NYC’s Back to the Future

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews

Last Friday, (Nov. 1, 2019) a demonstration numbering about a thousand people broke out to protest alleged police brutality in the New York subway system. It was in response to recent arrests on subway platforms.

The protest had all the trappings we have come to expect in a 21st century protest – including such poetic gems as, “No justice, no peace/F**k these racist police;” and this little ditty, “Punch a cop in the face/Every nation, every race.”

At issue is a state-led crackdown on fare jumping. Fare jumping is the term used to describe the actions of certain subway riders (mostly young males) who hop over the turnstiles on New York City subway platforms and ride the subway for free.

The kerfuffle has exposed the fact that the mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio; and the governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo; are at odds. New York City and New York state finances are intertwined in ways that are hard to explain. But suffice that state funds are used in the operation of the New York City Metropolitan Transit Authority and the governor – in a sudden fit of fiscal rectitude – is tired of underwriting free use of the subway system. (Yes, Cuomo is a liberal, but apparently not liberal enough.)

Not so the New York City mayor and New York City prosecutors. They recently announced that they would no longer prosecute “theft of services” crimes – such as jumping the subway turnstile. Predictably, fare jumping has skyrocketed. Why pay if there’s no penalty for not paying?

Today’s galaxy of liberal stars is all in for fare jumping. According to the liberal whose star shines brightest – New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – fare collection (read: enforcing the law) constitutes the “criminalization of poverty.”

Welcome (back) to the dystopia of New York City in the 1980s. Those of us who traveled to New York back then remember the open-air drug market in Bryant Park behind the New York Public Library, the degenerate crime, rat and pornography-infested hellhole called Times Square, the world’s largest homeless shelter called Grand Central Terminal and the graffiti and the muggings and the murders and the general mayhem.

After 40 years of being led by Democrats, New York came within a whisker of becoming a failed city along the lines of Detroit – but on a much bigger scale. A government that cannot (or will not) control small crime clearly signals an inability (or unwillingness) to handle more serious problems. The ensuing societal chain reaction leads to chaos – such as that which engulfed New York City.

But along came Republican Mayor Rudy Giuliani in 1993. Despite intense opposition, he got it. His reforms helped turn New York into the safest big city in the world. His successor, Michael Bloomberg, stayed the course.

But, under the mayoralty of über-lefty Bill de Blasio, the libs are back in charge with predictable results – along with a glimpse of our nation’s future under any of the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls.

Paul Gleiser

Paul L. Gleiser is president of Gleiser Communications, LLC, licensee of radio stations KTBB 97.5 FM/AM600, 92.1 The Team FM & KYZS in Tyler-Longview, Texas.

You may also like...

18 Responses

  1. Rick Schwab says:

    Paul, it just seems like each month you out-do yourself! Keep up the great work!

  2. And WHAT NEXT for Bloomberg?

  3. Ron Eagleman says:

    These cities controlled by Liberals are perfect Petri dishes to predict the sad reality of the future of the United States under the leadership of any of the current Democrat(ic) candidates. How anyone with an IQ of 50 or more could ever vote for one of these uber goobers is a complete mystery. Also, decriminalizing turnstile jumping is a violation of civil rights, and those responsible for this idiotic policy should be shamed and called out for such obvious discrimination. How in the world could any self-respecting Progressive violate the human rights of seniors? It would be difficult and dangerous for us to attempt that much of a leap. I know, because I have tried!!

  4. If things are SO bad in these cities with Democrat’ mayors, why aren’t Republicans stepping-up? They’d WALTZ-into office!

    • Paul Gleiser says:

      You cannot seriously believe that Republicans would WALTZ into office in urban hellholes like St. Louis, Chicago and Baltimore. Give the Dems credit, they, with the help of the media, have so effectively brainwashed the low-income and predominantly minority citizens of these urban cesspools that logic and empirical observation have scarcely any chance at all. Couple that with the complete ineptitude of Republican leadership and you set the stage for the Democratic domination of urban centers that has served to ruin them.

      New Yorkers saw their city literally saved by a Republican mayor. What did they do? They clung to their fervently held liberal ideology while ignoring their lying eyes. That allowed them to cast their ballots for a far-left radical like Bill de Blasio.

      Donald Trump was the first Republican presidential nominee with the guts to even try to court minority urban voters. His question, “What do you have to lose?,” that attracted much negative reaction from Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself), was the first shot across the bow from a Republican. Trump and Republicans should continue to press the case. Eventually, they might actually make the case.

