Why the Obama White House May Go to the Dogs (and the Cows, and the Deer, and the Lab Rats

  • cowboyupnorth

    Posts: 264

    Jan 20, 2009 6:19 PM GMT
    I got this in an e-mail from townhall.com . I voted for Obama but this concerns me. What's your thoughts?


    Why the Obama White House May Go to the Dogs
    (and the Cows, and the Deer, and the Lab Rats)
    Forget about Barack Obama's income tax-challenged Treasury Secretary or the conflict of interest controversy at the State Department. The most outrageous Obama appointee just might be Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who's flying under everyone's radar and into a job that hardly anyone has ever heard of.
    Cass Sunstein is slated to run the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He's going to be America's chief "regulatory czar." And shocking new research from the Center for Consumer Freedom shows that he's a dedicated animal-rights zealot.
    The 8 Biggest Celebrity Financial Mistakes
    Hold on to your sirloin.
    The anti-meat nuts at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the anti-hunting lobbyists at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) used to think that putting Dennis Kucinich in the White House would be their best hope of wielding real power in Washington . But even they didn't see Cass Sunstein coming. Sunstein has the legal mind of Chief Justice John Roberts and the animal-rights agenda of PETA president Ingrid Newkirk.
    We're not talking about animal welfare---the idea of making sure we don't cause animals unnecessary suffering when we use them for food, clothing, entertainment, or lifesaving medical research. Sunstein believes in animal rights---the notion that people shouldn't "own" or "use" animals at all, for any purpose, no matter what the stakes are for mankind.
    Cancer research? Not if lab rats are used against their will.
    Hunting? Absolutely forbidden, especially if it's for sport.
    Leather jackets? The cows need their skin more that you do.
    Seeing-eye dogs? They're nothing more than slaves.
    And that T-bone steak? Fuhgeddaboudit! If animals have any "rights" at all, the right to not be your dinner is at the top of the list.
    All of this makes perfect sense to Cass Sunstein, who organized the "Chicago Project on Animal Treatment Principles" at the University of Chicago. He will soon have the political authority to push for a radical overhaul of the way the federal government regulates everything Americans do with animals.
    How radical? Sunstein supports making sport hunting illegal, and completely phasing out the consumption of meat. And if that's not nutty enough, he's actually in favor of giving animals the legal right to sue people.
    Think we're joking? Think again. Here's what Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book, Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:
    "[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."
    Conservative commentators have been openly fretting that Barack Obama may try to turn welfare entitlements and single-payer healthcare into a new Bill of Rights. But Cass Sunstein threatens to expand the whole concept of "rights" to include the rest of the animal kingdom.
    That fish wriggling at the end of your hook could soon be a federal offense (if the fish doesn't file a lawsuit first). Don't say we didn't warn you.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 6:38 PM GMT


    We think that's something the new government will pay attention to, and not in the way this Cass person thinks. Now that this person is suddenly exposed in a very very public arena, all his 'pet' peeves will be paraded around, and he'll be forced to not only expound on just why what where and how all his ideas came about and might be implemented, but what kind of solutions/alternatives there are to leather, meat, research, pets etc. that won't damage an already frail economy, for example.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 6:55 PM GMT
    Conservative Paranoia.

    Why focus on that part of his life? He is more than qualified enough. Granted I do not know him, but he only authored one book on animal rights and it seems speculatory rather than preachy judging from its title (like a college thesis). Any part of a book, especially something speculatory can be quoted out of context and make it look more menacing than it really is.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

    Besides, it is highly unlikely that he can get away with things like banning meat. Politicians that stupid, don't last long.

  • cowboyupnorth

    Posts: 264

    Jan 20, 2009 7:16 PM GMT
    turkeyfarm.jpg
  • byronicheros

    Posts: 211

    Jan 20, 2009 7:23 PM GMT
    craziness.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 8:06 PM GMT
    cowboyupnorth saidI got this in an e-mail from townhall.com.


