Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Question of the day

Posted in:

Illinois

I really don’t like Alderman Burton Natarus. I lived in his ward for over four years and I found him to be a worthless joke. But I partly agree with this position.

Calling it dangerous, disgusting and downright unsanitary, downtown Ald. Burton F. Natarus (42nd) on Tuesday declared his opposition to allowing dogs to accompany their owners to Chicago’s sidewalk cafes.

I love dogs. I hate most dog owners. Unless dog owners can certify that they’re competent and respectful, I say keep those dogs away from the cafes.

Anyway, the question today is not “Is Burt Natarus a raging doofus?” because that pretty much answers itself. The question is: What do you think of the proposed Chicago ordinance which would allow dogs in outdoor cafes?

PS: Burt, you’re gonna have a very hot primary race. Maybe it would be best not to insult your fellow aldermen.

“Just because Schulter says it’s a good idea and Walter Burnett [27th] says it’s a good idea doesn’t mean it is. I know more about animals than they do,” Natarus said.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:18 am

Comments

How many useless laws do we need? Dogs are allowed in cities across the world…rarely do I hear of “wild dog” attacks in outdoor cafes. Besides, I believe the trial lawyers take care of all “dog bites man” cases in this world (and dog bites man cases, for that matter).

Don’t these people (the alderman) have anything better to do with their time?

Comment by Curt Mercadante Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:22 am
Curt, the ordinance would allow dogs into cafes. You seem to argue both sides there.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:26 am
Ya ! right & now according to the news making $100,000 per year. Try concerning themselves with things that really matter. Dogs are great & if the owner of the estb. doesn’t care…why should they. If NO saniation law currently on the books has been broken {and there are quite a few laws pertaining to the food handling business} what the heck …they are outside. There are quite a few people that probably wouldn’t meet the sanitation quidelines either.

Comment by anon. in the stykes Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:29 am
First they came for the people who talked on cell phones while driving. Since no one liked those people, I remained silent.

Then they came for people who smoked in restaurants. Those people were self centered jerks, so I remained quiet.

Then they came for the fois-gras eaters. I think duckies are really cute, so I remained silent.

Then they came for me. The population was so indifferent to the city’s tyrrany at this point, no one thought to save me.

Sincerely,
–Fido

Comment by Leroy Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:35 am
I agree with Rich: its dog OWNERS one has to worry about. I’d like to be able to eat in peace, without worrying about whether the stare on the Rotweiler at the next table means “I may just lunge at your juicy steak”, or “I’m gonna rip that calve right out’ve that leg and hang it up on my mantle.”

People refuse to accept that their biting dogs are biters; I don’t want to be the victim of their denial. There are people who have large dogs in their homes, feed them from their dinner tables, and even some who allow them to eat OFF the table. You don’t think it’s unlikely to find some of these at a “doggie” cafe, do you?

Seeing eye dogs are one thing (they’re also relatively rare, and without exception very well behaved animals). Having to eat alongside some Bozo’s pitbull is quite another.

Only in Chicago. You can’t talk on a cell phone, but you can be forced to eat next to a dog in an outdoor restaurant. You can’t smoke outside on city property, but you can eat next to a strange dog. Hell, if Ed Burke has his way, you can’t even eat deep fried food anymore (please, Ed, keep telling me how to live my life; only YOU know the true way, Hari Krishna!)

My favorite: You can’t even smoke in a restaurant in Chicago, but you CAN eat alongside a strange, furry beast which may or may not be carrying parasites of the insect variety (don’t know the owner, either), and may or may not be staring with covetous greed at your own juicy leg meat.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:23 am
Will the patrons be required to bring their own “doggie-do bags”?

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:45 am
This is all irrelative as I will beat Natarus in 2007

Comment by Rich Gordon Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:52 am
Natarus’ position is a logical outgrowth of the ban on foie gras. Since culinary backwaters (like, say, France) serve foie gras and let customers bring dogs into outdoor restaurants, it’s time to show the rest of the world that Chicago is more sophisticated. While we’re at it, let’s ban certain cooking oils and pass an ordinance requiring every restaurant in the city to rename Pomme Frites “freedom fries”.

