Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Another "Czar" appointee...

Remember last week, when I pointed out that Obama's pick for "Global Warming Czar" is an Industrial Revolution-hating, Big-S Socialist?

(Of course you do, everyone who's anyone reads this blog)

Well, I'm starting to see a pattern here...

Because Obama's pick for "Regulatory Czar" (technically, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Administrator) is actually a dyed-in-the-wool, anti-meat, anti-hunting, animal-rights (as in, "squirrels can sue" animal-rights) ...well,...nutjob.

Originally from Chicago (shocker!) ,Cass Sunstein is a Harvard University Law School professor (so you know he must be a good choice) , an author and has the endorsement of the Wall Street Journal (I feel their circulation dropping....)

He also believes that “There should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments, and agriculture,”

"Extensive regulation" - and that "should be" part means that he doesn't currently feel that existing regulations are nearly extensive enough....

Okay, so he's a regulation-wonk, a bean-counter by nature and training - but what does he think those regulations should actually be?

Well, funny you should ask...

In Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions , a book Sunstein co-edited, he included his vision for a new direction in "animal rights":

“Animals 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.”
Can you imagine what that consultation would look like, or the pooper-scooping necessary in the event of a class-action suit?

But wait - there's more...

Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference.
(if you want to watch, Sunstein starts @ around 39 minutes in)

At that conference, Sunstein stated:

“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.”
During that same speech, Sunstein spoke in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and (...wait for it....) meat eating, most controversially.”

He later wrapped up that speech by concluding that our 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.”

Remember, this is the guy who will have final say in the review and implementation of any regulations that fall in any way under the Office of Management and Budget which is, well... nearly everything.

And, by the way - that's just his view on animals.

Go take a look at his wish-list for the Internet.

When someone proposes:

"...a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the email you’re about to send is angry and caution you, “warning: this appears to be an uncivil email. do you really and trulywant to send it?”

A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, “warning: this appears to be an uncivil email. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in twenty-fourhours.”

...that sounds remarkable Czar-like to me - so at least the title is appropriate.

Don't worry, I'm sure the Senate confirma.... oh, right - that one doesn't need approval either.

- MuscleDaddy

No comments:

Post a Comment

We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.