    Oooh, so you just know it's been well-researched.
  • byronicheros

    Posts: 211

    Jan 20, 2009 8:26 PM GMT
    cool
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 8:29 PM GMT
    If anyone is wondering why the republicans are seriously fucked if Obama leaves office with anything over an 60% approval rating, think of this OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 8:53 PM GMT
    yeah good luck with that!
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 20, 2009 8:55 PM GMT
    WhooooEEEE! .....

    Them thar's loads a schizophrenia from that there Moonshine they's bin drink
    I can tell ya that much icon_eek.gif

  • cowboyupnorth

    Posts: 264

    Jan 20, 2009 9:10 PM GMT
    hobronto said
    cowboyupnorth saidI got this in an e-mail from townhall.com.


    Oooh, so you just know it's been well-researched.


    I do not know anything about this, but 3 different friends have e-mailed this to me, and I am trying to find out what other people know and think.

    It appears other than Sedative people really have little to add. I do not care if he is a brilliant scholar of administrative and constitutional law if he has an agenda that is harmful to farmers.

    I thought I would get more intelligent conversation and opinions from the real jock community as many of you are well read and have a wealth of knowledge. At this point I might as well asked a PETA group.
  • reliable1

    Posts: 65

    Jan 20, 2009 9:40 PM GMT
    Much of that sounds good to me. Though I will say, the hunters had probably as much to do with the early development of the National Wildlife Refuge system as animal rights advocates did. Would be nice to see an improvement on animal rights issues form where they are in this country at least, in my opinion.

    (Why this subject area comes up more on realjock compared to other gay sites that actually have related subject categories, I do not comprehend, but it seems to lately.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 9:45 PM GMT
    GQjock saidWhooooEEEE! .....

    Them thar's loads a schizophrenia from that there Moonshine they's bin drink
    I can tell ya that much icon_eek.gif

    yes?icon_question.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 10:04 PM GMT
    I think your post is a bit alarmist. Radical change like you speak of does not occur overnight nor does one person have the power to implement it.

    Animal rights should be a priority in this country. We should take a look at the way we treat the weakest most vulnerable members of our planet. The increased awareness about the suffering of animals has led to some positive alternatives like fake leather and fur, animal testing alternatives, better conditions for animal farms.

    Environmentally it makes sense to eat less meat since the amount of energy used to grow beef and other livestock is not sustainable.

    Most importantly any reduction in suffering, torture and abuse human or otherwise will make us better human beings.

    I respect your opinion, but also respect life in all its form. My message is for finding alternatives to the use, abuse, and consumption of animals. The more people demand it the better the alternatives will be.

    Have a great New Year.
    U.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 10:08 PM GMT
    meninlove said

    We think that's something the new government will pay attention to, and not in the way this Cass person thinks. Now that this person is suddenly exposed in a very very public arena, all his 'pet' peeves will be paraded around, and he'll be forced to not only expound on just why what where and how all his ideas came about and might be implemented, but what kind of solutions/alternatives there are to leather, meat, research, pets etc. that won't damage an already frail economy, for example.




    Short term economic gains are not sustainable. Oil companies use that same argument for continuing the old way of life. There are already alternatives in place that could use more attention and funding. Yes some industries such as cattle, petro, and factory farms will shrink but others will rise. That is capitalism.
    Catering to these wasteful and neglectful industries is not the only option.

    Have a great year!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 10:31 PM GMT
    "[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

    From what I have found, this particular quote seems to be taken out of context (I didn't find the quote itself, but I did find a section on Google book search that was quite close; a shame the "story" didn't include a page number).

    From my research, Sunstein is not arguing that any animal should be able to bring suit for any reason, but that humans should be able to bring suit in place of animals who are unable, and only in cases in which they are mistreated. One of the main problems in law that pertains to animals (and there is a body of law that does just that) is that there's little legal enforcement, because it's difficult to prove standing if you're not the owner of the animal in question. Sunstein is simply arguing that this should be fixed by allowing others the right to claim standing for the animal being mistreated.

