Friday, January 16, 2009

Be Very Afraid

Obama's new "regulatory czar", Harvard law prof Cass Sunstein, is getting praise from both liberals and conservatives.

Maybe he shouldn't.

"In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating." He also proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

"Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that "animals 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." "

We'd best get together on this one, if we care anything about continued realtions with our animals. He is PETA- level bad.

11 comments:

Mike Spies said...

Not sure if I should thank you for posting this, Steve! I was havinga good day here...

"Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that... 'animals 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.' "

Granting this right would make animals legal 'members' of society.

But my question is... are animals ready to step up to the obligations that being a member of society brings? Should we give them the vote? No. Of course not.

Are animals really 'people' with four legs that look different? I don't think so. I think that they deserve more respect than that.

Cass Sunstein sounds like East Coast Academic Liberal Establishment. But he's giving Harvard a bad name.

smartdogs said...

Speechless...

Why aren't we hearing about this from the MSM? [slaps forehead] What AM I saying...

Off to google him up and hit a bunch of email lists.

Steve Bodio said...

I think regardless of politics we should all go after this guy-- he is as bad as any appointee can be on AR, party entirely aside.

Mike Spies said...

It took a few minutes, but I decoded it...

… 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.'

This guy is a LAWYER! Imagine the potential for Animal Action suits! No lawyer would ever be short of clients or funds again.

Shit, they'd stop chasing ambulances and start chasing cattle trucks!

Boggles the mind - the lengths that these folks go to...

Please fasten your seat belts and put your tray tables and seats in the upright and locked position.

Neutrino Cannon said...

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."


I see that teaching kids about ecology in schools still hasn't taken.

I propose that we release a swarm of ravenous locusts upon this idiot's house, and see if he changes his mind about predators then.

stevea said...

Further proof that urban life rots your brain.

I once spoke with a regulatory authority who said something to the effect that if they ever outlawed what we did, he was very confident that we'd be perfectly comfortable living outside the regulations.

JayDenver said...

Word verification (I kid you not): boodeo.

Checking the source of this story makes the Sunstein goblin seem less threatening.

I think what this group really fears is a renewed regulatory effort in those industries which saw lax or no regulation during the Bush years.

This is typical industry-based propaganda in my opinion and should be treated as such.

Andrew Campbell said...

Like JayDenver, I have mixed feelings about this one, too. First, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (that Sunstein will head) reviews draft regulations, it does not craft new regulation. Second, I would suspect that Sunstein's 'Animal Rights' book was exactly that a) an intellectual exercise just because he could and b) to impress his then girlfriend, the other editor, Martha Nussbaum. Third, the book isn't listed on either his Wikipedia entry nor on the U.Chicago's website -- which makes me think he's not that proud of it. Fourth, he claims to be a proponent of judicial minimalism.

The irony here is that he and Timur Kuran developed the idea of 'availability cascades': "An availability cascade is a self-reinforcing process of collective belief formation by which an expressed perception triggers a chain reaction that gives the perception of increasing plausibility through its rising availability in public discourse." We may be creating a cascade of our own.

Having said that, we should keep our eyes open.

Andrew

Steve Bodio said...

I'm close to Andrew in this case.But we have to keep our eyes on the ball-- he DID make a 2007 speech at Harvard (available on the web) advocating banning both meat and hunting.

Cascades? Banning by regulation, not voting, is happening one by one in NM's counties, because we have a strong AR movement that lies about many things and is supported completely by an ambitious and rising politician, Albuquerque's mayor Marty Chavez. I suppose (and grant) this may make me paranoid. But Albuquerque's regs under the "HEART" act he promoted may be among the worst in the country and I don't want that here. For instance, you cannot have more than two dogs and the fee for keeping one intact is I believe currently $150 a year. It would cost literally thousands to construct a breeding structure. And so on. Under such circumstances a bit of paranoia seems understandable.

Matt Mullenix said...

Animals filing suit (with human assistance) is a fascinating concept. On behalf of a dog with whom I share my domicile, I could sue my municipality for infringing on her right to procrate (surely an inaliennable right for all beings?) with mandatory spay/nueter laws.

Right?

Could I sue to insure her right to hunt as part of her cultural heritage and biological imperative of a mammalian predator?

Could my municipality, on its own behalf, sue the dog of my domicile for her share of property taxes?

Would she need to get a job, then, in order to generate income (which would then also be taxed)?

And what sort of job would she do? She may need some government financed re-training; all she knows how to do is hunt, which the government has outlawed.

Perhaps she can become Secretary of Interior.

NorCal Cazadora said...

Wow. Guess I'm gonna be writing a lot of letters to the White House.

Having read the source document, I do agree that Sunstein's appointment doesn't spell doom - doesn't sound like a high-level position. But I'm disappointed that he now appears to have a foothold in the administration.

And btw, my word verification is comede, but this isn't quite funny, is it?