« Prev Page 4 of 4 2 3 4 93 replies to this topic

[CaptHaddock]

kat, on 2008-07-21 02:54:57, said:

You bring up some very good points which I want to discuss.

Interested in your views.  You are not, by any chance, the Kat who lived in BKK and had a website of interviews and reports about Thailand, are you?  There was a Kat's Korner or something like that linked to the Bangkok Post when I first became interested in Thailand a few years ago.

[Old Man River]

I am not going to argue with the crime rate statistics. From my view, as a foreigner living in Bangkok, I feel safer living here than I have in several US cities (NY included). I am not saying Bangkok's crime rate is lower than NY, but it does seem that violent crimes against foreigners in Bangkok is lower than violent crimes against locals.

I have absolutely nothing to back this up as it is my perception, nothing more.

[kjameson]

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai
"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling “metrics” to measure government’s progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani’s first police chief, introduced the “Compstat” program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. “If you can’t measure something,” he likes to say, “then you cannot manage it.”"

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

[kjameson]

CaptHaddock, on 2008-07-19 04:29:32, said:

As a prosecutor, it is true that Giuliani went after the mafia.  It is also true that his father was a leg breaker for the mob.

Sorry, one last thing. Perhaps you should ignore everything I do or say as my grandfather went to prison for armed robbery.

How does what ones forbearers have done have any bearing on who we are as a person? Actually my grandfather did it because his family was hungry during the 30's depression.

[kjameson]

kjameson, on 2008-07-21 14:37:58, said:

CaptHaddock, on 2008-07-19 04:29:32, said:

As a prosecutor, it is true that Giuliani went after the mafia.  It is also true that his father was a leg breaker for the mob.

Sorry, one last thing. Perhaps you should ignore everything I do or say as my grandfather went to prison for armed robbery.

How does what ones forbearers have done have any bearing on who we are as a person? Actually my grandfather did it because his family was hungry during the 30's depression.

That should be forebearers as in ancestors, not forbearer as in to control oneself when provoked. How I have two new words that NYC education system at work again

Sorry for the additional post, but no Edit button was available to me (it was an hour before I looked at the post again).

[CaptHaddock]

kjameson, on 2008-07-21 15:23:11, said:

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai
"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling "metrics" to measure government's progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani's first police chief, introduced the "Compstat" program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. "If you can't measure something," he likes to say, "then you cannot manage it.""

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

Compstat was, and is, an excellent achievement.  It was the contribution of William Bratton between 1994 and 1996 when Giuliani fired him.  Why did Giuliani fire his outstanding chief of police?  Because Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine.

[girlx]

interesting posts kat and cpt haddock... keep them coming!

[girlx]

p.s. for those worried about danger in their homes, check out the self defense table on this page

[kat]

CaptHaddock, on 2008-07-21 18:25:28, said:

kjameson, on 2008-07-21 15:23:11, said:

My basis for giving credit to Giuliani is based on information like this:

New York Times 09 September 2007, written by Matt Bai
"In New York, Giuliani started a practice — later imitated by mayors around the country — of instilling "metrics" to measure government's progress. The most notable of these was in policing, where William Bratton, Giuliani's first police chief, introduced the "Compstat" program, under which the city was divided by police precinct and detailed reports were compiled outlining the incidence of crime in each of those precincts. Based on these reports, the department could analyze where exactly crime was a problem and why, and depending on the likely causes, the police could then assign more or specialized units to specific blocks and neighborhoods. Compstat was one of the shining government successes of its era, and Giuliani expanded the principle to other city departments. "If you can't measure something," he likes to say, "then you cannot manage it.""

I cannot disagree with Kat and CaptHaddock that he may have been lucky in his timing, and I'm sure he took credit for improvements that were not his. You will have to admit while he was mayor things improved, so maybe, just maybe it was due to the fact that as a good manager he put the right people in the right places and good things happened. You don't always have to be a nice person to be a good manager.

Just to be clear about this he would not get my vote for president.

But I do thank you for adding to my word knowledge, I did have to look up "paeans".

This is a Thailand forum so debates about former Mayors of US cities isn't really appropriate so I'll end my part in it here.

Compstat was, and is, an excellent achievement.  It was the contribution of William Bratton between 1994 and 1996 when Giuliani fired him.  Why did Giuliani fire his outstanding chief of police?  Because Bratton, not Giuliani, was featured on the cover of Time magazine.

Very good point, Haddock.  But my previous point about the crack cocaine epidemic as the significant factor in falling crime stats in the early 90s still stands.  I liked your points about history, but there are many other facets of urban history and  migration that are equally significant, especially after the reconstruction period.  I don't think we are in disagreement, but I know Levitt's book just simply doesn't cover all of the factors well.

[dingdongrb]

morrobay, on 2008-07-19 11:30:16, said:

I lived in Bangkok 2 years, Samson soi 3 and NYC 5 years , 20th & 8th ave. Manhattan.
The most dangerous thing in Bangkok is crossing the street. In my opinion this alone makes Bangkok more dangerous than NYC overall. That is, comparing crime + traffic hazards in Bangkok with same in NYC.

