This blunder from Down Under was a dark moment for canine rights:
An Adelaide restaurant that refused a blind man entry because a waiter thought his guide dog was "gay" has been ordered to apologise and pay compensation.
Ian Jolly was told he could not take guide dog Nudge into the Thai Spice last May because a member of staff objected, The Sunday Mail reported.
The restaurant's owners said a misunderstanding had arisen between Jolly's female companion and a waiter who understood the woman "to be saying she wanted to bring a gay dog into the restaurant".
"The staff genuinely believed that Nudge was an ordinary pet dog which had been desexed to become a gay dog," the owners said in a statement to South Australia's Equal Opportunity Tribunal.
...The restaurant, which displays a "guide dogs welcome" sign, refused to comment to the newspaper and was unavailable to respond on Sunday.
I infer that neither gay nor straight dogs are welcome inside the restaurant unless they are employed as guide dogs. This was less an assault on gay rights than it was an attack on the English language and common sense.
Sort of related, there's a new book out about a guy who had sex with a dolphin. Seriously. LUN is his blog and his biography. I feel sorry for the guy. His parents were libs who believed in the wacky orgone theory, leading to his being molested by a therapist. Anyway, I suspect that interspecies sex will be the next big liberation front.
Posted by: peter | April 26, 2010 at 06:24 AM
Maybe by the time the New York Yankees visit Obama in the White House, dum-dum can be prepped enough to know the name of one White Sox player. LUN
Posted by: peter | April 26, 2010 at 06:44 AM
Barney Frank's dog, Petey, asked the local kennel if he could bring in his guide congressman.
Posted by: Shecky O'toole | April 26, 2010 at 07:23 AM
OK, Chaco, que cook-up Chris?
================
Posted by: Wot's Up, Matie? | April 26, 2010 at 08:08 AM
Well they voted for Rudd, that can't begin to explain the confusion therein this story, file it under too good to check
Posted by: nathan hale | April 26, 2010 at 08:12 AM
In the unrelated column, well maybe not, They put the brain slug back into Dana Milbank, poor fellow is starving now, in the LUN
Posted by: nathan hale | April 26, 2010 at 08:17 AM
I suspect that if any of the restaurant people had been identified by name we would readily conclude that English was their second or third language. But we can also assume that that will provide them no defense at all when the Australian Hurt Feelings Authority investigates.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 26, 2010 at 08:18 AM
Peter, That is what the Bible warns of in Leviticus 18:19-25. The order of warnings is:
*adultery
*child sacrifice
*homosexuality
*beastiality
vs. 24 and 25 tell of God's judgment on those nations that go down this road. I think our child sacrifice is abortion.
These sins are in every nation, but there is a line crossed when they become widespread, accepted, and promoted.
Wasn't there already a film made about beastiality a few years ago? ... shown at some film festival?...because we all need to understand right? The phrase "playing with fire" comes to mind.
Posted by: Janet | April 26, 2010 at 08:29 AM
Shameless self promotion:
Goldman Sachs Didn’t Rob Me, Chris Dodd Did!
Posted by: Jane | April 26, 2010 at 08:29 AM
This column by Ignatius, inadvertently raises
a question, I've had in the back of my mind
why did the chief of the NCS resign, in the LUN
Posted by: nathan hale | April 26, 2010 at 08:31 AM
I meann't why didn't he, also in the LUN, which fits the same overall theme
Posted by: nathan hale | April 26, 2010 at 08:56 AM
LUN is a nice summary from NRO on the 4 primary problems with the Dodd bill.
I know at least 41 people who need to memorize it and get ready to push beyond the sham "Protect the consumer" and "punish Wall Street" rhetoric.
Posted by: rse | April 26, 2010 at 09:18 AM
Minus 12 at Raz.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 26, 2010 at 09:32 AM
DoT, your 11:06PM on the other thread was much appreciated. Will not work...but it was appreciated by civilized readers the world over nonetheless.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 26, 2010 at 09:32 AM
Note to non-Niven readers: Sex between different species= rishathra
Posted by: Lord Whorfin says Obama still sucks | April 26, 2010 at 09:35 AM
Makes my wish I still had a copy of a greeting card my father would hand out to new neighbors (or at least we thought he did).
The card depicted a very long wiener dog wrapped so far around a tree trunk, he was able to sniff his own rearend.
The dog had a very puzzled look on his face with a question mark drawn above his head.
When you opened the card the caption said:
"I thought I knew every asshole in this neighborhood!!"
This restaurant deserves a Hallmark Moment.
