Another Extremist in the Administration?

[HonestChieffan]

Cass Sunstein, President Obama's choice for a powerful regulatory position in the White House, is a rabid supporter of animal rights. Your voice is needed to prevent him from being in a position to harm America's sportsmen.

Sunstein, the president's pick to head the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), is an advocate for the animal rights movement and is an ardent anti-hunter. As a part of the federal budget office, OIRA has extensive authority to block rules, including those that protect hunting and conservation.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein said: "We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation." He also supports allowing lawsuits on behalf of animals, according to the book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions." That right is currently only extended to human beings.

Views such as these raise serious concerns about the agenda Sunstein will carry with him into this position if he is confirmed by the Senate. This is why it is crucial that you contact your two U.S. Senators and ask them to vote against confirming Cass Sunstein as the head of the OIRA.

Also, we need you to ask your local chapter presidents and volunteers to call. Please visit www.nwtf.org/sunstein for information on how to contact your state?s senators and for talking points to use.

The hunting community desperately needs your voice to be heard on this issue.

[mlyonsd]

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein said: "We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation." He also supports allowing lawsuits on behalf of animals, according to the book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions." That right is currently only extended to human beings.



:bong:

[ROYC75]

1 of many in the Book Of Obo.

[DJ's left nut]

You'll find very few hunters that believe hunting is solely for human recreation.

Hunting serves an incredibly important role. It helps keep stocks stronger, but it also provides an incredible source of funding.

Yet another schmuck that doesn't realize that things cost money. Hunting licenses, animal tags, etc... all provide a vast majority of the resources used by state conservation departments to preserve and maintain wildlife. If hunting is banned, those efforts likely go by the wayside (well...I suppose we could just soak the "rich" some more to pay for them).

Hunters do far more for the environment as a whole than the entire lot of PETA whackos combined. They put their money behind it and they put their time behind it through massive preservation/beautification projects. The nations wildlife as an aggregate is far better off due to the efforts of hunters. Not that I would expect some disconnected DC jackass to realize that.

[BucEyedPea]

Oh brother! We're going to revert to the Medieval period where animals were actually put on trial.

[Jenson71]

HonestChiefFan, with your vast knowledge of the American political system, can you explain how hunting regulations and laws is something the OIRA gets into?

Cass Sunstein is not an extremist, unless you mean he is extremely respected in the field of Constitutional Law.

[KC Dan]

Cass Sunstein is not an extremist, unless you mean he is extremely respected in the field of Constitutional Law.This is not extremist???

"In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein said: "We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation." He also supports allowing lawsuits on behalf of animals, according to the book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions." That right is currently only extended to human beings."

[Jenson71]

This is not extremist???

"In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein said: "We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation." He also supports allowing lawsuits on behalf of animals, according to the book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions." That right is currently only extended to human beings."

He's saying that if hunting didn't serve any other purpose except for fun, then we should ban it. It's a hypothetical conditional statement. He's neither saying that it's only purpose is for fun nor is he saying we should ban it. No, that's not extreme.

Supporting lawsuits on behalf of abused animals doesn't seem entirely radical either, especially since we have these "extreme" laws that ban that stuff already.

[KC Dan]

He's saying that if hunting didn't serve any other purpose except for fun, then we should ban it. It's a hypothetical conditional statement. He's neither saying that it's only purpose is for fun nor is he saying we should ban it. No, that's not extreme.

Supporting lawsuits on behalf of abused animals doesn't seem entirely radical either, especially since we have these "extreme" laws that ban that stuff already.hmmmm, whatever. Can't wait to see a $10 Million suit judgement because Puffy the poodle had her fur ruffled by Kato the lab in the dog park...And, hypothetical conditional statements made (just like I just did) are always ridiculous. The guy is holding down the fringe on one end while Beck holds the other...

[mlyonsd]

hmmmm, whatever. Can't wait to see a $10 Million suit judgement because Puffy the poodle had her fur ruffled by Kato the lab in the dog park...And, hypothetical conditional statements made (just like I just did) are always ridiculous. The guy is holding down the fringe on one end while Beck holds the other...

The picture that popped into my head was a new breed (pun intended) of lawyer hanging out at animal hospitals waiting to pass out their card to dogs hit by cars.

[Jenson71]

hmmmm, whatever. Can't wait to see a $10 Million suit judgement because Puffy the poodle had her fur ruffled by Kato the lab in the dog park...And, hypothetical conditional statements made (just like I just did) are always ridiculous. The guy is holding down the fringe on one end while Beck holds the other...

