We were doing it before we had a name for it

One Kimber VanRy was ticketed to the tune of $25 for sipping a beer on his stoop (not a party, not a nuisance, just sitting out there quietly enjoying a beer in the great urban out-of-doors).

Clyde Haberman reports on the long-term outcome of that event while simultaneously showing us how serious journalism is done:

[VanRy was sitting on] the short stoop of the four-story co-op building on Sterling Place in Prospect Heights, Brooklyn, in which he owns an apartment. The stoop is set well back from the curb, but does not lie behind a gate, as some other stoops on that block do.

There Mr. VanRy sat, on what was private property — minding his own business, working his BlackBerry and nursing a beer. For the curious, it was a 12-ounce bottle of Sierra Nevada.

Twist top or crown cap?

Anywho:

Last week, a judge tossed out the case on a technicality. The matter had dragged on too long, he said.

For Mr. VanRy, the victory was less than satisfying. Larger questions about stoop sitting and sipping were not addressed.

Agreed.

I can only assume editors cut out the explanation of Mr. VanRy's fucked up last name capitalization schema. Perhaps he's big into R (or perl, perhaps) and wanted his name to reflect a delightful air of utterly random and insanity-making camel-casing conventions. Haberman does mention:

Neighbors drinking beer on their front steps get these “quality of life” summonses, but not people sipping wine at New York Philharmonic concerts in Central Park or knocking back frozen daiquiris at summer movie screenings in Bryant Park.

Rest assured, these people will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Insect Authority and 9/11

Has there been any greater boon to / more effective accelerant thrown upon the eternal flame of Insect Authority than that of the pervasive fear, uncertainty, and doubt that 9.11 implanted and Bush et al. carefully husbanded and amplified? Today's example comes from the New York Times, where a fellow was (legally) photographing the subway in action at a particularly godforsaken stop somewhere in the Bronx:

“[...]According to the rules of conduct, we are allowed to take pictures,’ ” Mr. Taylor said. “I showed him the rules — they’re bookmarked on my BlackBerry.”

Rule 1050.9 (c) of the state code says, “Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used.”

Then a police sergeant arrived.

“He tells me that their rules and the transit rules are different,” Mr. Taylor said. “I tell him, ‘If you feel I’m wrong, give me a summons and I’ll see everyone in court.’ The sergeant told them to arrest me.”

[...I've found the quickest way to an arrest is pointing out a policeman's error in this way; but anyway...]

[Taylor] got a batch of summonses.

The first was for “taking photos from the s/b plat of incoming outgoing trains without authority to do so,” abbreviating “southbound platform.” It cited Rule 1050.9 (c).

The second was for disorderly conduct, which consisted of addressing the officers in an “unreasonable voice.”

And the third was for “impeding traffic” — on a platform that is about 10,000 square feet. “I don’t know if you can impede traffic with 15 people per hour coming on the station,” Mr. Taylor said.

(Emphasis added.)

So, the man here is illegally arrested and held, charged with a bunch of nonsense entirely designed to prevent him from ever asking a question again (nothing here is meant to see to the public safety or even the grudging enforcement of some law that everyone involved in the situation might agree is outdated or silly; this is pure intimidation, and was premeditated intimidation at that: guy asks too many questions, guy goes to jail and subsequently has to appear in court as many times as possible. That all these charges will likely be dropped is immaterial to the officer; the entire punishment is the combination of intimidation and inconvenience.).
And just how many people get arrested for "impeding traffic" or some variant of same every year? Millions? I personally know several in vaguely similar circumstances: police can't actually charge them with anything, and the soon-to-be-arrested know it and have used that knowledge against The Authorities, so they're going downtown for, uh, impeding traffic! Six weeks later, the charge is dropped by a dumbfounded judge, probably at a cost not too far off the $1,500/minute quoted in the piece.

This same pattern extends everywhere, it would seem. I've been questioned by security for looking at a building. From the outside (but on their property, by God, which, to their mind, more than likely extends several feet into the street as well). It seems no structure is sufficiently innocuous to avoid Fort Knox level security measures and potential deportation to Gunatanamo for anyone so much as even slightly stepping out of line. Only when we all decide to start fighting each and every one of these incidents like Mr. Taylor did here will we ever make any progress.

This has all happened before...

Chart of the day (from here). So then, 1929 it is. I guess we can all look forward to 2028 when things really get going again...

On the plus side, the article closes with this tidbit:

It is going to be a buying opportunity of the century.

At least we've got that going for us. That and the long awaited chance to start stockpiling yer gold.

Decline and Fall

We can see a lot of the decline and fall of the MSM at the hands of those damnable innertube world wide web log, or "blog" startups what with their cursing and pajamas and whatnot in last night's press conference.

First, we have the Huffington Post's Stein:

"Today, Senator Patrick Leahy announced that he wants to set up a truth and reconciliation committee to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush administration. He said that before you turn the page, you have to read the page first. Do you agree with such a proposal? And are you willing to rule out right here and now any prosecution of Bush administration officials?"

Of interest for being the first non-plant blogger called on at one of these thing. Let's compare and contrast to the performance of the MSM, in this case the Washington Post's Michael Fletcher asked:

"What's your reaction to Alex Rodriguez's admission that he used steroids as a member of the Texas Rangers?"

I think we can all agree that that's pretty much exactly what anyone given one question would ask the sitting President. At least it failed to include the traditional four-paragraph lead-in. Been nice knowing you, MSM.

The Year We Make Contact

Interesting results from the folks over to Gallup. Turns out that, despite major (and continuing) assistance from the MSM, 'Merica is seeing right through this shit.

Seemingly forgetting the downright ruly 2-million person mob at their doorstep on Inauguration Day, seemingly forgetting that, in many cases, Obama carried their own districts by large, double-digit figures, seemingly forgetting that, you know, the economy is in freefall and that most everyone in America places blame squarely at the doorstep of the GOP; most of all, seemingly forgetting 2010.