If a restaurant wants to let dogs in an outdoor cafe, they should be able to. If customers want to eat elsewhere, they can. There are a couple bars on the north side that let dogs into the bar, and it’s a great business hook. I won’t name them for fear of bringing down the wrath of Burt, but why the hell does he care if people want to do this?

Comment by Anon Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:52 am
You ever see some of the people walking into cafes in Chicago? I’d guess most dogs are cleaner…and as a dog owner, I won’t take offense to Rich not liking me…even if I like most people, but hate smokers.

Comment by Danimal Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:52 am
Are the alderman on a crusade to suddenly care about the health of the common guy or has Hezbolla dropped some drug in the Chicago water system? They need to spend time on important items like no pleats in pants, allowable gut sizes while wearing shorts, seasoning on hotdogs, how cold beer has to be in the local bar, and using a glove for 16″ softball. Can the cafes charge extra to provide special bags for dog droppings or is that the dog owner’s problem? Inquiring minds…..

Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:56 am
I like the idea of having dogs at outdoor cafes. I’ve never been bothered by the idea of pets at restaurants, be they cats or dogs. But these comments raise good concerns about the failure of some dog owners to control their animals (or deny their animals’ true nature). Either way, this ordinance is one of many that aren’t worthy of the consideration of the City Council, just like the foie gras ban.

If there’s a serious issue about dogs in Burt’s ward, it’s the dramatic increase of residents in the Loop — many of whom have dogs. Dog dookie is a new hazard in the Loop, and perhaps Burt should look into innovative programs to reduce this hazard.

Comment by the Other Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 8:09 am
Why not. The patrons can put dishes on the floor for their dogs to lick up, minimizes the kiytchen sanitary sewer and grease trap problem, eliminates the need for doggie bags. Less paper, less refuse.

What’s not to like?

Comment by Truthful James Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 8:21 am
They should allow dogs and ban children. I’ve never had a dog interfere with my meal. Kids are another story.

BTW, DogFriendly.com lists public places that are dog-friendly in Chicago.

Natarus’ Ward probably has more dog owners — and more militant dog owners — than any Ward in the city. Smart thinkin’ Burt!

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 8:26 am
Let the owners and customers decide. If a place wants to allow dogs, then customers can support or go elsewhere.

However, I must admit that I am opposed to dogs smoking in restaurants while eating Foie Gras and taking their wine home in non-tamperproof bags…unless they promise to chase one of those slow black/African American postal service employees.

Comment by Wumpus Extremus Maximus Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 8:33 am
BTW, 35 year incumbent Burt Natarus apparently needs to get to know his Ward a little better. According to Natarus:

“On Tuesday, Natarus insisted that dogs are not in attendance — and not welcome — in the sidewalk cafes that line the streets of his Gold Coast ward. Maybe they’re allowed in other wards, but not in his.”

Well, Burt, according to DogFriendly.com, they are allowed at:

Amarit -1 E Delaware Pl Chicago
Ben Pao -52 W. Illinois Chicago
Bistrot Margot -1437 N Wells Street Chicago
Bordo’s Eatery and Sauce -2476 N Lincoln Ave Chicago
Brasserie Jo -59 West Hubbard St. Chicago
Chicago Flat Sammies -811 North Michigan Avenue
Corner Bakery -1121 N. State Street Chicago
Corner Bakery -676 North St. Clair Chicago
Corner Bakery -188 W. Washington Street Chicago
Cyrano’s Bistro and Wine Bar -546 North Wells St.
Four Farthings Tavern and Grill -2060 N Cleveland Ave
Gallery Cafe -1760 W North Ave Chicago
Jake Melnicks Corner Tap -41 E Superior St
Sauce -1750 North Clark St. Chicago
The Beachstro at Oak Street Beach

Either Burt’s brain isn’t connected to his mouth or the tank is empty.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 8:53 am
This is the kind of stuff the City Council ought to be doing, instead of setting themselves up as an all-knowing, all-powerful wage-setting organization for business.

After they pass their big-box ordinance today, they should move on to freeze prices for other retail businesses. Why should we have to put up with inflation and other realities of a free society when we’ve got the Chicago City Council to set fair prices and wages? And while they’re at it, I’d like them to mandate that my boss give me a raise!

Comment by Wild Onion Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 8:55 am
Rich Gordon,
Irrelative is not a word. Did you go to the Daley-Natarus school of elecution? are you the best that your ward can find.Say hi to coconut for me!