    That doesn't mean that animals can bring suit because they're being killed for food--something that is not against the law--but that humans can stand in for animals when there is mistreatment against them that violates the law, even if they are not the owners.

    Again, this isn't directly taken from the quote provided in that article of yours, but it is taken from something in the book that is extremely similar. And, I don't think it's that outrageous to say that we should have some way to enforce laws relating to animals that we have already created.
  • cowboyupnorth

    Posts: 264

    Jan 20, 2009 10:44 PM GMT
    In some areas that we have eliminated hunting, we have seen animal starve to death. Animals die in this world. I am not advocating abuse. I have never hunted nor could I. I have also never sent an animal to slaughter, however I would defend your right to hunt and slaughter animals for consumption.

    People who have not grown up on farms find it easy to judge and talk BS. These same clueless people turn my stomach! They no idea what it means to live on a farm and provide for not only ones own families but all their livestock and crops. Family farming is the most underpaid and thankless profession in this country. Why? Not so morons you can be fed! Everyday we benefit from the blood,sweat,heartache and tears of the farmer.

    If there are so many of you that are vegitarians and eat only organic products, then why wouldn't all farmers grow such a product. I will tell you why, because the majority of people in our society enjoy the meat and produce that the farmers provide. The blood, sweat and tears that goes into a family farming operation is more than many people could comprehend, yet do the actual work.

    Most farmers are up and out of bed with all chores done before most individuals are even out of bed. Do you work 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and hopefully get 8 hours of sleep unless there is a problem with your cattle or horses in the middle of the night??? I have the utmost respect for the farming community, the laws there must abide from and the small profit margins they must live under are just to name a few. The majority of farmers are out there because they LOVE their line work, because it sure isn't for the hourly wage.

    I know farmers who cry over ailing stock, who are like family, but in reality they are still livestock. They birth calves at 2am in -20 degree weather. While we sit in your nice warm home and have food on your plate remember Wal-mart doesn't grow what you eat! The Farmer we beat on does.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 11:01 PM GMT
    cowboyupnorth saidIn some areas that we have eliminated hunting, we have seen animal starve to death. Animals die in this world. I am not advocating abuse. I have never hunted nor could I. I have also never sent an animal to slaughter, however I would defend your right to hunt and slaughter animals for consumption.

    People who have not grown up on farms find it easy to judge and talk BS. These same clueless people turn my stomach! They no idea what it means to live on a farm and provide for not only ones own families but all their livestock and crops. Family farming is the most underpaid and thankless profession in this country. Why? Not so morons you can be fed! Everyday we benefit from the blood,sweat,heartache and tears of the farmer.

    If there are so many of you that are vegitarians and eat only organic products, then why wouldn't all farmers grow such a product. I will tell you why, because the majority of people in our society enjoy the meat and produce that the farmers provide. The blood, sweat and tears that goes into a family farming operation is more than many people could comprehend, yet do the actual work.

    Most farmers are up and out of bed with all chores done before most individuals are even out of bed. Do you work 16 hours a day 7 days a week, and hopefully get 8 hours of sleep unless there is a problem with your cattle or horses in the middle of the night??? I have the utmost respect for the farming community, the laws there must abide from and the small profit margins they must live under are just to name a few. The majority of farmers are out there because they LOVE their line work, because it sure isn't for the hourly wage.

    I know farmers who cry over ailing stock, who are like family, but in reality they are still livestock. They birth calves at 2am in -20 degree weather. While we sit in your nice warm home and have food on your plate remember Wal-mart doesn't grow what you eat! The Farmer we beat on does.


    This seems irrelevant to the thread you've created. First off, even in the story you've quoted, nowhere does it provide evidence that Sunstein wishes to phase out all hunting; it only maintains that he wishes to ban sport hunting (something I would agree with; hunting for food is one thing, but hunting simply to kill seems unnecessary). As a person who used to hunt regularly on the ranch I grew up on, and a person who has been around a great many hunters, this is an ethos that is not an uncommon one to hear from many a hunter.

