EUREKA!
“Police Arrest Man for Brewing Coffee While Naked”
“Police Taser 4-year-old for Possession of Sharp Barrette”
“Police Chase 500-pound Jogger”
and so forth. And we normally decline to comment.
But for some reason, this story caught our eye.
It seems that in New York City some public parks have been designated as “children only.” This includes the Rivington Playground on Manhattan's East Side, which has a small sign at the entrance warning that adults are prohibited unless they are accompanied by a child.
Seeing such a sign, we might chuckle at the obviously humorous reference to the myriad places from which children are excluded “unless accompanied by an adult.” Cute.
But not so cute in the city that never sleeps (which explains a lot):
Forty-seven-year-old Sandra Catena says she didn't see the sign when she sat down to wait for an arts festival to start. Two New York City police officers asked her if she was with a child. When she said no, they gave her a ticket that could bring a one thousand dollar fine and 90 days in jail.
Now you might complain that this is just another routinely silly story, not worth your time, and not all that amusing. And you would be right.
But what caused us to pause in this instance was the following paragraph:
The city parks department says the rule is designed to keep pedophiles out of city parks . . . .
Think about that for a moment.
Your basic predatory pedophile makes his way down the street toward the attractive sound of kiddies playing at Rivington Playground. Scary music gets louder in the background. But just as he’s about to enter, prepared to offer candy, a ride home, or avuncular advice to the unsuspecting, he is brought up short by the sign:
“NO ADULTS UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY A CHILD!”
Fearful that his absence of diminutive accompaniment will be his undoing, he is thwarted. Intimidated, abashed, chagrined, he gathers his trench coat about himself and slinks off down the street, in search of a park less perfectly protected.
We can but wonder what has taken Western Civilization so long to hit upon this device. Like all truly great ideas, it is obvious once explained, and has myriad applications:
“NO BANK ROBBERS PERMITTED”
“NO ENTRY TO TURNPIKE FOR SPEEDERS”
“DISHONEST WITNESSES MAY NOT ENTER”
“RAPISTS PROHIBITED”
“MURDERERS FORBIDDEN WITHIN CITY LIMITS”
And when contemplating the etiology if this ordinance, why do gun-control laws come to mind?
But that's just us.
[UPDATE: Visitors of all persuasions really ought also to take a look at the main page, HERE.]
Presented for your delectation by the Gentleman Farmer at 8:49 PM
Comments on "EUREKA!"
-
girlfriday said ... (7:13 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (8:27 PM) :
EUREKA!'">post a commentThis is what happens, as a friend of mine would say, when someone begins thinking and then immediately stops.
Ah, yes. The "wishing makes it so" phenomenon -- or, rather, the closely related "legislating makes it so" phenomenon. Now, clearly, passing laws may have at least some effect on human conduct. But, all to often legislators forget that their handiwork will not automatically trump all other laws of the universe. A couple of examples come to mind. The first is very second-hand and almost totally lacking in details. To wit, I recall reading that once when LBJ was president, someone brought to his attention a domestic issue that needed to be addressed. Johnson was skeptical, replying to the effect "That can't still be a problem. We already passed a law dealing with that." The second example is from my own recollection. Prior to 1966, the dear, departed Interstate Commerce Commission had both economic and safety regulatory powers with respect to motor carriers (as well as other surface transportation modes). Motor carrier safety was the responsibility of the ICC's Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. In 1966, the Congress created the Department of Transportation. In connection with this, the ICC's safety functions were transferred to DOT. As part of this reorganization, the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety was transferred from the ICC to DOT. It was still called the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety. It still had the same employees. It still administered the same laws. It still had the same budget. The only think that was different was that it had been moved from a box labeled ICC to a box labeled DOT. In 1976, upon the 10th anniversary of the creation of DOT, Congress had a study done to see how much motor carrier safety regulation had improved since 1966, when the great reform had been enacted. The result of the study was (predictably) that there had been no change whatever. Congress was outraged and wanted to know what kind of bureaucratic blundering had stymied the will of Congress.