just what the duck happened to usa? looking more and more like some poor country now.
Last edited:
Some interesting videos i saw today on YT about usa
- Thread starter 6pack
- Start date
- Status
blr_p
Oracle
NYC has been here before. Search YT for NYC in the 70s & 80s.
Took a mayor in the 90s called Rudy Guiliani to clean it up and he succeeded. 42nd St used to be full of drug pushers and Hookers. Within his first term, all of that got cleared and Disney stores took their place.
As an ex new yorker I'm amazed to see how things have deteriorated in the last twenty years. Always about leadership.
www.nydailynews.com
Rudy Giuliani and the city he remade
By CHRISTIAN BROWNE
January 2, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
** FILE ** Rudy Giuliani, right, is symbolically sworn-in as New York City Mayor by U.S. District Court Judge Michael B. Mukasey, left, during a private ceremony in New York in this Dec. 31, 1993 file photo. Giuliani’s wife Donna Hanover, center, stands with their children Andrew, 7, and Caroline, 4; Giuliani’s mother Helen looks on. President Bush has settled on Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and is expected to announce his selection Monday. (AP Photo/Ed Bailey, File)
Rudolph W. Giuliani was sworn in as the 107th mayor of the City of New York on Jan. 2, 1994, 30 years ago today. He took office during an era of decline that began with the mass suburbanization of the post-war period and that was exacerbated by disastrous mismanagement, culminating with the city’s near bankruptcy in 1975.
By the early 1990s, the lingering effects of the fiscal crisis, coupled with the perception and reality of rampant violent crime, made New York the beleaguered target of Time magazine’s 1990 cover story “The Rotting of the Big Apple.”
Giuliani’s election was a mandate from the electorate for a complete change in direction. While his first victory came by a small margin, Giuliani was a “fusion” candidate who brought together a broad coalition that backed his vision. A Republican, he also ran on the line of the Liberal Party. The tallest pillars of the Democratic Party, Ed Koch and Bobby Wagner, endorsed him, and both cut television ads at the end of the campaign that were crucial to his triumph.
Giuliani never governed in the thrall of one party, ideological movement or ethnic constituency. His success was based on actual, tangible results. By the time of his reelection in 1997, no one could argue with the remarkable turnabout of the city’s fortunes. He won four of the five boroughs. Brooklyn voted Republican for the first time since 1941.
Giuliani is rightly best remembered for the incredible reduction in crime he achieved during his tenure. His work with Bill Bratton and the police commissioners who followed him formed the basis for the city’s renaissance. But Rudy did much more that is worth tribute.
He was an early advocate for school choice and vouchers. He feuded with feckless schools chancellors and relentlessly attacked the old Board of Education system. While the Legislature, for political reasons, would not grant mayoral control to Giuliani, he laid the groundwork for the legislation that handed control of the schools to his successor.
He instituted the “Work Experience Program” to put able-bodied welfare recipients to work in the parks and other places. The welfare rolls declined by 650,000 enrollees during his tenure. He cleaned out organized crime from the carting industry and the Fulton Fish Market.
He drastically reduced the violence and chaos on Rikers Island, an achievement that has been disgracefully squandered in recent years. He would not tolerate vagrancy as a proper solution to homelessness saying, “the streets are not for sleeping.”
Giuliani governed by moral instinct, not political pandering. He was not always correct, but did what he thought was best for the city with minimal political calculus. He endorsed Mario Cuomo for governor over the candidate of his own party. He (literally) threw Yasser Arafat out of Lincoln Center. He denounced the Brooklyn Museum for displaying an offensive portrait of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He unequivocally supported the cops even in the toughest and most controversial times.
His deputy mayors and senior aides were highly competent managers who were devoted to their work in government. They met at 8 a.m. every day; there was a culture of accountability. When 9/11 showcased Giuliani’s leadership, I was surprised that so many people considered the mayor’s response extraordinary. By that time, I had worked in the administration for three years and I saw nothing unusual in the effectiveness of the mayor and the people around him. There was never a hint of corruption.
In April 1995, David Letterman put Giuliani on the Times Square Jumbotron to announce the city’s new slogan: “We can kick your city’s ass!” The phrase instantly caught on — they printed buttons and New York’s Hometown Paper splashed it across the front page. It captured the moment. Less than five years after Time proclaimed the Big Apple rotten, Rudy gave it back its bravado and the sense of superiority that justly belongs to the greatest city in the world.
The foundation for success that Giuliani cemented has been chipped and cracked, but it has yet to collapse. Mike Bloomberg built his mayoralty on it. Even Bill de Blasio, in a concession to the fact that New Yorkers would not tolerate a return to pre-Giuliani lawlessness, brought Bratton back as police commissioner. Former cop Eric Adams edged out his rivals on a promise to restore law and order. He would not take the guns from the police as suggested by one of his opponents.