    Second, family farming bears little relation to the majority of what Americans eat. Most Americans don't eat meat that's come from a family farm, but instead from a CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation), essentially gigantic cities of tightly penned animals fed a steady diet of corn, hormones, antibiotics, some protein, and some fats. The types of practices that occur on these corporate farms are intolerably inhumane and cause a great degree of animal suffering.

    If most people got their meat from what you describe as a "family farm," in which the animals are given room to graze on grass and to live a live as free from suffering as possible, there would be much less debate, I think. I grew up on just this sort of ranch, and have had a great amount of experience in the types of practices that occur in this world, and I can say that what you think of in terms of a "family farm" is indeed quite humane; however, it simply is not reality to posit the "family farm" as the place from which most Americans get their meat. Instead, it's the corporate farm, which causes untold degrees of environmental degradation and threatens public health by pumping animals full of antibiotics, virtually guaranteeing the eventual spread of increasingly resistant strains of bacteria.

    So I'd calm down a bit about Sunstein if I were you. The things that the email you've posted are talking about seem to bear little relation to the reality of his positions.

    ---EDIT---

    Also, stop romanticizing the farmer. The farming community gains nothing from a population that maintains a romantic view of farmers, or has some picture of an agrarian utopia where all farmers are kind-hearted, gentle souls who would stop at nothing to save even one cow, just out of his magnanimity. In reality, farmers have all the same faults as the rest of us, and they're not all out there with beneficent intentions. I've known just as many a farmer who mistreats his animals as I have a farmer who treats them well. Hell, we used to occasionally buy a bull or some heifers from a farmer who mistreated his animals, and it was always hell afterward because they were so much wilder and more skittish.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 11:04 PM GMT
    Cowboy, you are right. There is no profession as thankless and difficult as farming. I spent every single summer of my youth on my Godparents farm in Bovina Texas (6 sections so not really a family farm) setting tubes in the cornfields. That meant getting up at 4 am and working all day long.

    People have no idea how difficult this actually is, no one could, until they have actually done it.

    There is no material danger to farming in America other than economics.

    The President has not, and I repeat has NOT put PETA radicals in charge of agricultural policy for the U.S. In fact, there is considerable outrage from the left over the appointment of Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture. He is not PETA people.

    That said let me ask you a serious, really serious question, as a person committed to animal issues (as you surely seem to be) what do you think is the right ethical standing on animal rights?

    Do animals have rights?

    What are the limits?

    These are sincere and not facetious or mocking questions.

    Terry
  • cowboyupnorth

    Posts: 264

    Jan 20, 2009 11:05 PM GMT
    Chewey_Delt said"[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ... Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."


    I don't think it's that outrageous to say that we should have some way to enforce laws relating to animals that we have already created.


    I appreciated your thoughts on this. However we do not need radical laws. Let Michigan be our case and point.

    Michigan has the strictest laws in the nation and they are general intent not specific intent. Meaning you can be charged and go to prison if animal controls thinks an animal may have suffered undo stress. Even as little as not giving a cow a pain killer if it was kicked by another cow. Specific intent means I meant to cause harm, that's what we have for child abuse. General intent is craziness.

    Animal Rights activist are also fighting any innocent owner defense. Meaning; "I an animal loving individual takes my dog to a kennel while I go on vacation, and the kennel does a poor job, resulting in the death of my beloved pet, I will be charged with the same animal torcher charge as the care giver and can be imprisoned."

    This is what the animal rights people are working to do. It is extremist but it is happening. A case was just heard in the Michigan court of appeals. The owner had horses at a farm he rarely visited, they accused the care taker for not providing adequate care to three of the animals. The owner lost 85 horses all his property and is facing prison. No one says he did anything or knew their were any issues, yet he lost hos job and has spent well over 50,000 in attorney fees.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 20, 2009 11:13 PM GMT
    cowboyupnorth said

    I appreciated your thoughts on this. However we do not need radical laws. Let Michigan be our case and point.

