of course, the event itself):
1) the number of people who, perhaps in an attempt to feel safer, are professing that since bad things come in threes (Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett and MJ)... then what? No celebrities can die for another week or so? They always seem to trail off when they get to the punchline.
2) the apparent need to quietly ascribe the heart attack to some kind of drug use, as if fifty year old men can't just have a heart attack, especially if they're famous fifty year old men. Perhaps not surprisingly, this is most often professed by middle aged men who presumably take some comfort in the knowledge that they're not habitual drug users.

And so, it seems, everyone's feeling their own mortality pretty acutely this week.

Presently I am trapped in the lobby of my building, as our elevator is broken and we were apparently the only floor not prescient enough to demand a key that would allow us to access our apartment from the stairwell. Right now we feel pretty dumb. On the plus side, we're meeting several of our neighbors, many of whom are attractive and/or have cute dogs.

-- Post From My iPhone

I think part of what makes New York hard for newcomers to navigate is the question of give and take (which, if you're not attuned to the subtle machinations of angry mobs, feels mostly like take and take and take).

For instance, when you're on a super crowded subway car and you have to get off at the next stop, this seems like an obvious "take" scenario. You climb over that baby carriage, lean your hip into that elderly woman with the cane, and get yourself positioned by the door so -- God forbid -- you don't end up trapped in your seat as the train pulls away, whisking you off to Far Rockaway.

But, really, this is a rookie mistake.

This is a "give" scenario. And not just because shoving old ladies and leaping over baby carriages is frowned upon in polite society.

Because chances are it's rush hour and the train is crowded because you just passed Times Square and you're hurtling towards Columbus Circle where you absolutely must get off to make it to the office in time and this, combined with the distance to the next stop (125th street, aka way out of your way and 60 blocks from the office), makes you nervous and inclined to shove your way to the door. But odds are that 90% of the people on your train are in exactly the same situation because 90% of people on that train work in Midtown, not at 125th street. So your odds are 9 to 1 (and that's pessimistic) that you'll get off the train, bouyed by the shoving and jostling of the crowd.

I would say that this knowledge (predicated as it is on an understanding of the rush-hour popularity of one's subway stop, as well as the stops immediately before and after) would eliminate the vast majority of dirty looks given to hapless tourists by elderly women with canes and young mothers with baby carriages.

Lady Gaga is a more interesting performer/cultural figure on mute. The "Paparazzi" video is glamorous, provocative and decidedly not mainstream. She's slightly odd looking and is constantly in costume. She looks like the product of Andy Warhol and Un Chien Andalou and Dr. Evil.

And then her music is... meh. Catchy, but meh.

Then again, if her music was as exotic as her performance, probably no one would listen to it (myself included), which means no one would get to see the (honestly pretty awesome) video which she probably couldn't make because she wouldn't have the money, which means the total weirdness would actually be less, and maybe we should be happy to get anything at all.

Last Wednesday (I'm so behind the curve on this one), the Times ran this totally unnecessary trend piece about teenagers hugging so regularly that it merits remark and the incredibly dubious identification as a trend. Though I can't bring myself to read it (and am still half-convinced this was some deeply meta joke about the dubiousness of many trend pieces published by the illustrious paper), I have two reactions.

Reaction 1: 98% of teenagers are hugging because they want to touch each other, or at least they want to touch one specific person and if they hug everyone then they can give an extra special hug to that extra special lady or gentleman.

Reaction 2: The remaining 2% of teenagers are well on their way to becoming that person you know who is always way too friendly and intimate even though you barely remember their name (see: the close-talker, the cheek-kisser, the guy-who-grabs-at-your-necklace-while-talking-to-you-in-a-way-that-makes-you-think-he's-probably-just-looking-at-your-chest-or-gay-or-something, the person-who-grabs-at-your-side-fat-to-illustrate-how-much-skinnier-you-are-than-either-your-previous-self-or-themselves).