He invited Leni Riefenstahl to Hollywood and showed her around the Disney studios, and was long rumoured to be an anti-semite (as well as being fervently anti-communist and testifying before HUAC). It's not the most outrageous suggestion. It wasn't especially uncommon for people to sympathise with the Nazis.

Not everyone here thinks obedience is so awesome, clearly. The police cannot and should not use violence to force compliance.

I assume the "improbable" part of the headline is sarcastic because I really don't see how this is surprising...

I think we can all agree that is somewhat of an understatement, shake hands, and then move on with our lives?

Nobody mentioned the Family/Children of God yet? I'd love to have been privy to the discussions that led to that teaching.

I've always wondered where they get those gravelly voiced men to do film trailers. Does that guy actually do them? I'd like it if it was just one old dude.

You just need to calm down.

You're all entitled to your opinions. I don't value dogs so highly that I think $60,000 - that could have saved literally hundreds of human lives if spent in a rational way - is a reasonable amount to spend on a dog.

No, because I'm not a likely recipient of charity donations. Are the lives of dogs in shelters and people dying for lack of food in the developing world affected by his decision to piss away $60,000 on a dog? People don't exist in a vacuum. Things you do can and will affect other people, even if what you do is…

It's not like any of the straight, white, male judges are influenced by their socioeconomic background..

Does anyone not see $60,000 as too much money?

I honestly didn't expect quite such a vociferous response. Although seeing some of the responses has given me a glimpse of why people seem to love trolling. It's weird how irate people get. I (genuinely) apologise to people who were offended by what I said. Unless you were rude and/or insulting, which doesn't really…

I agree, and I do say the same for weddings and jewelry.

Well that seems a little harsh. He can spend his money on what he likes, yes, but I can call him a selfish, egocentric asshole depending on exactly what he chooses, especially if he actually tries to get other people to spend their money on his damn dog too.

...Whether or not it lacks perspective or adds perspective probably depends on how much you value dogs. Given that people seem to be overwhelmingly siding with you, I will concede that I may be the one lacking perspective. Or I shouldn't have metaphorically-barged in and been obnoxious...

It's a pet, specifically a domesticated dog; I think we can safely say that it definitely does exist for human use. And we are more important than dogs...

In the vain hope that it makes them realise that it's just a dog and not worth $60,000? It may seem a little harsh, but rehoming it might not be dramatic enough.

I don't feel that $60,000 is a rational amount of money to spend on a dog. Get a new one and then donate $59,800 to charity.

I think someone should shoot the dog, just so they both gain some perspective. And I say this as someone who has two dogs and likes animals.

I remember seeing a pretty impressive number of studies that have extended the lifespan and youth of animals, that seem worthy of human testing, but never seem to have to got there. From what I could tell, the reason they hadn't is because nobody wanted to traverse the ethical minefield they'd need to in order to test…