"N" word no-no and a dog

I'm on a bit of a state and local government kick, so bear with me.

First, found this article on Foxnews.com (I'm waiting for my high-five Mr. Malone) about a small town, Brazoria, Mayor in Texas named Ken Corley who wants to make using the "n" word a $500 fine, but only if its used in "an offensive fashion." And what's the threshold for "offensive?"

Under the proposed Brazoria ordinance, users of the N-word would be fined only if a complaint were filed against them, thus protecting those who think they are using the word as a term of endearment.

Hmmmmm. How does it protect those who use this horribly offensive word as a "term of endearment" if the deciding factor is someone else's feelings or interpretation? I may call Muscles for Justice a "serial rapist" and mean it with the most love, but if files a complaint I get charged. So just how was I "protected?"

I love it when unconstitutional laws are also poorly thought out and written.

Over in Washington State, State Senator Ken Jacobsen introduced a bill that would allow dogs in bars with their owners. Two things I want to point out. One, as in other posts, however silly, I like to point out and give an H-Blog Hear Hear to anyone who attempts to roll back government. While hardly a cornerstone of the Libertarian platform, or the Senator Jacobsen's motivation, allowing bar/restaurant owners to decide if they want dogs in their establishments, and allowing patrons to decide if they want to eat and drink there is a step in the right direction. Two, if this bill passes into law, dogs will be allowed in bars and restaurants, but not smokers. I'll give you, the reader, the final comment on that as we head into break.