Unlike almost every other politician of promise, Rudy Giuliani implemented his vision and made it a reality that transformed New York. Thirty years after he took the oath of office, we live in a city that is built on his legacy.
Took a mayor in the 90s called Rudy Guiliani to clean it up and he succeeded. 42nd St used to be full of drug pushers and Hookers. Within his first term, all of that got cleared and Disney stores took their place.
As an ex new yorker I'm amazed to see how things have deteriorated in the last twenty years. Always about leadership.
Rudy Giuliani and the city he remade
Rudolph W. Giuliani was sworn in as the 107th mayor of the City of New York on Jan. 2, 1994, 30 years ago today. He took office during an era of decline that began with the mass suburbanization of …
www.nydailynews.com
Rudy Giuliani and the city he remade
By CHRISTIAN BROWNE
January 2, 2024 at 5:00 a.m.
** FILE ** Rudy Giuliani, right, is symbolically sworn-in as New York City Mayor by U.S. District Court Judge Michael B. Mukasey, left, during a private ceremony in New York in this Dec. 31, 1993 file photo. Giuliani’s wife Donna Hanover, center, stands with their children Andrew, 7, and Caroline, 4; Giuliani’s mother Helen looks on. President Bush has settled on Mukasey, a retired federal judge from New York, to replace Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and is expected to announce his selection Monday. (AP Photo/Ed Bailey, File)
Rudolph W. Giuliani was sworn in as the 107th mayor of the City of New York on Jan. 2, 1994, 30 years ago today. He took office during an era of decline that began with the mass suburbanization of the post-war period and that was exacerbated by disastrous mismanagement, culminating with the city’s near bankruptcy in 1975.
By the early 1990s, the lingering effects of the fiscal crisis, coupled with the perception and reality of rampant violent crime, made New York the beleaguered target of Time magazine’s 1990 cover story “The Rotting of the Big Apple.”
Giuliani’s election was a mandate from the electorate for a complete change in direction. While his first victory came by a small margin, Giuliani was a “fusion” candidate who brought together a broad coalition that backed his vision. A Republican, he also ran on the line of the Liberal Party. The tallest pillars of the Democratic Party, Ed Koch and Bobby Wagner, endorsed him, and both cut television ads at the end of the campaign that were crucial to his triumph.
Giuliani never governed in the thrall of one party, ideological movement or ethnic constituency. His success was based on actual, tangible results. By the time of his reelection in 1997, no one could argue with the remarkable turnabout of the city’s fortunes. He won four of the five boroughs. Brooklyn voted Republican for the first time since 1941.
Giuliani is rightly best remembered for the incredible reduction in crime he achieved during his tenure. His work with Bill Bratton and the police commissioners who followed him formed the basis for the city’s renaissance. But Rudy did much more that is worth tribute.
He was an early advocate for school choice and vouchers. He feuded with feckless schools chancellors and relentlessly attacked the old Board of Education system. While the Legislature, for political reasons, would not grant mayoral control to Giuliani, he laid the groundwork for the legislation that handed control of the schools to his successor.
He instituted the “Work Experience Program” to put able-bodied welfare recipients to work in the parks and other places. The welfare rolls declined by 650,000 enrollees during his tenure. He cleaned out organized crime from the carting industry and the Fulton Fish Market.
He drastically reduced the violence and chaos on Rikers Island, an achievement that has been disgracefully squandered in recent years. He would not tolerate vagrancy as a proper solution to homelessness saying, “the streets are not for sleeping.”
Giuliani governed by moral instinct, not political pandering. He was not always correct, but did what he thought was best for the city with minimal political calculus. He endorsed Mario Cuomo for governor over the candidate of his own party. He (literally) threw Yasser Arafat out of Lincoln Center. He denounced the Brooklyn Museum for displaying an offensive portrait of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He unequivocally supported the cops even in the toughest and most controversial times.
His deputy mayors and senior aides were highly competent managers who were devoted to their work in government. They met at 8 a.m. every day; there was a culture of accountability. When 9/11 showcased Giuliani’s leadership, I was surprised that so many people considered the mayor’s response extraordinary. By that time, I had worked in the administration for three years and I saw nothing unusual in the effectiveness of the mayor and the people around him. There was never a hint of corruption.
In April 1995, David Letterman put Giuliani on the Times Square Jumbotron to announce the city’s new slogan: “We can kick your city’s ass!” The phrase instantly caught on — they printed buttons and New York’s Hometown Paper splashed it across the front page. It captured the moment. Less than five years after Time proclaimed the Big Apple rotten, Rudy gave it back its bravado and the sense of superiority that justly belongs to the greatest city in the world.
