Connect with us

Opinion

Learn to live with filth, disorder and crime in de Blasio’s NYC

Published

on

Learn to live with filth, disorder and crime in de Blasio’s NYC

Affordable housing is always a problem in New York City, especially on the Upper West Side, so that nice young couple who pitched a tent on a subway grate in the north median at Broadway and 86th Street had themselves a pretty sweet deal for a while. Alas, it couldn’t last;  as it turned out one of the campers was involved in a South Street Seaport murder case, and the cops made everybody move on Wednesday afternoon.

As plagues go, a couple of urban campers don’t measure up to frogs, hail, locusts or a progressive in City Hall. Then again, without a progressive in City Hall, there likely wouldn’t be tents in the Broadway median, either.

Mayor Bill de Blasio hammered the Upper West Side hard during this pandemic year, cramming boutique hotels full of lunatics, junkies, panhandlers and petty criminals — and then was nowhere to be found when the neighborhood convulsed.

It wasn’t just Zabar’s shoppers who were horrified: East Side, West Side, all around town — everybody got a full ration of community trauma. Also, Brooklyn and the subways; don’t forget the subways.

Or the crime. Or the trash-littered streets. Or all the other dark memories of pre-Giuliani Gotham, suddenly come roaring back to reality.   

But none of this is news, you say. Why dredge it up now? Because of the tent.

It was never going to last, nomads being nomads. But the fact that it was there at all this week demonstrates that chaos and disruption are the new normal in the Big Apple.

Really. There were no tents on Broadway Wednesday night, but there could be 10 by the weekend. Yet would there be any at all if the mayor hadn’t turned the slightly threadbare Lucerne on West 79th Street into Hotel Hellscape last year?

If that isn’t intent, what is? And, again, the new normal.

But it isn’t just de Blasio, and it isn’t just vagrants. Among the other insanities that marked the city’s cultural flight from reasonable law enforcement was Manhattan DA Cy Vance’s announcement two years ago that he would no longer prosecute transit fare-beaters. Doing so disproportionately impacted petty criminals, he said, so better to let them go their way.

So now a Metropolitan Transportation Authority insider says that some 15 percent (and rising) of daily riders are fare-beaters — and good luck cramming that genie back in the bottle.

Of course, it took a village full of idiots — de Blasio, Gov. Andrew Cuomo, the City Council, four of New York’s five DAs and the state Legislature — to reverse the hard-won public-safety gains of the Giuliani-Bloomberg administrations.

Murder was up 95 percent in 2020. The figure is 35 percent above that so far this year, and it takes one of those digital clickers to track all the shootings. Riders are terrified of the subways. Roving bands of protesters routinely block bridges and principal thoroughfares. Panhandlers and crazy people routinely harass those tourists brave enough to return to the city’s iconic public spaces.

And if this isn’t a new normal, why are people treating it as if it is? Especially the city’s mayoral candidates.

Oh, sure, there’s some talk about crime here and vagrancy there, but everybody’s nibbling around the edges, and the viable candidates are either obsessed with race-infused ideology and other stupid stuff or paralyzed by fear of social-media cancellation.

Some sound bites sound reasonable, but most are vapid, and none reveals any understanding of what is happening to the city right now. Those who may understand lack the courage to speak the truth about it.

Picture a candidate who declared — in full throat and without equivocation — that subways aren’t for sleeping and neither are subway grates, that cops should be looking out for madmen on subway platforms and not chatting amicably with vagrants. It’s hard to imagine that such a candidate wouldn’t catch some traction.

Unless the city has totally given up, which would be far scarier than a tent on the Broadway median.

Twitter: @RLMac2

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

Published

on

Supreme Court decisions expose Dems as half-baked hysterics

When President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court last fall, hysterical Democrats declared millions of Americans would lose health coverage with her vote against ObamaCare — and immediately started talking about packing a court they called hopelessly divided.

Two big Supreme Court decisions last week proved reality turned out to be nothing like Dems’ fever dreams.

In a 7-2 decision in California v. Texas, the high court rejected a Republican bid to invalidate ObamaCare — and Barrett was not one of the two dissenters. It ruled that Texas and 17 other GOP-led states didn’t have standing to challenge the law’s individual mandate. The Trump administration had taken their side, while 20 Democratic-run states including New York and California, along with the Dem-controlled House of Representatives, took the other. Only Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch dissented to the majority opinion the liberal Stephen Breyer authored.

How could this be? Last year, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “Confirming Amy Coney Barrett will be the end of the Affordable Care Act.” In her opening statement at Barrett’s confirmation hearing, then-Sen. Kamala Harris held up a picture of an 11-year-old constituent and accused Republicans of trying “to jam through a Supreme Court nominee who will take away health care from millions of people during a deadly pandemic.”

Democrats boycotted the final committee vote, filling their seats instead with posters of ObamaCare recipients, implying a vote for Barrett would put those lives at risk.

