I voted for Obama as I have mentioned here before. I put a lot of energy and 
passion into his election in 2008 but after he was elected I kinda took time away from political discussions. I was burnt out, LOL. I avoided following his cabinet appointments to closely because I knew that conservatives would be looking to tear apart his every move. It was as sure as the sun coming up each morning. I wanted to reserve judgment until the man was actually in office and his appointees started making policy decisions.
I was however one of the many that flooded his office with protests when he named Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack for a potential candidate as USDA Secretary of Agriculture. Vilsack is a BIG supporter of Monsanto, genetically engineered crops, and corn and soy-based biofuels (of which I am not a fan). It was apparent that this guy was the food and agriculture industry’s “boy”. So I did notice that and acted…as did many others. I knew I that I wouldn’t agree with every appointment Obama made, which is okay because he represents a diverse country of people…not just people like me. But Vilsack was going too far. It was reminicent of Bush appointing an oil man to direct environmental policy.
I have also noticed with great delight Obama’s appointment of Harvard Law School Professor Cass Sunstein to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. This position entails coordinating the many different federal agencies, including the EPA, Energy Department, and OSHA. I am really happy with this choice. He knows a lot about economics and government regulation and cost benefit analysis. More interestingly though he is a vegetarian and animal rights activist and thinks animals should be entitled to legal representation in courts. Wow! In a society that overall values animal life very little this is refreshing.
Sunstein co-wrote a book called Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions. This is in the description on Amazon:
Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum bring together an all-star cast of contributors to explore the legal and political issues that underlie the campaign for animal rights and the opposition to it. Addressing ethical questions about ownership, protection against unjustified suffering, and the ability of animals to make their own choices free from human control, the authors offer numerous different perspectives on animal rights and animal welfare. They show that whatever one’s ultimate conclusions, the relationship between human beings and nonhuman animals is being fundamentally rethought. This book offers a state-of-the-art treatment of that rethinking.
It looks like a good read. I added it to my wish list.
Of course the headlines are already filled with ridiculous headlines of panic that claim Obama is trying to outlaw meat, hunting, and medical testing. But that is not what Sunstein is about necessarily. He just advocates for more responsible and ethical treatment of animals. Who really can stand up and say those are not good ideals to have?
I wish Sunstein had been appointed Secretary of Agriculture but I can already see from the media blitz why he wasn’t. Here is to hoping he can affect change anyway. :)
Sorry, I dont’ want any ARA’s in the cabinet. .AW, sure, I’m all for it, but ARA’s want us to stop eating meat, stop hunting, stop breeding cats, dogs, cows, horses, etc. . nope, and this appointment lowered my views on obama considerably.
No, ARAs are concerned with animal rights….anything beyond that is your personal opinion. Sunstein has already gone on record as saying he does not want to ban meating eating or outlaw hunting. He wants to regulate these industries to make sure the treatment of the animals is ethical.
It’s like torture and abuse of humans, it’s wrong, unethical, and against the law. As it should be for all animals, whether they are consumed or not, doesn’t mean they should be tortured and treated inhumanely before they are killed. You can’t ban eating meat or hunting, they are very fundamental to many Americans still and that would be a totaltarian government, and we would have a civil war if we got to that point.
Hello – just curious to Renee – It it is found more beneficial – to human health and to the planet – to curtail bringing more animals into existance… would you still be against this proposal? If “food” animal agriculture, breeding dogs & cats, and hunting were to be found to have negative impacts – would you still be in favor of continuing the practice?
I believe what Sunstein is suggesting is to look at the over-all gain vs. costs from these industries… In essence – it is putting your money where your mouth is.
Does animal agriculture (as the U.N.’s Livestock’s Long Shadow report shows) contribute 18% to global warming? Does “hunting” actually only benefit less than 5% of the population, do we *really* “need” yet more “cats & dogs”? If the answer is “no” – It’s only good governance & good common sense to abolish these anchors to our progress…
Sunstein won’t push this agenda too far along – I’m certain. But what he will do is open lines of discussion and debate so we can better evaluate the most beneficial course –
Go Vegan :)
Tiffany: have I told you lately how much I love your blog? I always learn so much when I visit. I am disappointed that I didn’t get to keep up with your posts as faithfully during the craziness of the holidays. I look forward to learning more in the days ahead as I catch up!
KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK! I really appreciate all you do!
Cheers, Kimberly
Thank you Kimberly!
“a vegetarian and animal rights activist and thinks animals should be entitled to legal representation in courts”
Amazing!!! That is fantastic news!!!
It is not only the Vilsack policies that are suspenct. He has a history of lack of transparency and ethics.
Dixie Burkhart
Facts Don’t Matter
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/FactsDontMatter.htm
Current Debates and New Directions, a 2004 book that Sunstein co-edited with then-girlfriend Martha Nussbaum. In that book, Sunstein set out an ambitious plan to give animals the legal “right” to file lawsuits. We’re not joking:
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … 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’m for protecting animals from mistreatment, but do not put them on the same plane as human beings. And this is ridiculous, in my opinion.
If people are violating the current law that prohibits certain ethical treatment policies or laws then why shouldn’t a suit be brought against the perpetrators on behalf of the animals? Makes sense to me that they shouldn’t be able to violate the law just because their victims have no “voice”.
Aren’t there already laws on the books to protect animals? If the laws aren’t sufficient, then they should be amended. But to pretend that animals are like humans in that they need representation in a court of law is going to far. We can’t even take care of all of the human beings in this country…
“Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 ‘Facing Animals’ conference. (Click here to watch the video; his speech starts around 39:00.) Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:
‘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 also argued in favor of ‘eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.’
He concluded his Harvard speech by expressing his ‘more ambitious animating concern’ that the current treatment of livestock and other animals should be considered ‘a form of unconscionable barbarity not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and mass extermination of human beings.’
To disagree with this man does not mean one is not in favor of ethical treatment of animals. Conservatives and Liberals agree on that we should be good stewards to our planet and the inhabitants there-of.
But this man goes to far. If the general public knew about these views (on hunting, and meat eating), right or left, I think they would see them as extreme.
Yes, there are laws. But financial punishment can be levied against the company via lawsuit if there are infractions. I support bans of hunting if purely recreational. Population control or feeding your family are good reasons to hunt. To go and kill something is not. I would not be sad to see hunting go away unless there is true need. I also see nothing wrong with eliminating greyhound racing or cosmetics testing. Should animals suffer for our amusement and beauty? I think not.
I didn’t say anything about greyhound racing or cosmetics–that is for the people to decide. To use the euphemism of the the pro-choice lobby, don’t go if you don’t like and don’t impose your values on the rest of us.
I don’t care for it and if most people don’t, they would go out of business. To mandate Federal regulation or laws on this is unconstitutional and not what the framers intended. Let the states the decide–that is, put it to a vote. I think many people would agree with you.
As one who likes Federalism (i.e, our country being a group of self-governing states), I’d rather see the states handle it and do NOT want the Federal gov’t limiting our freedoms.
As one who lives on a farm in the south *gasp*, I don’t see many people hunting for pure recreation. They do it for food. It is cleaner, and in my opinion healthier to hunt game than to rely on some big chain that gets its meat from some commercial outfit w/ not so great conditions (sanitation, chemical, and ethics-wise).
Yes, I agree, population control is a good reason to hunt (as is self defense), but the whole notion of outlawing killing something “for the fun of it” is a dangerousely fuzzy. In some states, you can’t shoot bears (that are destroying private property and pose dangers to small children–period). Please don’t mistake me and think that I think it’s okay to go around killing animals for sport. I have seen individual convicted for this here in Texas so I’m pretty sure there are laws on the books already.
It seems we agree on ethics here, but HOW is where our disagreement lies.
This man wants to outlaw eating meat and hunting. Period. And many of the advocates in PETA put animals on the same plane as humans. And this is not in line with most Americans, including me. If we are truly a Republic, we should put this to a vote.
Otherwise the majority will see any legislation or regulatory orders as an usurping of freedom.
If you agree with this man, then that’s good for you. The question is, what will happen when this is used as a precedent to take away a freedom that you didn’t have a say in?