The foundation for success that Giuliani cemented has been chipped and cracked, but it has yet to collapse. Mike Bloomberg built his mayoralty on it. Even Bill de Blasio, in a concession to the fact that New Yorkers would not tolerate a return to pre-Giuliani lawlessness, brought Bratton back as police commissioner. Former cop Eric Adams edged out his rivals on a promise to restore law and order. He would not take the guns from the police as suggested by one of his opponents.
Unlike almost every other politician of promise, Rudy Giuliani implemented his vision and made it a reality that transformed New York. Thirty years after he took the oath of office, we live in a city that is built on his legacy.
Last edited:
manohar5321
Explorer
Never mind the trash that they have yet they have the galls to comment on other countries . What hypocrisy
Appeasement policy for votes of blacks and illegal immigrants who take to crime readily. Worst is they treat their own people like shit. Poor and homeless? in jail, or fine after fine after fine. They like to kick helpless people mentally and physically. Their politicians are psychos.
m1tr
Discoverer
I don't think any city or country is uniformly rich or poor or clean or dirty. It's always a bit of everything and we'd do well to remember that.
Western Europeans are often criticised, and rightly so, for depicting India as all poverty porn. But we can't deny that poverty does exist. It's not the only thing that exists, we have a lot of good stuff too. But the poverty is not staged, and to be honest the vast majority of our fellow citizens are poor.
Similarly for NYC or SF where billionaires live, homeless people shitting and leaving syringes on people's driveways is also real. I remember reading an article a few months back where a homeowner used a garden hose to spray water on a homeless man sitting in front of his garage because he refused to move; the homeowner was charged with assault by the police.
Western Europeans are often criticised, and rightly so, for depicting India as all poverty porn. But we can't deny that poverty does exist. It's not the only thing that exists, we have a lot of good stuff too. But the poverty is not staged, and to be honest the vast majority of our fellow citizens are poor.
Similarly for NYC or SF where billionaires live, homeless people shitting and leaving syringes on people's driveways is also real. I remember reading an article a few months back where a homeowner used a garden hose to spray water on a homeless man sitting in front of his garage because he refused to move; the homeowner was charged with assault by the police.
not homeowner, a shop keeper i think. But imagine - they have such a small population and so much land but they still find it hard and cant cope. What if India had just 300 million people and USA had 1.4billion people there? That place would look worse than India now.
another video i saw. Look at the sheer number of useful idiots in this video since they think usa wont do anything to them. lot of these idiots will start crying once they start getting expelled from college and deported to their original countries.
this has nothing to do with that. not propaganda videos this is reality. I can put up even more videos by other youtubers here if you dont believe it..
edit: the columbia thing seems even worse
Last edited:
m1tr
Discoverer
The US is, IMO, a victim of its own success. Any freedom should be subject to reasonable restrictions. But because the US holds freedom of speech as sacrosanct, they give an opportunity for every voice, even the extremist ones, to be heard. And amongst this din, nuance goes out the window. If you don't support Israel's military excesses, you are an anti-semite. If you advocate for Palestine, you are supporting Hamas. No middle ground exists anymore.
Too much tolerance begets intolerance. India is no stranger to this. Kiran Rao and Amir Khan saying India is becoming more intelorant was met with "India is the most tolerant country in the world and you should leave and go to Pakistan."
Too much tolerance begets intolerance. India is no stranger to this. Kiran Rao and Amir Khan saying India is becoming more intelorant was met with "India is the most tolerant country in the world and you should leave and go to Pakistan."
That's a smart observation. Just like many other things, tolerance and economic growth seem to go through long cycles. I once found it hard to imagine powerful empires falling, but it makes sense to me in this context. It wouldn't be shocking to me if someday another country becomes more influential than the U.S.
However, America's tech leadership and military strength (which go hand in hand anyway) might give it a chance to bounce back if its democratic system self corrects like it is supposed to. I don't think such course correction can be taken for granted, or even that it will happen fast, as economic power is getting too concentrated and top dogs will resist any change in status quo, but it's not out of the question either, in my opinion.
Last edited:
blr_p
Oracle
The law is quite clear in the US about freedom of speech. It stops at incitement. It does not allow threats. Here is a good example.
What can a city council person of a town in Bakersfield CA do about ceasefire in Gaza. Lol.
Another one where, get this, the dean of berekely law invites those about to graduate to his home for a get together
Everyone here is either a law professor or about to graduate from law school.
There is no free speech in a private house. If the owner objects. Don't need to go to law school to know this.