I agree, when crossing a street, NYC is safer...

When walking under a construction crane, BKK is safer...

[NoSpeakIt]

i dont know if this has been mentioned yet, but its basically been proven that it is not RG who solved NY's crime problem, it was the legalization of abortion. checkout the book freakonomics if you dont believe me.

[200mphplus]

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

[Groongthep]

200mphplus, on 2008-07-30 22:06:59, said:

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

[200mphplus]

Groongthep, on 2008-07-31 13:22:53, said:

200mphplus, on 2008-07-30 22:06:59, said:

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

Umm no actually you are wrong. Harlem and Brooklyn  are considered there own city, such as harlem and brooklyn. thats why NYC is an ISLAND where brooklyn is south of the ISLAND and Harlem is in the NORTH. Just to set you straight. I lived there almost all my life. and BANGKOK is not safe , esp for foreign women. I have experienced much unsafe things here already. where in NY, i never have. So please get your facts stragiht.

[Groongthep]

200mphplus, on 2008-07-30 23:57:56, said:

Groongthep, on 2008-07-31 13:22:53, said:

200mphplus, on 2008-07-30 22:06:59, said:

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

Umm no actually you are wrong. Harlem and Brooklyn  are considered there own city, such as harlem and brooklyn. thats why NYC is an ISLAND where brooklyn is south of the ISLAND and Harlem is in the NORTH. Just to set you straight. I lived there almost all my life. and BANGKOK is not safe , esp for foreign women. I have experienced much unsafe things here already. where in NY, i never have. So please get your facts stragiht.

Nonsense. New York City comprises five boroughs: The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. Harlem is on the north side of Manhattan. Source: The official government of New York City website nyc.gov

[girlx]

i lived in brooklyn for a year and i would walk through most of it at night with no probs.

there are areas of NY (East NY etc.) you want to be careful in, but most people have no reason to go into them.

in BKK though, i feel like something can pop up anywhere you are, and you are less likely to see it coming as it is a different culture so you may not recognize danger when it is there.

[girlx]

guess it's down to experience then, because i find quite a lot of bangkokians to be rude assholes and NYers overall pretty nice, plus I have had several probs in BKK and none in NY!

[girlx]

totally disagree, i love brooklyn

[calibanjr.]

Groongthep, on 2008-07-31 14:13:46, said:

200mphplus, on 2008-07-30 23:57:56, said:

Groongthep, on 2008-07-31 13:22:53, said:

200mphplus, on 2008-07-30 22:06:59, said:

I am a girl, 21, and have lived in NYC on and off for about 7 years, and have lived here in BKK for one, and NYC BY FAR is much safer then BKK.. It is so much cleaner, safer, etc. You can go out at night late as you want (alone as agirl) and you are safe. here in bkk, no way, not safe at all. I mean you dont go out in harlem or brooklyn like that, but in NYC its much safer then BKK.

Last time I looked Brooklyn and Harlem were still parts of NYC. Here in Bangkok would you walk alone through Khlong Toei at night?

Umm no actually you are wrong. Harlem and Brooklyn  are considered there own city, such as harlem and brooklyn. thats why NYC is an ISLAND where brooklyn is south of the ISLAND and Harlem is in the NORTH. Just to set you straight. I lived there almost all my life. and BANGKOK is not safe , esp for foreign women. I have experienced much unsafe things here already. where in NY, i never have. So please get your facts stragiht.

Nonsense. New York City comprises five boroughs: The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, and Staten Island. Harlem is on the north side of Manhattan. Source: The official government of New York City website nyc.gov

I don't like to get pissy, but 200mphplus is starting to back up all those stereotypes about Americans being crappy at geography, especially about  a place where one  has ostensibly lived "almost their whole life"  You don't know that groongthep's right?  You don't actually know that there are 5 boroughs, and that Harlem is actually IN Manhattan?  I knew all this as a teenager from Boston before I'd ever been there! Maybe because I hated the Yankees and it's good to "know thine enemy"  

Actually to the point, this highlights one strong aspect of NYC, the neighborhoods.  I lived in Park Slope (Brooklyn) in '92-'94 and it was a bit run-down, could be dangerous now and then, but up-and-coming.  Near Prospect Park (Brooklyn's sort of Central Park stand-in), so it's nice, but my girlfriend would not go jogging around that park alone after dark.  Park Slope is now unaffordable for anybody (including me) without SERIOUS money, unless you luck out with a rent-control joint, which people guard like family jewels.  There are SO MANY neighborhoods in Brooklyn alone, you can't generalize about Brooklyn's like this, etc.  So for me, I don't have enough experience in BKK, lived there for 2 years, and its many areas, but there are places in NYC you (and the locals) sure don''t want to go (e.g., Brownsville, where Mike Tyson's from) after dark (or during the day, if you're unlucky) , and places that are pretty safe round the clock (Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Williamsburg, none of which I could afford to move back to.)

Even though I'm from Boston, I loved Brooklyn, interesting people from everywhere, and more importantly, food    from everywhere!

Edited by calibanjr., 2008-07-31 17:39:27.