    Michigan has the strictest laws in the nation and they are general intent not specific intent. Meaning you can be charged and go to prison if animal controls thinks an animal may have suffered undo stress. Even as little as not giving a cow a pain killer if it was kicked by another cow. Specific intent means I meant to cause harm, that's what we have for child abuse. General intent is craziness.

    Animal Rights activist are also fighting any innocent owner defense. Meaning; "I an animal loving individual takes my dog to a kennel while I go on vacation, and the kennel does a poor job, resulting in the death of my beloved pet, I will be charged with the same animal torcher charge as the care giver and can be imprisoned."

    This is what the animal rights people are working to do. It is extremist but it is happening. A case was just heard in the Michigan court of appeals. The owner had horses at a farm he rarely visited, they accused the care taker for not providing adequate care to three of the animals. The owner lost 85 horses all his property and is facing prison. No one says he did anything or knew their were any issues, yet he lost hos job and has spent well over 50,000 in attorney fees.


    Again, however, I'm not sure this is relevant, simply because I have yet to see solid evidence that Sunstein is advocating radical laws. The article you've given us doesn't actually provide any hard evidence that he, in fact, is advocating them, so until such evidence is provided to me I have to assume, given the little research I did, that the case is otherwise; that, in fact, all he's arguing is that there needs to be some ability for humans to prove standing in order to defend against the mistreatment of animals.
  • cowboyupnorth

    Posts: 264

    Jan 20, 2009 11:18 PM GMT
    [quote][cite]ursamajor said[/cite

    Do animals have rights?

    What are the limits?

    These are sincere and not facetious or mocking questions.

    Terry[/quote]

    Do animal have rights, NO

    Like I said I could not kill an animal and I think we need to make the death as painless as possible. Animals need to have food, water, and shelter just as humans do. Torcher should be prosecuted and not allowed just as it is not allowed now.

    I think limits are hard to define. PETA has worked, and was able to stop horse slaughter. This has resulted in the ongoing suffering of thousands of unwanted horses who now are shipped to Mexico for slaughter or are let to starve. Why not let someone eat them. This is an emotional imposed law. Horses are animals just like cows, pigs etc. I do not think we should out law the killing of anything for food other than endangered species and humans. Who am I to say I can eat pigs cows and chickens but you can not have horses or dogs, an animal is an animal.

    Animal abuse laws should not be more stringent then the laws we have for abuse of humans, the sanctions should also be no harsher. But for some reason we accept the abuse of women, children and minorities, but kill an animal for food and the donations poor in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 12:16 AM GMT
    There is a need for animal consumption in our society at the present time.

    The disturbing issue here is that the "animal farm has changed" My grandfather had a cattle ranch. We had all types of animals that he slaughtered and ate. I understand the purpose of a farm.

    Today's farms are are factories. We have all heard the horror stories.
    The animals have been removed from the food farms. This is the reason why livestock requires more antibiotics since they are fed commercial feed and do not develop natural immunity like they would eating grass.
    In addition, food farms concentrate on growing one crop which leads to more disease and pests so more pesticides are needed.

    When combined animals and crops produce healthier products and greater variety.

    What I advocate is more humane attitudes and approaches rather than treating animals as commodities.
    Treating a cow like a cow is different than treating a cow like a piece of plastic. A humane farmer respect the animal who will provide it's livelihood and inhumane one exploits and abuses it.
    PETA is extreme and people see them as unreasonable but without radical approaches moderates would not gain ground.

    ACT UP was seen as a terrorist organization because of their passion and tactics. Only now do we see the benefits.

    I ask you to imagine a world where we are more educated and aware of our food sources and develop a respect for the very things we put into OUR bodies. Imagine a world where we understand the uselessness of animal testing and develop progressive and innovative alternatives.
    Idealistic but definitely possible.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 12:18 AM GMT

    "Who am I to say I can eat pigs cows and chickens but you can not have horses or dogs, an animal is an animal."




    Last time I checked human beings are animals too.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 21, 2009 12:20 AM GMT
    ITT e-mail from butthurt Republicans.