Bryan.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 26, 2010 at 09:44 AM
When Obama said the new Arizona law enforcement procedures were "irresposible"
it reminded me of the Cambridge Police acting stupidly....
Posted by: BB Key | April 26, 2010 at 09:44 AM
The Big Government site today has an Article on those whom made out like bandits. The worse part of the story is the plan to put one of them in charge.
"The media seems barely to have noticed that CRL’s puppet, Eric Stein, is now leading the Obama administration’s push to Sovietize the American banking system."
Posted by: Pagar | April 26, 2010 at 09:44 AM
Makes my wish I still had a copy of a greeting card my father would hand out to new neighbors (or at least we thought he did).
The card depicted a very long wiener dog wrapped so far around a tree trunk, he was able to sniff his own rearend.
The dog had a very puzzled look on his face with a question mark drawn above his head.
When you opened the card the caption said:
"I thought I knew every asshole in this neighborhood!!"
This restaurant deserves a Hallmark Moment.
Bryan.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 26, 2010 at 09:46 AM
Makes me wish I...
Sorry, just switched to decaf.
Bryan.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 26, 2010 at 10:05 AM
OL & DoT-
Re: 11:06 PM from yesterday
I was the target of that pixel smear and bit on the hook, sorry. I'm working on "it".
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | April 26, 2010 at 10:08 AM
OL, I'm doing an article on the EPA lead renovation rules. If you have any thoughts please email me or call.
DoT--warming the cockles of my heart with the ras figures yet again.Let's hope fraud and Rep missteps don't wreck this fine trend. And I agree with OL about last night's comments.
If it gets worse, I will start posting the dictionary with random sections bolded to show my contempt for the intelligence of the readers.
Posted by: Clarice | April 26, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Via Instapundit
This great article by O'Rourke
http://weeklystandard.com/articles/plague-‘a’-students
Posted by: Clarice | April 26, 2010 at 10:17 AM
rse, thanks for the NRO link. Does anyone know if the current version of the bill still contains the broad definition of targeted firms (those important to our economy), or whether it is now narrowed to "just" financial firms?
All recent stories, including this in NRO, seem to refer just to finance firms. But if it is the original broader net, them I wonder why none of the critics have ranted about that?
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 26, 2010 at 10:22 AM
How about those violent angry protesters in AZ?.... er, I mean those peaceful patriots speaking truth to power..heh
Posted by: scott | April 26, 2010 at 10:33 AM
OL,
I'm interested whether the proposed new definition of "qualified investors" and the requirement of SEC approval of even seed funding are still in it. Those wicked start-ups pose a grave systemic risk to the economy, don't you know.
Posted by: DrJ | April 26, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I agree with others of you about DoT's post last night. Thanks, Danube.
I thought your question at the end of the comment was excellent.
Alas, I suppose we will all have to continue with the SOB method of reading comments.
Posted by: centralcal | April 26, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I thought your question at the end of the comment was excellent.
The question, of course, was: Are you ill?
I have to say I was touched by DoT's civilized concern for the well being of one whom he joshingly likes to refer to as an "asshole." But I assure one and all, I'm in the best of health as well as the best of spirits.
Posted by: anduril | April 26, 2010 at 11:00 AM
From a land that has had EPA type laws for 50 Years.
"HAVANA, Cuba, Oct. 15 (www.cubanet.org) – The wife of Dr. Darsi Ferrer says her husband has been illegally held at the Valle Grande prison in Havana for buying a sack of cement."
You'll have to scroll down to see that particular entry, but it illustrates what the Obama Ams hopes to bring to America with it's EPA rules: The ability to jail any American.
Posted by: Pagar | April 26, 2010 at 11:10 AM
BTW, Melinda, I found "This Time Is Different" at my local library. Looks interesting.
Posted by: anduril | April 26, 2010 at 11:13 AM
I'm glad you found it, anduril. Now someone else, besides me, will lose sleep reading it.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | April 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM
Here's a good William Tucker AmSpec piece on energy policy with an excellent list of little known tid bits. The book he reviews looks maybe worth buying.
While I dislike anduril's pointless provocations and have been on the receiving end of them and wish he would greatly suppress his cut and paste fetish, he does often provide links I wouldn't otherwise see and does cause me to think a little harder than otherwise with his POV, which is often from an angle I don't see everywhere. It's usually possible after the first few words to tell if he's acting reasonably or off on one of his wild hairs.