Comment by Bill Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:09 am
Natarus just lost my vote.

We routinely take our German Shep to sidewalk cafes. The dog is well behaved and at least as sanitary as people who smoke outside. Many places provide water bowls for the dogs and otherwise welcome them. Sitting outside on a summer night with our dog, having a beer is one of the real joys of living in the neighborhood.

Natarus is a pompous blowhard. I’ve tolerated him because our streets tend to get clean, but now it is time for an alternative.

Natarus must go.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:10 am
Burt Natarus is indeed a moron and I think it is about time he retire or someone else (preferably an independent) retire him. His senility is starting to show ever more abundantly. As for dogs in OUTDOOR cafes: what is the problem? As it is most of the outdoor cafes are operating on OUR sidewalks anyway, which are supposed to be public property. Also, I have been to numerous outdoor cafes with and without my own dog and have never had any problems with the dogs that were with other owners. Hell, I have been to many bars on the northside that have had dogs wandering around inside untethered and they were very friendly. I agree that the dog owner is usually to blame for most incidents. So why not let all outdoor cafe/restaurant managers have final say whether a dog and its owner can stay - the same way they already deal with unruly patrons without dogs. The alderman of this town are a rubber stamp joke and everyone knows it. I wish they would at least stick to licking the mayors boot and stop trying to create stupid new ordinances that only serve to restrict our personal liberties and choice. If they can’t even get the countless potholes in our city streets filled (they almost force people to buy SUVs just to traverse the streets that in some neighborhoods resemble Beirut - on a bad day), why try to waste our time and money with proposals for things that have worked just fine without their divine intervention?
Also, Burke should have his mouth pried open and he should be force fed foie gras and trans fat fries until he stops taking law practice money from companies that do business with the city.

Comment by Eve Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:12 am
Pigeons fly in and out of the Corner Bakery ever day. No one goes running out the door either.

Comment by Marvelous Wonderful Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:18 am
P.S. to Rich M.
No such thing as a primary race for Alderman

P.S.S. to Rich G.
I admire your Namath-like win prediction, but compared to the 50,000 42nd Ward residents that know Natarus is a doofus, how many even know who you are?

Comment by Aldermania Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:19 am
Dogs in restaurants are very common in Europe. There doesn’t seem to be a problem.

Comment by Shelbyville Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:28 am
Let me add to that:

Gordon has to sit this one out.

You lost, Gordon. Plus, when people find out you are a Republican, the Beat Burton movement will grind to a halt.

Give Riley a one on one race and let’s see what happens.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:30 am
Snidely,

If yo are afraid of big dogs, see a therapist.

At least in my corner of the 42nd, there are no dangerous dogs. There is one Rot that is well behaved with its owner and there are a few other Germ. Sheps. All of them are well-behaved.

Don’t blame the dogs for your irrational fears.

Don’t like sitting next to dogs? Sit someplace else.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:33 am
This is an idiotic issue for the City Council to address. Cafes can allow dogs if they want to; people who don’t want to eat next to someone with a dog can go elsewhere if they want to……there is absolutely no need to legislate such mundane things. In fact it’s downright ridiculous to even worry about such minutiae with all the real things we have to worry about.

Comment by Way Northsider Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:48 am
What about thise who are allergic to dogs? You can’t have peanuts on a plane, but dogs in a restaraunt are okay?
At least we know what it takes to get Skeet upset. His alderman proposing silly proposal after silly proposal, nope. His alderman making racist comments are okay, but just don’t ban dogs from places where people eat!

Comment by Wumpus Extremus Maximus Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:52 am
I oppose any ordinances that will encourage the presence of beings who are unashamed to poop near a table at which I am dining.

It has nothing to do with an aversion to dogs, I wouldn’t like it if a cat or diaperless person were pooping in the proximity of my table either.

For me, it’s not about dogs, it’s about dog poop.

Comment by So-Called "Austin Mayor" Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 10:08 am
Watch, Crazy Burt will offer a compromise amendment to the Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance in exchange for support. So long as dogs are required to wear diapers, they can sit in outdoor cafes.

Natarus has been offering-up one insane rant per week lately…it’s time to get this lunatic out of office…and let’s face it, a Republican is not going to make that happen in downtown Chicago. It’s time for an Independent or non-Machine Democrat to step-up and take him out.

