|
Saxby Chambliss, the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Ag Committee, is blocking the confirmation of Cass Sunstein, Obama's Regulatory Czar (hat tip to Tom Philpott). Sunstein is most famous for authoring the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness but he's also a vegetarian.
Here's what Sunstein says about animals:
If we focus on suffering, as I believe that we should, it is not necessarily impermissible to kill animals and use them for food; but it is entirely impermissible to be indifferent to their interests while they are alive. So too for other animals in farms, even or perhaps especially if they are being used for the benefit of human beings.
The problem is that most of the time, the interests of animals are not counted at all--and that once they are counted, many of our practices cannot possibly be justified. I believe that in the long-run, our willingness to subject animals to unjustified suffering will be seem a form of unconscionable barbarity--not the same as, but in many ways morally akin to, slavery and the mass extermination of human beings.
So what is Chambliss' - pardon the expression - beef with Sunstein? These quotes from Sunstein's 2004 book Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions:
I will suggest that animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law... Laws designed to protect animals against cruelty and abuse should be amended or interpreted to give a private cause of action against those who violate them, so as to allow private people to supplement the efforts of public prosecutors.
Chambliss says he will drop the hold after he has a chance to meet with Sunstein. Sunstein has already met with Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, who he gave assurances that he would not promote burdensome animal rights regulations for farmers.
The fact of the matter is that we do NOT have very many laws that protect agricultural animals from suffering, and those that we do have are not well-enforced. And while the idea of a pig suing a human is absurd, I think it makes perfect sense for a human to bring a case against a human over cruel treatment of a pig. Given how well the Obama administration has done thus far on the rights of some humans (Guantanamo prisoners, gays and lesbians...) I doubt animal rights is at the top of his agenda. Truly, those who want to abuse animals legally have little to fear from the Obama administration. But that doesn't make the way we treat agricultural animals right, and we certainly should have more laws in place (like California's Prop 2) to protect animals from cruel treatment.
|
