Rough

February 23rd, 2012
By

State lawmakers have taken some grief for a bill that would allow dogs in restaurants.

Some critics sarcastically wondered whether lawmakers had anything better to do, while others snickered over the bill’s provisions, including language prohibiting dogs from relieving themselves, barking or otherwise disturbing other restaurant patrons.

Every session, a few bills come to symbolize the political downside for lawmakers — especially House and Senate leaders — who introduce bills by request as courtesies to political allies, interest groups or constituents.

House Speaker Calvin Say declined to comment on who requested the dogs-in-restaurants bill, but Gov. Neil Abercrombie — the proud owner of Kanoa, a Shetland sheepdog — was a supporter of the idea.

Most observers understood that a (BR) listed next to a bill’s sponsor meant that the legislation was introduced by request, not necessarily because the lawmaker was behind the bill.

Still, there has been confusion. Our favorite example involves former state Senate President Colleen Hanabusa, who was criticized in the news media in 2007 for a “by request” bill that would have authorized the state to purchase a private jet. Former state Rep. Jon Riki Karamatsu was actually behind the bill.

To make things crystal clear, the House clerk has now dropped the (BR) on the state Legislature’s web site in favor of (Introduced by request of another party.)

The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday deferred the dogs-in-restaurants bill.

4 Responses to “Rough”

  1. Chicken Grease:

    Check out Paul Mooney’s recent “Godfather of Comedy” offering that’s been running on HBO of late (“late” being a key word here; his stuff is hard core. And so true). The part where talks about those putting puppies before humans. Again, so true, so funny; and not just for one ethnicity, a Grease, will add, but, across the board.

    This bill is just the da”ned worst, OK? A Grease can tolerate some acts by the Left. A Grease will respect a socialist’s right to say what he or she will. But, this da-ned “dog-in-restaurants” bill is just the dumbest, the dumbest, the dumbest. Heck, yes, If for no other good reason, why in the HECK are our elected officials putting this SO SO SO important bill, with more important cr@p going on right now, why, why, why are they insisting on so blatantly catering to the desire of, let’s not mince words here, elites!?!?!? Keep this kinda cr@p in Hollyweird or wherever.

    I love blaming pile-of-ticians. But, this one, you just KNOW it’s the segment of society that want to — let’s continue to not mince expressions, here — force their love of animals down your throats (pardon the pun). News flash: we don’t WANT or NEED to see your da+n pets while we’re spending our hard-earned cash on a meal out. Except for service animals, of course. I mean what fraggin’ rich neighborhood folk are trying to influence the pile-of-ticians they know (yes, PLURAL) to shove this bill through?

    Stupid, stupid, imposing, senseless, selfish bill. Insert your favorite curse word here to the supporters of this bill: ______________heads. _____________s. __________les.


  2. Goober:

    They let chickens in any resturaunt since chickens pooh little bits and not piles of it. Most chickens end up as the main course, fried in grease.


  3. NikkiHeat:

    Yeah, as internal deadlines get close, watch the agendas and see bills “requested” by colleagues added to hearings as a “courtesy” that were initially on the committee’s radar, and some like Dogs in Restaurants may have been Fifth Floor initiatives that didn’t get the Fifth Floor support.


  4. Goober:

    Dogs in restauraunts as the main menu. Shortage of beef.


Leave a Reply