Comment by Tom DeLay's Mom Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 10:17 am
Up in Lake Geneva, at a bar called Chucks, it used to be that you could always count on seeing dogs, kids & people dripping wet in their bathing suits coming in right off their boats. There were no rules on who or what could walk in the door. Unfortunately, like Rich said, its the dog owners who screwed it up. Too many knuckleheads that didn’t know how to control their dogs, brought in dogs that started biting people or fighting with other dogs. Now, nobody is allowed to bring their dogs in and the rest of us have to live with the floors being littered with food that used to be quickly cleaned up by the dogs.

Comment by anon Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 10:22 am
I like when people put water bowls and dog treats along the shops on Lincoln. I don’t mind dogs that are well-behaved sitting at the outdoor cafes.

This all goes to people’s judgment. If the dog owners consistently display poor judgement in the 42nd Ward then Gordon should do something about it.

Ashur Odishoo
Candidate
State Representative 11th District

Comment by Ashur Odishoo Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 10:36 am
Right is Might: sorry the humor was lost on you, kids are of course should be welcome in cafes, as well as dogs, as long as both are well-behaved.

And actually, mom and dad let the family dog sit on the floor right next to me. As far as my mom was concerned, he was part of the family, born between me and my brother. We fed him table scraps, and when he died at age 16, mom cried for days.

I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your bigoted drivel, except to say that if you and Burt Natarus think that all dog owners are gay, you need to spend a little more time walking around the 42nd Ward, and if all parents treated their children half as well as most people treat their dogs, we wouldn’t need DCFS.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 10:40 am
Right is Might, thanks for the laugh! My Greyhounds like sushi - should I worry they may be gay, liberal or Moonies?

Comment by Ken Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 10:59 am
I’m much more annoyed at the fact that this issue gets so much attention from dog owners, yet when Crazy Burt Natarus insults all black people last week nobody seemed to care one bit. Human life and dignity are more important than the rights of any animal, that’s what I’d really like to say on the issue. I didn’t say that all dog owners are gay, I just said that dog poop is stinky. I’m sorry that the humor was lost on you! Bite me where the Pamers is.

Comment by Right is Might Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:00 am
I meant to type Pampers, not Pamers. PS - I’m not a bigot, I just play one on tv. Ken - don’t worry about your dogs I actually do like sushi and gay people, just not moonies.

Comment by Right is Might Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:02 am
I live in a highrise and see otherwise well mannered dogs mixing it up all the time when they pass another dog in the lobby, on the way to or from walking. God help you if you’re caught in the middle. Now let’s add food to the mix and the smell of alcohol. Good plan.

Unless Mr. Mercadante is going to pay the insurance for every venue owner who WILL be sued when some patron gets rattled, he should worry about something else.

Banning animals from places humans congregate in close proximity is a reasonable restriction.

Otherwise, why stop at dogs? Why discriminate against pot bellied pigs? Who speaks for them?

Everyone sing now, “…we can overcome…….we can overcome…”

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:02 am
Thank goodness for the Chicago City Council that saves us from foie gras, dogs and trans fats.

I can’t stop laughing. You guys are a joke. I’d say “Get a real job” if I wasn’t somewhat envious that you make $100,000+.

Comment by Left Leaner Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:21 am
So, when does the council take up a ban on putting ketchup on hotdogs?

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:26 am
Anon 11:26

Now that is something to talk about! By golly they should ban people from the city if they cannot follow the rules on Chicago style dogs. No ketchup!

Comment by Chicago Style Dog Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:41 am
I completely things dogs should NOT be allowed inside cafes. If owners need to take their dogs out pick up the food and go where the dogs can run around and not under my table, and not on my feet. I have nothing against dogs - when I am at their house I respect their territory, but around my food in a restaurant they are not. Dogs are DOGS you can’t trust that they won’t jump up on a stranger for food and the owners think it’s cute. What if 2 dogs who don’t like eachother in a cafe start to fight, someone gets bit or causes a disturbance. Really, some may say this is petty but they are DOGS, they don’t call eachother up and say “hey meet me at this restaurant”. I make sure my children are behaved in restaurants, dog owners think nothing of it. and againthink it’s cute. And whoever said that about pigeons they should be captured and removed - they are another reason I don’t frequent a particular place any longer - GROSS -

Comment by annoyed all the time Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:51 am
Ketchup. I love ketchup. I love it on my hot dogs, I love it on my brats! I even love it on my foie gras! Ketchup, ketchup, KETCHUP!

