Over at Skunkpost.com (great name!), there’s an Associated Press story entitled, “Food Bloggers Give Restaurants Indigestion.” Bloggers, at least according to the story, are going into restaurants and taking pictures of their meals, thereby sometimes actually eating the meals only after they’ve grown cold, or distracting other patrons. Many restaurants, including upscale ones, have come to welcome the attention blog posts receive:

Chuck Arendt of San Francisco, who writes about food at chuckeats.com and is co-founder of MainPursuit, a travel app publisher, says he understands “no flash” rules, and agrees that people who take photos to an extreme — 20 shots of one dish — can be annoying.

He aims for two to four pictures, taken quickly. But he hesitates before going to a restaurant with a camera ban….

“People should be allowed to take photos; restaurants should not only see it as a compliment, but also a potential word-of-mouth recommendation to 20-30 people on average, and I think it’s in restaurants’ best interests to accommodate them just a bit more, better lighting for example,” Arendt said.

New York City chef Marc Murphy, owner of the restaurants Landmarc and Ditch Plains, welcomes bloggers. He recently ran a “Surfer Sunday” special at the Ditch Plains restaurant and within a day and a half a review and pictures were up on the Web.

“It just gets the word out quicker,” he says. Murphy sees blogs as introducing an egalitarian note to restaurant criticism. “The world’s changing, everybody’s got an opinion,” he said.

Chef David Chang doesn’t allow cameras at his wildly popular Momofuku Ko restaurant in New York. But he says that’s only because the intimate, 12-seater restaurant simply isn’t big enough. “It was intrusive on other guests.”

At his other restaurants, including Ma Peche, there’s more space and he doesn’t object to cameras.

I’ve yet to see this happen here in Wisconsin, but perhaps in big cities, this happens every so often. I can see how it might be disruptive in a proper restaurant. It’s not something that I would ever consider while at table. For me, a meal is for those enjoying it together, there and then.

Having said that, I did something related recently while in a trendy market in Wisconsin. While shopping for produce, I saw some interesting peppers, that I enjoy, and decided to snap a picture of them with my phone’s camera. (I don’t think this is like photographing one’s own meal, by the way; there’s a lot of bustle in a market, and a meal is a far different experience from simple shopping.)

It took only a moment for an employee of the market to notice me, though, and a supervisor quickly came by to ask, very politely, how she might be of help to me. I was prepared for that possibility, and if she had asked me to stop, I would have done so. Instead, she was more interested, I think, in why I wanted to photograph some peppers.

The market has a notably talkative supervisor of their cheeses, almost a cheese master in his enthusiasm, and I decided to adopt his approach and delivery. The supervisor who confronted me — however subtly — was soon put at ease, deciding that I was neither some sort of inspector nor irritated patron. She talked to me for a bit, about different selections in her produce section, and made a few recommendations.

I was able to keep my photos without incident.

Here, by the way, is one of the photos that I took, of delicious peppers from South Africa:

Libertarians correctly observe that a few too often rely on government when private discussion and resolution would be more effective. One finds an extreme example of an over-reliance on government in the case of Charles Dennison, aged 32, of Florida, who called 911 to complain that his mother had taken his beer. The La Crosse Tribune, carrying a Florida story, reports that

….Dennison told a deputy that his mother took his beer and he wanted her arrested. Dennison was reportedly ‘very intoxicated’ when the deputy arrived at the New Port Richey home. Dennison told the deputy that he would keep calling emergency responders if his mother wasn’t charged. He has been charged with making false 911 calls and was jailed on $150 bond. It was unclear if he had an attorney.

A thirty-two year old man who (while drunk!) obstructs an emergency line with a complaint that his mother took his beer needs more than an attorney. (The mother was apparently doing what a sensible person would — privately trying to keep alcohol away from a drunk.)

His mother, by the way, was surely right to take his beer away. I’d say she was more than merely right, but inspired, if she drank it in front of him while he was being hauled away. The story doesn’t say what happened to the beer, but I hope she found some pretzels, ordered some wings, and drank the rest of it while waiting for a locksmith to change the locks to the house.

It might have been worse, though — it might have been this rabbit….

There’s good news from nearby Edgerton, Wisconsin, as members of the city council in that small town declined to reconsider a sensible decision to retire a biting police dog from service. See, Council Rebuffs Request to Reactivate Police Dog. The original council vote was unanimous to send back a dog that twice bit people (once a police officer, once a city office worker) without provocation. Astonishingly, one member of the Edgerton City Council introduced a motion to reconsider that earlier decision, and bring the biting dog back.

I’ve written about this situation before. It speaks a great deal about the stubborn foolishness and poor priorities of a few Edgerton officials. See, On Edgerton, Wisconsin’s Police Dog, Update: On Edgerton, Wisconsin’s Police Dog (Goodbye to the Biter), and Update 2: On Edgerton, Wisconsin’s Police Dog (Return to Service?).

Last night, common sense prevailed, as no one else on the Edgerton council voted to second the motion for reconsideration. The dog’s not likely to return to service in Edgerton, if anywhere. That’s good for both people and for the dog.