1. That doesn't mean there will be cases where a dog is suing another dog for getting bit.

2. Hypothetical conditional statements are not always ridiculous. They're just a method of conversing. Here's another one: "If Fox News is a propaganda machine, then it misleads its viewers." It's just part a statement that has a conditional.

3. This guy is not fringe. He's a leading scholar on Constitutional Law. He understands and follows the Constitution better than anyone here. He teaches it to law students and writes books about issues. Fringe is David Walsh. Fringe is not Cass Sunstein.

[KC Dan]

1. That doesn't mean there will be cases where a dog is suing another dog for getting bit.

2. Hypothetical conditional statements are not always ridiculous. They're just a method of conversing. Here's another one: "If Fox News (and especially MSleaseNBC) is a propaganda machine, then it misleads its viewers." It's just part a statement that has a conditional.

3. This guy is not fringe. He's a leading scholar on Constitutional Law. He understands and follows the Constitution better than anyone here. He teaches it to law students and writes books about issues. Fringe is David Walsh. Fringe is not Cass Sunstein.
.

[banyon]

OMG, we found an out of context statement and people with poor reading comprehension are jumping to unwarranted conclusions! Not again!

[Earthling]

I guess I will save my outrage untill such time as something is actually proposed in regards to a hunting ban....rather than on conjecture.

[banyon]

Well the quote is not only out of context, but it is also inaccurate:

<embed id=VideoPlayback src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2586700172704318361&hl=en&fs=true style=width:400px;height:326px allowFullScreen=true allowScriptAccess=always type=application/x-shockwave-flash> </embed>

The relevant portion is at 49:40. It's pretty tiresome listening.

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there's no other purpose other than sport and fun. It ought to be illegal. It out to be against the law. It's time. This is more controversial isn't it?" Then he goes on to explain why it might be controversial.

This is clearly one in a series of proposed legal changes where he is exploring the consequences of each. He's not really advocating any particular view. It's a philosophy seminar for f*cks sake. No one ever advocates anything in those.

[mlyonsd]

I noticed you didn't address his animal rights and lawsuit stance. But to be fair I quoted an interpretation from someone that made a claim from a book and I really don't care to read it myself.

[Nightfyre]

Well the quote is not only out of context, but it is also inaccurate:

The relevant portion is at 49:40. It's pretty tiresome listening.

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there's no other purpose other than sport and fun. It ought to be illegal. It out to be against the law. It's time. This is more controversial isn't it?" Then he goes on to explain why it might be controversial.

This is clearly one in a series of proposed legal changes where he is exploring the consequences of each. He's not really advocating any particular view. It's a philosophy seminar for f*cks sake. No one ever advocates anything in those.

When I listened to it in context, it sounded a lot like he wanted to ban hunting to me. When he says, "It ought to be illegal, it ought to be against the law. It's time," that sounds a lot like advocating.

[banyon]

When I listened to it in context, it sounded a lot like he wanted to ban hunting to me. When he says, "It ought to be illegal, it ought to be against the law. It's time," that sounds a lot like advocating.

Really, what did you think that the "that's more controversial, isn't it?" meant?

Or the discussion before hand of other potentially controversial views, or the explanation afterwards about what makes such views controversial?

Are you sure you listened to the context?

[Nightfyre]

Really, what did you think that the "that's more controversial, isn't it?" meant?

Or the discussion before hand of other potentially controversial views, or the explanation afterwards about what makes such views controversial?

Are you sure you listened to the context?

Prior to that quote he was talking about enforcement of animal cruelty cases and then he advocated people with a vested interest having the capability to sue on behalf of animals. He sounded pretty out of left field to me.

[Nightfyre]

I mean, he says "My simple suggestion is that" and then goes into interested parties being able to sue on behalf of animals.

[listopencil]

Well the quote is not only out of context, but it is also inaccurate:

<embed sap="flash" id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=2586700172704318361&hl=en&fs=true" style="width: 400px; height: 326px;" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">

The relevant portion is at 49:40. It's pretty tiresome listening.

"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there's no other purpose other than sport and fun. It ought to be illegal. It out to be against the law. It's time. This is more controversial isn't it, [this domain]?" Then he goes on to explain why it might be controversial.

This is clearly one in a series of proposed legal changes where he is exploring the consequences of each. He's not really advocating any particular view. It's a philosophy seminar for f*cks sake. No one ever advocates anything in those.



Actually, from context and his speaking style I think he is advocating an end to "sport hunting". A few minutes before this part he was talking about using existing law to help protect farm animals, and looking at European law as a guide. The sticky part is this: What exactly does he consider hunting for recreation/sport?