(I even like catsup.)

Comment by K-man Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:53 am
Hey the City Council took time from banning foie gras, debating pooches in cafes and condemning the war in Iraq to vote itself a pay raise!

Comment by Ravenswood Right Winger Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 12:20 pm
Sorry…blogging in the airport. I didn’t write clearly…I was voicing opposition to Natarus’ opposition to the ordinance. I would support the ordinance.

Comment by Curt Mercadante Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 12:25 pm
Right is Might — welcome to CapitolFax. We had plenty to say about Natarus’s racist remarks about “Afro-Americans” last week. Sorry you missed it.

To annoyed and anonymous, as I said before, children and dogs should be welcome in cafes, as long as they are well-behaved. Dog owners who can’t control their pets should be politely asked to leave and not come back. Ditto kids, and drinkers for that matter.

But we don’t ban all kids and all drinkers from cafes just because some get out of control sometimes, and Natarus’s call to ban all dogs from all cafes tramples on the rights of the more than dozen business owners in his ward who welcome dogs into their establishments.

Diapers on horses, licenses for bike riders, cracking down on cell phones, banning foie gras, and now going after dog owners. Once again, Natarus demonstrates that he is out-of-touch with the priorities of his ward.

Let’s hope Brendan Reilly puts Natarus out of our misery.

BTW, is it just me, or is Natarus’s laser-beam focus on poop and urine a little unsettling? Someone must’ve given that guy a major swirlie as a kid.

Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 12:56 pm
Poor Burt. He’s just flailing around, desperately seeking relevance in anticipation of next year’s municipal election. But mounds of developer payoffs . . . oops, “contributions” . . . won’t save him this time.

Unlike Day-Late/Dollar-Short Reilly, Rich Gordon has been active in 42nd for ten years, attending community meetings, putting up with mysterious shut-downs of restaurants where he holds events, speaking to the people and local business owners about their concerns, and their common fear of Burt.

A refreshing change is coming to the Loop and Gold Coast.

Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 1:00 pm
I have to agree with YDD, there’s nothing worse than those parents with the double wide strollers and overstuffed backpacks taking up the entire street while their screaming kid drowns out the city noise. Some people need to learn there are just some places you don’t take a child.

Comment by Danimal Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 1:06 pm
Bubs…please get your story straight - a few days ago you said Rich Gordon’s been active in the 42nd Ward for nearly five decades, now it’s one decade…which is it?

Regardless of how many decades Gordon has allegedly been active in the 42nd Ward, he ran a totally incompetent campaign against Natarus in 2003 and blew what should’ve been a lay-up.

So, apparently, Gordon’s…(for your benefit, Bubs, we’ll say “millions of years”)…of community activism in the 42nd Ward didn’t amount to a mound of dog poop for the guy. He LOST. Coming kind of “close” only counts with horseshoes and hand-grenades, my friend.

Time for a new challenger…I don’t think voters in this independent, downtown ward are seeking to replace their out-of-touch Democrat Ward Boss with a narcissist Republican Ward Boss (Gordon is the GOP Committeeman in the 42nd Ward).

Comment by Flib-Flobber Bubs Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 1:23 pm
whoever said Gordon ran a totally inept campaign on what should have been a lay up (apparently to beat Natarus) doesn’t know what he (or she) was talking about. 2003 was a very good year for incumbant white politicians in Chicago. It was not so good for some hispanic and african american alderman (Brookins, Flores, Colon) who defeated incumbants. The most current reform movement started in the African American and Hispanic communities some time ago. In the white areas, it was not until the Hired Truck Scandal that you started seeing credible voices for reform on the local level.

Beating Natarus will be difficult. Period. It can be done, however, no one should underestimate Natarus. They thought he was gone in 1995 and he survived. The real race will be in the first round as Gordon and Reilly both vie for second place and hope Natarus does not hit 50%. I think this is possible and that a runoff is likely.

Comment by Minion Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 2:05 pm
Minion, I lived in the ward during the last election and I didn’t even know who Gordon was. No matter what he says now, he ran a terrible campaign and almost won despite his own efforts. I have no confidence that he can do better next time.