The slippery slope argument. ;) Well, I agree that regulations and increased legislation may be seen as the taking away of freedoms but the underlying question is should we have those freedoms at all if they cause pain and death for another sentient being? I think hunting for food is fine. I do not think think killing rabbits to test shampoo is okay at all. I think we need more regulation in those areas. It is not about thinking rabbits are equal to humans but seeing that hair care needs and corporate profit are not justification for animal abuse. For example I think Foie gras via force feeding should be against the law as it requires the torturing of another living thing to make that food product. We don’t NEED Foie gras and it is pretty sick that we feel tortured animal meat is a right.
Smoking bans take freedoms away…the freedom to choose to smoke and do it wherever you will and the freedom to allow smoking customers into your business. BUT should people have the freedom to expose OTHER people to potentially toxic second hand smoke? I tend to think we are being pretty arrogant to assume we have should have certain freedoms in the first place.
I see your point, I do. Freedom does not mean doing what ever you want to do (that’s license); it is, rather, having the liberty to do what you OUGHT to do.
Also to your point, that is the exact argument of the person who is pro-life. Especially in light of partial birth abortion, because this is done to pre-born babies who are term. Tell me, are you in favor of protecting the rights of a viable baby who is 7, 8, 9 months in utero?
I hate smoking and don’t patronize places that allow it. I have children and wish to protect them. In a free market, those places would go out of business. Let the bars have their smokers. If we were truly a free market, those people wouldn’t have any one forced to pay for their stupid choices (as in with insurance or universal health care). It might make them think twice before beginning this habit if they knew they would have to be accountable for their decision.
If I am in a city, and the city VOTES to ban it, good. If it doesn’t, I’d seriously consider moving. But I don’t push the fed to ban smoking every where all across the nation because I don’t like it, because it’s unconstitutional.
What about vaccines? One person looks at the research crediting vaccines elimination deadly disease and pushes laws requiring that all children be vaccinated by law by say, age 2. They believe it is moral to force those that don’t want it done in the name of morality and the good of all.
Now what about the child with a special condition (allergic reaction) to the shots. They cannot opt out because of the bureaucracy (this was the case in many states, but there have been exemptions in some). Ridiculous. What about the rights of the parents to decide what is best for the child and the child in question? And it was never put to a vote! All special interest (by pharmaceuticals, too).
Okay, my main argument is against FEDERAL regulation–or even state regulation without voting. Do your thing in your state. But the enumerated powers of the Constitution list the powers of the fed–and that’s it. Most of the junk passed today isn’t there.
What if the religious right were in the majority and used the same argument you do? What if they said it’s okay to make laws and regulations at the expense of freedom because it’s moral and good for everyone? Like the wiretapping laws Bush put into play? Unconstitutional.
On principle, your methods aren’t any different, only the issue and the reasons and morals surrounding the issue is different.
Look, we all are passionate about something and many of us have good and valid points. I love that you are passionate.
But too many of us want to bend and twist government to fit our ideals. Government isn’t any less corrupt than the commercial outfits that do the harmful testing! I HATE the inefficiency and inflexibility of government institutions like public schools, the post office, and even the local library (we were iced in last week for a couple of days and they couldn’t do anything about my late fees, like re-check via the phone or internet–I’m betting a private business could have).
Bottom line: put it to a vote–on a local level. Let the states decide. Try not to think of it in light of the issue that you are defending but in the framework that this country was founded. I think we’d all be better off.
People aren’t so terrible that they need the government telling them how to live. I think most of us would do the right thing. I could argue with a right-winger on this concerning abortion (though I am pro-life), prayer in school and the wiretapping law on the same basis.
Put to a vote. Do you argue with this? Otherwise, we are no longer a Republic.
You never answered, btw, to the point that this guy wants to outlaw eating meat and hunting. The people would never vote to agree to this; and I don’t think they’d vote to waste tax money on lawyers representing gerbils.
Voting should always occur. That goes without saying.
I dont agree with Hunting, But especially not for population control.
If ANY population needs controling its the HUMAN population.
To me hunting for population control just seems like a bogus statement for People who Like to kill things to shoot DEFENCELESS Animals…
And when it comes to bear…They can be Tranquilized and Moved farther away from high (human) Population areas…and if they pose no threat to people (No that Doesnt include property..how could Material things be more important then a life?) they should be left alone.