Sorry I'm getting this up so late. In fact, I have a confession-- this was sitting in my hopper awaiting just such a day as this has been [having no time to research something new.]
The fact is, friends from KC are down for a 2-day 'Hi, how-ya-doin,' blow-kisses dash. I'll be off-line tomorrow, as well. So--here's something anyway. . . .
Dogs can now be allowed to accompany their owners out to dinner.
In June, 2006, Florida's Governor Jeb Bush signed a 'dining with dogs' bill. The legislation gave local governments the OK to let restaurants permit dogs to eat with their owners in outdoor dining areas [something that had been occurring informally for a long time, anyway].
The measure created a three-year pilot program after which time the state would revisit the issue to determine whether it was a good idea.
Allowing dogs to dine will be up to the local city or county, and then even if local restrictions were waived to allow it, it would still be up to the restaurant owner as to whether to participate.
Of course, I have nothing against dogs eating with their people. We’ve been sharing our meals with them at home for millenia with no discernible adverse effects. And, if people are squeamish, they can always move to a dog-free zone.
My concern is this: what MIGHT Jeb have been doing rather than assigning the research into such a bill to a subordinate? What might that subordinate have been doing other than handling this meaningless gesture?
I’ve got a few suggestions:
How about spending some time and money on Florida’s education system?
Or looking into environmental concerns?
Or making sure the voter registration system is truly fair and equal?
Or hurricane preparedness?
The list just goes on and on. . . .