Burt has no idea what he’s in for with Reilly. Wait five days and you’ll get a small indication of what I mean.

Now, let’s get back to the question, please.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 2:12 pm
OK, Rich…sorry to get off topic.

Having dogs in outdoor cafe’s is a horrible idea. We worked for years to get a dog park in Grant Park because the dumb dog owners were allowing them to run and crap everywhere. One dog in the south loop ran over a little kid and the dog owner yelled at the mom for “not wanting to share the park”. So we figured try to get them a designated place where they can go crazy. Now its up to the owners to use it.

Comment by Minion Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 2:25 pm
Why don’t they ban those yuppie infested outdoor cafe’s that clog up the sidewalks and let the dogs pee on all the public poles they want?

Comment by Garp Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 2:35 pm
My dog smokes two packs a day, so he won’t be able to eat in a Chicago restaurant anyway.

Comment by Marlin Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 3:14 pm
Hey Rich, it’s interesting that (1) you already have the advance inside dope on what the Reilly campaign is about to do; while (2) dumping on Gordon (and Natarus for that matter).

Wassup with that?

I was there in 2003. The Gordon campaign wasn’t terrible, just underfunded something like 16-1. If you didn’t know who he was, you must have been asleep for a month, or just did not care.

Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 4:31 pm
So Called Austin Mayor:

You need to get your facts right on this.
The dogs don’t defecate any closer to the cafes depending on whether they are allowed in. I have never seen a dog defecate or urinate in a care. It simply does not happen.

From a practical standpoint, if a dog did that, he would not be allowed back in.

My dog and others in my neighborhood are well behaved. The staff at a lot of these places know the dogs. If my dog acts up, he won’t return. Usually, however, the dog is greeted by name. The waitresses may not know my name but they know the name of the dog. I hope that if my wife and I have children, they can live up to the dog’s behavior standards.

Regarding Anon’s 11:02s view of dogs “mixing it up”: I see that rarely. What I do see is a lot of dog wrestling, which is play. There is one dog in our neighborhood that is not happy unless my Germ Shep. bites her head. If you saw this and didn’t understand it, you might see it as a fight. If you haven’t seen it before, it can be intimidating but unless the owners are working hard to pull the dogs apart it is just play. Fighting is extremely rare and extremely obvious.

I’ve never seen dogs fight in a restaurant. Two and a half years — zero fights. It just doesn’t happen.

Answering further: I admit that I have tolerated Natarus in the past. I was wrong. The comment to the women was over the edge. The foie gras ban was idiotic — let’s hope he doesn’t find out how KFC raises chickens –, the dog thing is stupid, and, most importantly, the streets around my block look like hell the past few months.

Comment by Skeeter Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 4:52 pm
I, too, lived in the 42nd Ward in 2003 and never heard a PEEP out of this Gordon character…and I vote regularly…so I should have definitely been on the guy’s mailing list - but never received any communication from the guy.

I’d say being outspent 16-1, or whatever the accurate number may be, is a sign that Gordon did not have his “act” together enough to go prime-time against Alderman Natarus.

We’ll all see soon enough if Gordon learned from his mistakes in 2003 when we all get to take a look at how much money is in his campaign account next week. That will speak volumes about how this race is going to shape-up next year.

Comment by Chicago Denizen Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 5:15 pm
No, it won’t. People in the Ward know that Burt can read the Schedule A of a D-2, and don’t like surprise visits from Building Inspectors, liquor control officers, tax officials, etc.

Gordon’s money will be late money.

Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:07 pm
Bubs, I just call ‘em like I see ‘em.

Gordon spent less than $30,000 on his ‘03 campaign, including a few thousand in loans from himself and $500 from Jack Roeser. If he had run a “real” campaign, I would’ve paid attention. He didn’t. I didn’t. Nobody else did, either. He almost won despite himself. But, hey, it’s a free country. He should run again if he wants.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:28 pm
Yeah? Then also call something like 45% of the vote against Burt in 2003. (Hey, call him economically efficient, if nothing else!) That as a relative unknown. He’s not unknown now, and will have lots more money.

Interesting there seem to be a few of Reilly’s college frat brothers posting, cutting at Gordon, of all people. He’s done nothing but serve his country and community. When “Wannbe Brendan” was swilling college beer and licking Mike Madigan’s boots, Gordon was a U.S. Army officer, and remains a reserve officer, subject to recall.