      But waltz? No way. It’ll take a long time. It’ll be a slog. It won’t be a waltz.

  5. Ron Eagleman says:

    Hey Holland, the reason these cities are Third World is because the constituents have allowed it, and have been gullible enough to believe that these Democrats are actually trying to help them. The poor educational system in these areas assures that these voters will always fall in line, so why worry about re-election? Therefore, these politicians can concentrate on issues that are more important; like fattening their wallets. Also, these citizens really do not have an alternative, as we all know that the Republicans are racists! However, as Paul opines, maybe we are finally seeing a slight movement toward Trump. If the inner city voting percentage for Conservatives ever reaches 10+%, and the Democrats have not been able to import an offset constituency, the Democratic party can sit on the sidelines and watch these cities become vibrant again. One can only hope!

    • “Only hope?”
      TAKE ACTION.
      Run a Republican reformer!
      Or is simply-complaining-about-it easier?

      • C M Solomon says:

        You dare to deflect blame onto the deplorable Republicans for not “stepping-up” in order to fix the despicable plight of New Yorkers as THEY continue to follow the Cult-like Democrat (Jackass) Party’s destructive policies. You have the audacity to condemn Republicans for not running a reformer to TAKE ACTION instead of “complaining” about the failed Democrat rule of these squalid cities. All YOU do is COMPLAIN about Paul’s correct analyses of Democrat ruination of almost every institution that has been infested by your buddies, the Socialists and Marxists through One Party rule.

        When are you going to acknowledge the depravity of your Party and YOU TAKE ACTION to reform your own territory? Do you accept Paul’s analysis of New York’s problems as stated? If not, why not. Why don’t YOU offer “brilliant” solutions instead of ALWAYS placing the blame on someone else, in a weak attempt to escape accountability?

        Until ACCOUNTABILITY is accepted by the Democrat (Socialist) Cultists, the brain-washed VICTIMS of all of the Democrat failed policies will surely continue to sink further into the abyss of the Democrat dystopian cultures (cities and states) ruled by would-be tyrants such as Bill de Blasio.

  6. Ron Eagleman says:

    “Hope springs eternal in every human breast”. But you are correct, optimism is not enough; every concerned citizen should support those who are willing to put the conservative message into action. Those who are blind or unwilling to see how the fabric of our country is being torn apart by these radicals are unwittingly driving the getaway car. My actions are translated into campaign support for those who have the energy and the message; heck, I cannot even jump over the turnstiles to get a free ride!! Think about this in a moment of concern for our children and grandchildren…….these entitlement seekers, campus safe spacers, Socialist indoctrinated students, ANTIFA sympathizers, and the offspring of the 60’s hippies and draft dodgers could soon be running this country. How is that for optimism?

  7. Ron Eagleman says:

    Sorry, but some of Holland’s comments are just too profound for a response. His insightful posts make me wonder if he is not a product of a similar Democratic stronghold that Paul was describing in his original opinion piece. If so, it would explain a lot!

    • You have nothing to be sorry about (in this context).
      :)

      And since you asked: MY first presidential vote was FOR George McGovern IN Massachusetts IN 1972.

      As the Watergate plot thickened, bumperstickers were everywhere across The Commonwealth: “Don’t blame me. I’m from Massachusetts.”

  8. Ron Eagleman says:

    A refugee from Massachusetts? That really explains a lot! Open arms from Texans, but PLEASE, leave your politics behind. I know that you were really pleased with your first presidential candidate; he set a record for being on the wrong end of one of the greatest landslides in our history. I think that he enjoyed the support of you and 4 other like-minded individuals.

    • RE “leave your politics behind.”

      Unless I misunderstand Paul’s intent, “You Tell Me” seems to INVITE readers’/listeners’ views.

      • Paul Gleiser says:

        You correctly understand my intent vis. a. vis. this forum. I am guessing that Mr. Eageleman is referring to the blue state expats who are flooding into Texas — arguably the most successful state in the Union — in order to escape the consequences of their failed blue state policies. Yet those expats inexplicably vote for the very same policies and types of candidates who ruined their native states.

        That we definitely don’t want here in the Lone Star State.

  9. Ron Eagleman says:

    Paul understands my intent; which is certainly not to hinder your freedom of speech. Progressives are the ones who want to prevent speech that is not acceptable to them. To clarify my point: It may not be true in your case, but there are many people who move to Texas for more economic freedom and opportunity, and yet they still advocate and vote for the very policies that they were escaping. Other than for generational loyalty to a party (which no longer exists), it doesn’t make sense to me.

Leave a Reply

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