Superficially, the motion for reconsideration was the product of one Edgerton alderman’s misplaced priorities. One can see more in a situation like this, though. The dog twice bit people without provocation. Whether through the fault of the dog or his handler (the police chief!), it should be plain that the city’s force was not prepared to own and properly use a police dog. That a small town’s police chief even proposed bringing the dog back (apparently persuading the alderman to propose formally a reconsideration) is truly astonishing.

The way the dog was reviewed by an outside party, when the city administrator (whose city already faces two claims for injuries from or the dog) in published remarks ‘disapproved’ that review, is a sign of disregard for authority and procedure.

These dogs are neither pets nor ornaments for an official’s pride; they’re working animals, and they’re most comfortable and effective around those who see them that way.

The injuries are the principal story in all this, but underlying it all there’s a second lesson: that some officials have such poor judgment that they can’t learn a lesson the first, or second time. No one supporting a safer community should have been arguing for the ineffective and (twice!) injurious match of dog and handler in this matter.

Update: This meeting may be moved to the Edgerton Library.

I’ve written before about a police dog in Edgerton, Wisconsin that bit a police officer, and attacked a city worker, but was removed from service by a unamoious vote of the Edgerton City Council. (The council overrode the unsound decision of the Public Safety [sic] Commission to keep the dog on duty.) For my earlier posts, see On Edgerton, Wisconsin’s Police Dog and Update: On Edgerton, Wisconsin’s Police Dog (Goodbye to the Biter)

It may not be goodbye just yet, as Edgerton alderman Ken Westby has requested reconsideration of the council vote to send the dog back. See, Edgerton might keep police dog after all.

The alderman’s remarks as published in the Gazette read not just as a parody, but worse than parody. Readers know well that I am sometimes critical of elected officials and bureaucrats.

I surely do not feel this way about most people. On the contrary, libertarians believe deeply and truly in the ability of ordinary people to decide for themselves, and in doing so, to make better decisions than self-annointed elites in government ever could. It is because libertarians are convinced of the ability of ordinary people, just like us, that we are often critical of those who interfere with the liberty and prosperity of capable, common people.

The only thing common among common people is how uncommonly capable and talented they are. They need no guidance of overbearing government.

Yet, critical as I have sometimes been, I cannot recall a public official who seemed more out of his depth than the one quoted in the Gazette.

The Dog as Martyr. This matter is about sending back a dog that twice bit without provocation or command, thereby putting police officers and citizens at risk. Remarkably — and here that’s an understatement — Edgerton’s alderman has this to say about a German Hhepherd-as-matryr:

For that, Westby blames the local news media and outraged citizens, who he said ravaged the dog’s image in print and at public meetings May 14 and May 17.

“Those nights, everybody was on a witch hunt, and the witch’s name happened to be Ash. The council got their 30 pieces of silver to hang the dog. We acted too harshly, in my mind,” Westby said.

It’s hard to sort all this out — the mixing of references, the implication that the community betrayed the dog as Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ, the reference to a witch hunt — it would be insulting if it weren’t so embarrassing, so foolish. The only thing worse than saying these things would be to believe they made any sense. It’s just an odd jumble.

Dog or Handler? Who’s to Blame? No one contends that when the dog bit a police officer, it was that officer’s fault. No one contends that when the dog attacked an office worker, it was the worker’s fault. Blame the dog, blame the handler, yet there’s still a problem.

It’s actually worse if the problem lies with the handler, as it was the Edgerton Chief of Police who handled the dog when it bit the officer worker. Edgerton would be far better off if the dog’s temperamental nature were to blame. If it’s not the dog, and the attacks were unprovoked, then it’s the handler’s fault. (“[Kennel owner] Filo said handler error is common, particularly with new handlers such as Klubertanz. “The handler’s got to learn not to have the dog running around free. He should have at least the minimum had his (office) door closed,” he said.)

The dog is neither a pet, show dog, or trophy: those lacking the judgment to see as much shouldn’t handle the dog.

Biting Dog or Human Victims? The question is what to do when a police dog keeps biting people. keeping the dog in service is probably the worst choice, as either dog or handler is unsuited to his role.

An Evaluation of the Dog. One reads that

This week, Robert Wierenga, a sheriff’s deputy and a dog handler for the Walworth County Sheriff’s Office, paid a visit to Ash at Kenlyn Kennels, making an independent evaluation of the dog?s training and demeanor, officials said.

The visit was neither solicited nor authorized by the city, [City Administrator] Flanigan said.

“I wouldn’t say it was approved. I would say it was disapproved,” she said.

Whether or not Wierenga had city clearance to work with Ash, Flanigan said Wierenga gave the city an evaluation of the dog.

“He said he thinks it’s a very nice dog and an even-tempered dog,” Flanigan said.

A freelance evaluation — without the handler — one of which the city administration diaspproved — is telling. Someone wants his way, and will try to do what he can to get it. By the way, would the Walworth County Sheriff’s Department certify the dog for service in that department, based on this evaluation of one of its handlers? Will the kennel where the dog was kept stand by the conditions of the evaluation that it, apparently, permitted on its premises?

Finally, one has this reassurance from Edgerton’s alderman and champion of the biting dog:

I’ve got a feeling you could walk that dog right up to you without a muzzle, and it wouldn’t do nothing,” Westby said.

The reconsidertion motion is scheduled for council consideration tonight, Tuesday, June 1st at the Edgerton City Hall, at 6 p.m.