Hmmmmm. . . worried, fellas??

Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 6:53 pm
Like I said, Bubs, he almost won. Despite himself. Take it anyway you want. And, by the way, insults are always appreciated.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:01 pm
Sorry, Rich, I was not speaking to you. But if these Reilly guys go after Gordon, it will get real sharp, real quick! Only a tiny few know just how much Rich Gordon has served this country, and that is as far as it goes, at his request.

Comment by Bubs Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:14 pm
Pets of any kind have no business at a cafe or restaurant. What happened to the health issue?

Comment by Babe Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:18 pm
From what I gather, I don’t think they have a desire to go after Gordon.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:22 pm
And with that, I’m outta here, except to say, “Babe,” when you preface a comment with “I’m not a bigot,” there’s a good chance that you might want to rethink what you’re writing.

Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 7:23 pm
Richard Gordon is a complete phony. Dems won’t vote for him because he’s says he’s a Republican, sometimes. And he’s alienated almost all the remaining Republicans in the city with his me, me, me mentality. He’s yesterday’s news.

A Poodle from the 42nd Ward may not be able to dine in a cafe, but it could beat Gordon.

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:23 pm
Who is Reilly? Never heard of him before. I live in the ward and vote.

Comment by 42nd Ward Voter Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 11:42 pm
- Skeeter - Wednesday, Jul 26, 06 @ 9:33 am:

Snidely,

If yo are afraid of big dogs, see a therapist.

At least in my corner of the 42nd, there are no dangerous dogs. There is one Rot that is well behaved with its owner and there are a few other Germ. Sheps. All of them are well-behaved.

Donâ€™t blame the dogs for your irrational fears.

Donâ€™t like sitting next to dogs? Sit someplace else.

—————————-
Skeeter,

This is about the rudest and most pompous and arrogant post I’ve ever had directed towards me. Rich, I thought unprovoked personal attacks weren’t allowed here; shouldn’t this have been deleted.

Skeeter, I am not mentally ill or “irrational”. Personally, I feel that the strange need to bring your animal into a public restaurant to eat with you signifies an unnatural and unhealthy attachment to that animal, and to force other people to eat with your dog is rather arrogant and rude. I, however, chose not to get personal with dog owners. Obviously, you have no qualms about insulting others who don’t share your (minority) point of view.

And, if you believe that dogs would never fight each other over food, or that people with biting dogs would nonetheless bring them into a public place, you clearly know neither people nor dogs. Have a wonderful day with your furry, surrogate “child.”

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jul 27, 06 @ 7:40 am
Snidely,
If that is the most arrogant thing that you’ve heard, you haven’t been around politics much.

Nobody is talking about INSIDE. The discussion is outside.

When I go to restaurants, I am around a lot of people I might not like. Welcome to dining out. If my dog behaves, he should be allowed — ASSUMING THE OWNER OF THE RESTAURANT WANTS HIM THERE. Nothing here compels a restaurant to allow dogs. It just gives the owners an option.

Regarding my other comments: I stand on my former comments on the issue. If large dogs scare you, seek therapy. Don’t tell a resaurant owner what to do with his own restaurant due to your irrational fear.

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jul 27, 06 @ 8:02 am
Food for thought…

Despite the fact that Gordon is the 42nd Ward GOP Committeeman, we will still be throwing our support behind our one-time fearless leader…

Comment by Hobart College (NY) Young Republicans Organization Thursday, Jul 27, 06 @ 9:29 am
Anybody know what happened on this?
Was it introduced?

Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Jul 27, 06 @ 1:31 pm
- Skeeter - Thursday, Jul 27, 06 @ 8:02 am:

Snidely,
If that is the most arrogant thing that youâ€™ve heard, you havenâ€™t been around politics much.

Quite a long time actually, Skeeter; longer than a lot of posters here have been alive, I’d wager. So, you’re damned rude.

Comment by Snidely Whiplash Thursday, Jul 27, 06 @ 6:31 pm
Snidely,

Thanks!

I will put it on my resume when I apply for a job with the ILGOP. It should be a good fit.

Comment by Skeeter Friday, Jul 28, 06 @ 8:06 am