A little humility and the ability to disagree without being disagreeable however could be added to his "to do" list with little ill effect.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 26, 2010 at 11:23 AM
My two cents, on the matter is of course, Goldman operated 'stupidly' to use a turn
of phrase, but neither the SEC or the Obama
administration,( Venn diagram, anyone) really
has the standing to be so high and mighty about it. They and other players, created
the conditions for one scam, and then set up the framework for a whole other, with this
financial regulatory response, that in Inigo
Montoya's words "doesn't mean what you think it does"
Posted by: nathan hale | April 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM
A little humility ... however could be added to his "to do" list with little ill effect.
C'mon, Iggy--how much more humble could my acknowledgment the other day of "a distinct touch" have been? However, thanks for your other remarks, which encapsulate what I attempt to contribute...except for the one about "pointless provocations," which I didn't understand and thought was, uh...
Posted by: anduril | April 26, 2010 at 11:47 AM
Com'on anduril. We all know passive aggressive when we see it;>)
Posted by: Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet | April 26, 2010 at 12:19 PM
DrJ...there was a lot of press in DC last week about how chilling this bill will be on Angel Investors, so I suspect your fears are well grounded.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 26, 2010 at 12:35 PM
--C'mon, Iggy--how much more humble could my acknowledgment the other day of "a distinct touch" have been?--
Humility is better measured in reactions to subtle disagreements than acknowledging a black and white error.
--except for the one about "pointless provocations," which I didn't understand and thought was, uh...--
You start off a not inconsiderable number of posts with "for those of you who aren't too hopelessly stupid to understand my point" type of phrases. Presumably you don't understand them to be pointlessly provocative in order to continue making them and then feign victimhood, as above.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM
OL,
According to what I've read, about 97% of putative Angel Investors would not qualify under the revised definition of Qualified Investor. And good God, what does the SEC have to do with start-ups? The stock is not public!
Posted by: DrJ | April 26, 2010 at 12:55 PM
There was a news story in Silver Springs, Maryland a number of years ago about a man who was arrested by game wardens for animal cruelty because he was having sex with a raccoon. They could not charge him with beastiality because there is no such statute in Maryland. He pled not guilty to the charge explaining," Your honor it wasn't animal cruelty because the raccoon was dead when I found it".
Posted by: Davey | April 26, 2010 at 01:05 PM
Nor does it ever involve financing from banks or other finacial insitutions, nor private money from individuals unable to suffer the loss of 100% of their investments. That always has been the standard.
Always quick to look for evil intent, I suspect the same people who want to plug the flow of private money to charitable causes so that those can be funded "as appropriate" by government sources (like Europe), and just as you well know so much R&D money already flows through NCF, NIH and DARPA, and just as they now control the flow of "startup money" in the form of college loans to students, and just as they now have the authority to control the money strings in most medicals schools,...this gratuitous attack on angel investors is just a grab at one more area of individual liberty - both that of the startup guys (you), and private investors.
As often is the case, much of this is easy to move offshore.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 26, 2010 at 01:26 PM
We all know passive aggressive when we see it
LOL. Sorry Jim, my father was a professor of clinical psychology. Amateurs like you don't faze me at all.
Posted by: anduril | April 26, 2010 at 01:37 PM
" there's a new book out about a guy who had sex with a dolphin."
Peter,
This trip I read this excellent John Keay history book, ">http://www.amazon.com/India-Discovered-Recovery-Lost-Civilization/dp/0007123000/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272303803&sr=8-1"> India Discovered.
It was a fine history of how the British were able to discover the history of India starting about 1750 to 1820 or so. Part of it mentioned an early English traveler who believed the south east coastal Hindu's regularly engaged in sex with dolphins, but it seems to have been dismissed by later and better explorers as myth. Now after your comment, who the heck knows.
Posted by: daddy | April 26, 2010 at 01:49 PM
As often is the case, much of this is easy to move offshore.
The money will move. It is hard for the start-ups, particularly if they have used government grants. There is a clause that you have to practice any results of their funding in the US, or else repay the grant.
Posted by: DrJ | April 26, 2010 at 01:51 PM
1750 to 1920 or so. grrrr.
Posted by: daddy | April 26, 2010 at 02:00 PM
Speaking of moving the money, there was an Interesting story in either the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times today about the increasing number of ex-pat US citizens abroad resigning their citizenship due to increasing US Tax burdens. Sorry I can't remember which paper it was in.
Posted by: daddy | April 26, 2010 at 02:05 PM
DrJ it was the money I was thinking about. You will be working away in the US (probably not CA when you settle on a better state), but your investor will be offshore.
Posted by: Old Lurker | April 26, 2010 at 02:05 PM
Daddy,
There was a very funny Carl Hiaasen novel that ended with a bad guy in a pool with a dolphin.
