Readers who live in dirty, crime-ridden, broken but expensive American city -- all Democrat-controlled, by the way -- may be wondering if there is somewhere better to which they can move. The answer is yes, but not in the Excited States of America, where peaceful and prosperous, Republican-controlled cities are few and far between.
The Economist Intelligence Unit has just published its index of the world's most liveable (and unliveable) cities. Not one American city made it into the Top 10. The could-be-worse news for Crooked Joe Biden is that not even San Francisco or Portland sank into the 10 worst. Here's the Economist map. I know it's a bit hard to read, so I'll elucidate [and magnify -- thank you! Ed.) in my comments follow.
The best city in the world in which to live is... wait for it... Vienna, which the EIU scores at 98.4 out of a possible 100. I note that both these cities are the capitals of countries which put up walls of dykes and sandbags to divert the tsunami of "refugees", asylum-seekers and other riff-raff which has swept across Europe over the last decade.
The Danes, in particular, have been sticking to their guns [made from Lego kits? Ed.] about keeping Denmark for the Danes. See "New Danish law: refugees will no longer become immigrants", WWW 23/2/19. No wonder they're the happiest people in the world!
Third and fourth on the index of liveable cities are Melbourne and Sydney, in the wonderful land of Oz. Auckland, New Zealand, is in 10th spot. If you want to get away from it all/get away from them all -- you know what/who I mean -- the Antipodes is a good bet. Australia sends all the boat people and other undesirables to desolate islands off its north coast. New Zealand had a couple of years of wokeism under former Jacinta Ardern, the pinko feminist prime minister, but has gone back to a peaceful slumber.
No fewer than three Canadian cities make the list: Vancouver in 5th spot, Calgary tied for 7th, and Toronto behind the 8-ball. I'll give you Calgary. Poor Len Canayen says they'd rank higher if they had a better hockey team.
But the inclusion of Vancouver surprises me. I think it must have ranked so high because of the location between the seashore and the mountains. You can drive an hour east or west and go water-skiing or snow-skiing. As for the city itself, all that can be said is that it looks great in comparison with Seattle or Portland.
As for Toronto, my guess is that the EIU researchers haven't actually been there, and have been taken in my the relentless advertising of the Wormy Apply as "the city that works", "a world-class city", "the world's most multicultural city", yada yada yada. It's all bullshit, except for the multicultural part. Folks with pale complexions are a beleaguered minority in the "Greater Toronto Area". IMHO, Montréal is a much more liveable city than Toronto. The difference is like that between the Canadiens and the Maple Leafs. Nuff said.
What cities remain to be discusssed? Geneva is tied with Calgary for 7th. Like the Danes and Austrians, the Swiss don't welcome foreigners and aren't hopelessly woke... yet. But I've been to Geneva more than once, and find it clean to the point of sterility, expensive, and boring. But at least they speak French. I imagine Zurich (6th) to be the same except that it's German-speaking, and full of bankers rather than watch-makers and chocolatiers.
And then there's Osaka, Japan, tied with Auckland for 10th. I note that the Japanese are even more xenophobic than the Europeans, and they don't like foreigners very much either. Your chances of being allowed to live there range from slim to none, and after endless meals of suski and seawood you wouldn't want to.
About the most unliveable cities, I shall say very little beyond giving you the EIU's ranking. Four of them -- Douala (164 - 46.4 out of 100), Harare (167), Lagos (170) and Algiers (171) and Tripoli (172 - 40.1) -- are in Africa, which is all ye need to know.
I lived in Ha-ha-harare, the fun capital of Zimbabwe, for six years in the 90s. When it was known as Salisbury, the capital of Rhodesia, it was the best sub-Saharan African city outside3 of South Africa. But the roads, water and electricity forced on the poor black people by the evil colonialists are no longer functioning. That too is all ye need to know.
I was dismayed to see Kiev (aka Kyiv) in the Worst 10 list (165 - 44.0). In normal times it's a city of beauty and culture. But now it's a war zone, so what can be said except Слава Україні!
As any traveller knows, South Asia is rich in shitholes, and you can apply that word literally. It's no accident that millions of people from thatblighted sub-continent risk everything to our blighted continent. One would expect to see Mumbai (formerly Bombay) and "New" Delhi on the list, but believe it or not, there are two worse cities: Dhaka, Bangladesh (167, tied with Harare) and Karachi, Pakistan (169 - 42.5).
From World War I until its independence in 1975, New Guinea was a dependency of Australia. Even today it is largely unexplored and undeveloped, peopled by "savages" [Be careful, now. Ed.] who not very long ago wore penis sheaths and hunted heads for sport. Now they have their own country, its capital being Port Moresby (168 - 43.4 out of 100).
And now it's time for the presentation of the Economist Intelligence Unit's award for Least Liveable City in the World. May I have the envelope please? The winner is [drum roll]... Damascus, the capital of Syria, scoring 30.4 out of 100 and dead last of the 173 cities studied.
Kind of discouraging, isn't it. I'm considering Asuncion, which I hear has become quite popular with Germans fleeing the new multicultural Stepfatherland. Meanwhile, I'll just stay right here.
No comments:
Post a Comment