Yet this woman purposely pulls off this stunt to push her agenda. And then see how she threatens to file charges for assault after.
This dean is Jewish and ultra liberal and even he has to draw the line.
roadrash99
Forerunner
These are just political things which happen in every country. If foreigners see Indian news channels they too will think India is on the brink of civil war or something. Normal people have the option to live their lives totally uninterested in all this, and that option is definitely there much more in the US than India since it's a more individualistic society. Average American lives in the boring suburbs of some city we've never heard of and is not affected by the decay of NY's worst locations. Things that happen there get blown up as everyone wants to see US fail. We had riots in our capital just 3 years ago and if you ask people in US about it they would not even know about it. In fact I suspect if you ask people in South Delhi, even some of them might draw a blank, but they will be able to tell you about how US needs more cycle lanes and gun laws.
Last edited:
You can produce videos like this about any society. You need to find out who is doing it and for what reason. Techniques like this, broadly classified under critical theory, were developed about 2000 years ago by a cult in southern Europe. The cult's main purpose was to destroy and take over the Roman empire, in which they succeeded.
This. Unless the net migration into US becomes negative, treat these videos as little more than smear campaigns. Common people are the ultimate capitalists.
And rightly so. We all know he was doing his propaganda because he didn't leave.
Last edited:
m1tr
Discoverer
That logic seems difficult to defend to me. I won't go into whether it was propaganda, but you seem to imply that everyone who makes such statements does propaganda, and is obligated to leave, because of their purported political views of not liking the state of affairs. The expectation that they leave seems to ignore their personal, economic, and relationship linkages with India because that human grew in this country, which might compel any human to stay (propaganda or not).
vink
Forerunner
this might be genuine condition with most countries..
also dont forget collpase/doom watching is a thing now..
check out this channels about china,
China Insights
China Observer
roadrash99
Forerunner
A lot of this is also people from other countries wishing to see their competitors fail. For example I've been hearing for two decades how Dubai is going to collapse any moment now, usually coming from jealous westerners. You will find articles from 2000s which project an image of wasteful rich sheikhs blowing away inherited oil money. In these last 10 years I've seen the same kind of content for China. There is some truth to all these and we've seen countries destroy themselves like those in Latin America. But it's always macroeconomics, not petty stuff like street crime or homeless people or protestors.
blr_p
Oracle
This is flat out wrong. It is the opposite that is true. The provision of hate speech acts as a safety valve. Tolerance begets tolerance and vice versa.
What people are doing is abusing these freedoms. And a lack of enforcement is exacerbating things. The problem isn't the existing law
The American version which I hold as the gold standard isn't 'too much tolerance'. It's the most that should be allowed without undue restrictions before incitement. Hate speech is allowed and should be defended.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic but I would say India is less tolerant in terms of freedom of speech than any western country.
India is not becoming more intolerant in terms of speech. It's been like that for a long time now and with legal sanction.
Most Indians don't even get this. It's due to the addition of the second clause to Article 19 of the constitution back in 1951. 19(ii)
Why? because otherwise you could call for the murder of people. A practice not uncommon in political speech of the time. eg. People advocating for Gandhi's murder in pamphlets in the 30s.
How this was considered legal in India at the time baffles me but it was a dangerous loophole that then required a fix which was incorrectly applied and resulted in curbing freedom of speech. If you could not do the same and get away with it in the US then why should it be true in India?!?
The result is you have a right to be offended. You can claim your whatever was offended by what someone wrote. This means the state is obligated to arrest whomever said it. Whereas in the US the state cannot touch someone if they offended your sensibilities. That person might be sociallly attacked, doxed whatever but the state cannot lock the person up.
The way this gets framed by Indian commentators is freedom of speech is not absolute. Who said it was. It certainly isn't absolute in the US. But framing it this, way hides the crippled version we have. I don't know if it's deliberate. Doubtful. Just ignorant.
I would argue that while you are right in the near to medium term (which is during a steady socio-political state of sorts), but it does not apply to phase transitions. My thoughts are still not settled on the matter, but it appears to me that democracies (and all other socio-political systems) go through such phase transitions when social phenomena exceed a tipping point. Such forces can cause civilizational decline (or ascent). In that context, too much tolerance tends to bring intolerance through the long-term civilizational cycle when the collective view gradually turns decidedly against tolerance (I think of it as some sort of social emergence).
My current view is that liberal democracies of the west are overextending meaningless forms of freedom to their populations to the point where resulting chaos can disrupt them and cause structural transitions. On the other hand, they are not allowing the freedoms that matter (like the freedom to express views against the powers that be or against popular opinions. It should be allowed, even if it causes mental trauma to others or groups of others, as long as it does not directly infringe on other's rights).
- Status