22-Jul-2010 (Thu) Wherein the New York Times is dumb, and the NASCARization of the web continues. Wherein the New York Times is dumb, and the NASCARization of the web continues.

You may notice that I've sprinkled a bunch of Facebook "Like" buttons all over the web site. You'll see one in the title box of this blog entry, on the flyer pages, and next to each calendar event. I guess it's a low-key way to tell your friends what events you're attending without making the commitment of actually posting about it, or something. It's kind of ugly and cluttered, but all the cool kids are doing it.

There's also a thing on the ticket checkout page that exhorts you to post about your planned attendance to Facebook and Twitter. I've seen a few people using that so far, so I guess that's working.

Meanwhile, here's a really dumb War on Fun article in the New York Times:

Patrolling Near Clubs Carries High Cost But the police argue that closing clubs will not stem the violence, or the department's mounting costs. Kitt Crenshaw, a police commander who oversees the North Beach patrols, said the burden should be shifted to club owners.

So which is it? If the closing the clubs won't stem the violence, doesn't that imply that the clubs are not the cause? And if they are not the cause, why do you want them to pay for the excessive, commerce-destroying (and, apparently, ineffective) police presence in North Beach?

Mr. Crenshaw plans to propose regulations, based on practices in other cities, that would require clubs handling crowds of 100 or more people to enlist their state-certified security guards in unprecedented police-led training, install video cameras, improve outdoor lighting and install identification card readers that would allow the police and club owners to track patrons. He said he would also like to see certain clubs pay a fee for police services.

So which is it? Are these "based on practices in other cities" or are they "unprecedented"? I think you do not know what that word means.

Forcing clubs to further invade their patrons' privacy by scanning their IDs on the way in will do nothing. If you've been following the press about the recent shootings, the common thread is that these people were not customers of the clubs! This was gang violence happening on public streets.

Then the article wraps up with the harrowing tale of a guy who was sitting on the sidewalk, and may have made a gang sign. Then the police told him that they were considering the possiblity of telling him to move along. Wow.

Isn't "sitting" illegal now, anyway?