During the whole childish circus, they insisted Trump had picked Barrett and sped up her confirmation just so she’d be seated in time to hear arguments in the case and dismantle the law. They didn’t bother to look at her record and examine her judicial philosophy — they assumed this well-qualified woman would be the president’s puppet.

In the second important decision, Fulton v. Philadelphia, the court ruled unanimously that the city violated the Constitution’s free exercise clause by suspending Catholic Social Services’ contract because the group wouldn’t certify same-sex couples as foster parents.

Yes, all nine justices ruled in favor of religious freedom — putting paid to Democratic complaints the court is out of balance with too many conservatives. It’s far from the only unanimous decision already this term, either. Every justice signed on to decisions written by Gorsuch, Breyer, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor, with two of the cases involving immigration issues.

That people of varying political stripes can agree on the law shouldn’t come as a surprise. Supreme Court justices take their jobs seriously — which is more than you can say for Democrats charged with helping choose them.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

Published

on

The undying myth of GOP ‘obstructionism’

The media have spent the Joe Biden presidency thus far pressuring moderate Democrats to join the left’s efforts to destroy the filibuster.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Big Labor’s gift to itself and other commentary

Published

on

Big Labor's gift to itself and other commentary

Libertarian: Unions’ Gift to Themselves

Big Labor spent millions getting President Biden elected — and now it’s seeking to enact a law “directing federal power and resources to boost flagging” union rolls, laments Reason’s Eric Boehm. The so-called PRO Act “is a grab bag of Big-Labor agenda items that would extend some of California’s awful independent contractor regulations nationwide” and “abolish so-called right-to-work laws in the 27 states that have passed them.” Biden and the unions insist this is about empowering workers, “but if workers were as eager to join unions as [they] seem to think, they wouldn’t need a powerful federal bureaucracy to encourage that outcome.”

Centrist: United Supremes

The most striking aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent rulings on ObamaCare and religious liberty was the “absence of ideological divisions” from a high court that “Democratic leaders have declared hopelessly divided along ideological lines,” observes Jonathan Turley at USA Today. The largely united decisions mark “the final collapse of the false narrative that has been endlessly repeated like a mantra in Congress and the media.” Critics may continue to insist that the court is “dysfunctional, divided and needs to be radically changed,” but the justices aren’t “cooperating,” issuing instead an “inconvenient line of unanimous decisions.” Yet even as the court “seems to be saying a lot in one voice not just about the law, but about its own institution,” the media will undoubtedly continue to denounce it, “because politics demands it.”

Crime beat: A Wake-Up Call in Atlanta

The “mind-numbing randomness, brazenness and, even worse, casualness of violence afflicting Atlanta” has the upscale Buckhead neighborhood “wanting to break away from Atlanta to form its own city” with “its own police force,” writes The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Bill Torpy. Atlanta shootings are up 40 percent this year, but police often see “the same ne’er-do-wells walking the streets the next day,” thanks to a “broken” criminal-justice system. “Buckhead is almost three-quarters white,” yet “in black neighborhoods across the city, victims are widespread, and residents there want police to protect them, too.” But Buckhead can get attention, because its departure would “take away 40 percent of the city’s income.” It should be “one loud wake-up call.”

Culture critic: RIP, Janet Malcolm

At First Things, Helen Andrews assesses the complex legacy of veteran New Yorker magazine scribe Janet Malcolm, who died last week — and whose “cold, precise, unsparing” journalistic style recalled that of the great Russian writer Anton Chekhov. She was born to a psychiatrist father, and “psychoanalysis was a constant presence in Malcolm’s journalism.” The shrink’s couch formed her “eye for the telling detail” and “taught Malcolm a certain bleakness” about the world — and her own profession. Yet her “most famous line” — that “every journalist who is not too stupid or full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible” — helped spread cynicism about reporters. The result, Andrews laments, is that now “every trace of authenticity has been scrubbed from press interviews.” 

Media watch: Suppressing the Truth

“From the lab-leak theory to the Lafayette Square tear-gassing, anti-Trump bias blinded our news media,” declares Wilfred Reilly at Spiked Online. “Except perhaps for the Hunter Biden story,” there was no “potentially major and obviously newsworthy story more intensely suppressed than the lab-leak explanation for COVID’s origins,” but it was just “revealed quite possibly to be correct.” Pols and press called then-President Donald Trump “reckless” for touting hydroxychloroquine, yet “a major study” has found “it increases survival rates for COVID patients by almost 200 percent.” And the claim “Trump had ‘tear-gassed peaceful protesters’ ” to stage a photo-op turned out to be “complete nonsense.” Tellingly, all these facts only came out when Joe Biden became president. This “mainstream-media swiveling” causes “latent social distrust that has no imaginable upside.”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board

Continue Reading

Trending