Hiaasen's an environmentalist, but his novels always made me laugh out loud.
Posted by: peter | April 26, 2010 at 02:23 PM
OL,
Maybe. That much of the syndication money will come from overseas I think will happen. I do wonder whether the lead investors will go too. They tend to like being close to their portfolio companies.
Posted by: DrJ | April 26, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Peter and Daddy,
As if you asked, but LUN is the ultimate insider's guide to Sex with Dolphins.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | April 26, 2010 at 02:43 PM
Peter,
Don't know that author but if you've a link I'll do a Library run.
Pliny the Roman Natural History guy had a tale about dolphin love that Plutarch wrote up this way:
"And the goodwill and friendship of the dolphin for p475 the lad of Iasus407 was thought by reason of its greatness to be true love. For it used to swim and play with him during the day, allowing itself to be touched; and when the boy mounted upon its back, it was not reluctant, but used to carry him with pleasure wherever he directed it to go, while all the inhabitants of Iasus flocked to the shore each time this happened. Once a violent storm of rain and hail occurred and the boy slipped off and was drowned. FThe dolphin took the body and threw both it and itself together on the land and would not leave until it too had died, thinking it right to share a death for which it imagined that it shared the responsibility. And in memory of this calamity the inhabitants of Iasus have minted their coins with the figure of a boy riding a dolphin."
But of course Plutarch was a Priest in Delphi, and Delphi was sacred to Apollo,because he changed himself into a Dolphin and leaped aboard a Cretan ship, and then revealed themselves to them and had them erect a Temple at a place he showed them which he called Delphi. So Plutarch's probably a bit biased toward dolphins in the long run, and the guys who believe that stuff must be cretans:)
Posted by: daddy | April 26, 2010 at 02:56 PM
Humility is better measured in reactions to subtle disagreements than acknowledging a black and white error.
A favorite story of mine, which I've used several times here, is that of Emmanuel Lasker the great chess master who, when asked what he'd learned from a lifetime in chess replied: People don't want to know the truth. Now, ultimate truth in chess is black and white (checkmate), yet Lasker was saying that in his considerable experience people very commonly seek desperately to deny black and white truths. I suggest that you're mistaking humility for something rather different. What you're really saying is that you think I'm too sure of myself too often, and you're welcome to make that point whenever you like.
You start off a not inconsiderable number of posts with "for those of you who aren't too hopelessly stupid to understand my point" type of phrases. Presumably you don't understand them to be pointlessly provocative in order to continue making them and then feign victimhood, as above.
Certainly I've used those types of phrases. I use that approach in reaction to what I consider aggressive incomprehension. I consider it to be pointedly provocative.
As for feigning victimhood, it strikes me that you're playing a heads I win tails you lose type of game. It's a ploy that I never go for and which I would have thought would be beneath you.
All that said, I'm sorry you took my remarks the way you apparently did. I was trying to communicate in what I hoped would be a slightly jocular way and that didn't come across in writing. Anyway, thanks again for your original remarks.
Posted by: anduril | April 26, 2010 at 03:00 PM
Well JiB,
My wife always told me she thought Flipper was hot!
Posted by: daddy | April 26, 2010 at 03:04 PM
I bet gray latex becomes you, daddy!
Posted by: Frau Argwohn am Montag | April 26, 2010 at 08:29 PM
God grief, my IT connection is shot all afternoon and when it returns it's to daddy in a latex dolphin get up. ARGH@@@@@@@@
Posted by: Clarice | April 26, 2010 at 09:08 PM
American GI is wounded in the South Pacific during WWII, and evacuated to Australia. He wakes up the next day in hospital to the angelic sight of a nursing sister leaning over him. He asks, "Did they bring me here to die?" She replies cheerfully, "No, mate, they brought you here yesterday."
Posted by: cathyf | April 26, 2010 at 10:43 PM
Now that's funny right there!
Posted by: scott | April 26, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Heh, cathy. Chaco was looking for you the other day. He was interested in getting you to write for PJM.
If yo need his addy whistle
Posted by: Clarice | April 26, 2010 at 11:10 PM
The link is bogus, and this is probably just one of a series of jokes that play on the fact that long A in an Australian accent sounds exactly the same as long I in an American accent. In the original version, the blind person was probably an American tourist, or else the story took place in America but the waiter was Australian. Another joke in the same series has an Australian visitor inform his American relatives that "I've come today", which they hear as "to die", with amusing consequences. And then there's "race"/"rice", "lace"/"lice", etc.
Posted by: Milhouse | April 27, 2010 at 02:42 PM