As far as I'm concerned you (or someone) needs to eat what you hunt or it's wrong. There are times when you might kill an animal w/o eating it, like euthanasia or self defense, but that's not hunting. You don't take animal life lightly and you don't waste the flesh of an animal you kill. First of all you are wasting food, but more importantly you are ending life for no reason. It's hard for me to explain, but I think that part of being a human being is putting a value on the living things around you. But if you go take down a deer, then you and your family live off of it, so be it. Humans first.


Although I've got to say...there have been a lot of animals I've known that I'd rank higher on the scale than several humans I've seen.

[banyon]

Actually, from context and his speaking style I think he is advocating an end to "sport hunting". A few minutes before this part he was talking about using existing law to help protect farm animals, and looking at European law as a guide. The sticky part is this: What exactly does he consider hunting for recreation/sport?

As far as I'm concerned you (or someone) needs to eat what you hunt or it's wrong. There are times when you might kill an animal w/o eating it, like euthanasia or self defense, but that's not hunting. You don't take animal life lightly and you don't waste the flesh of an animal you kill. First of all you are wasting food, but more importantly you are ending life for no reason. It's hard for me to explain, but I think that part of being a human being is putting a value on the living things around you. But if you go take down a deer, then you and your family live off of it, so be it. Humans first.


Although I've got to say...there have been a lot of animals I've known that I'd rank higher on the scale than several humans I've seen.

I support hunting for sport or food, so long as its sustainable.

I just think this is a theoretical discussion, as most philosophical seminars are.

[listopencil]

Really, what did you think that the "that's more controversial, isn't it?" meant?

Or the discussion before hand of other potentially controversial views, or the explanation afterwards about what makes such views controversial?

Are you sure you listened to the context?


Listen to "We ought to ban hunting...". His inflection changed as pushed the start of that sentence out quickly because he wanted to get to the part about "no purpose....sport and fun". Now contrast that with the way he spoke about legislation concerning farm animals- pigs, cows and chickens IIRC? Very monotone delivery.

[listopencil]

I support hunting for sport or food, so long as its sustainable.

I just think this is a theoretical discussion, as most philosophical seminars are.

I don't support sport hunting.

[banyon]

I don't support sport hunting.

So assuming he's advocating that position, you agree with him?

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Talking pets: Obama's guru wants animals to sue you

Making an Ass of the Law

By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

Posted in Law, 19th January 2009 16:46 GMT

Obama's "regulation czar" Professor Cass Sunstein wants animals to be able to sue.

Animals can't reason or express themselves, naturally, so the litigation would be handled by human lawyers, acting as ventriloquists on behalf of the animal kingdom. Think Mister Ed the talking horse, crossed with Eliot Spitzer.

"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," according to Sunstein. The Harvard legal scholar first proposed the argument in 2002.

"This doesn’t look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners," says the food industry lobby group The Center for Consumer Freedom, which raised Sunstein's radical "rights" agenda. In Spain, activists have already proposed that apes be granted human rights.

Yet the Professor's proposal is fraught with practical difficulties. Ventriloquists have often seen their "animal" veer out of control: remember Rod Hull and Emu - or Bob Carrolgees and Spit The Dog? There would be chaos in the courtroom.

The proposal can be seen as part of a trend to fight political battles through the courts by playing clever tricks with the statutes or legal processes. A parallel move is the decision to give life-giving CO2 status as a "pollutant". Where do these perverse ideas come from?

Ever since the New Deal, when Roosevelt packed attempted to pack the Supreme Court to ram home legislation, it's been the preferred route for US activists seeking a short cut. But at bottom, it's fundamentally undemocratic and contemptuous of politics. Instead of taking your argument to the people, and using the powers of persuasion, a bit of semantic clever-dickery will do. The strategy shows little confidence in one's own arguments, and worse, little faith in ordinary people to make rational decisions. It's elitism.

But it comes at a time when private agreements are bypassing and undermining well established public settlements. Last November, Google was handed a monopoly on the future of digital book in a backroom deal that replaces public agreements with private fiat. Authors must now trust Google to do the right thing - a position the medieval citizenry had to adopt with the ruling aristocrats, because it had little other choice.

The law may often be an ass, but it's still an improvement on what came before - the whims of the "wise" - and we still need it to work. ®

Bootnote

Cass Sunstein co-wrote the authoritarian pop-policy book Nudge which was compulsory holiday reading for the UK Conservative Party last summer, by order of the Glorious Leader.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/19/cass_sunstein_animal_rights/

[listopencil]

So assuming he's advocating that position, you agree with him?

I'd have to see the wording of the law.

[Velvet_Jones]

OMG, we found an out of context statement and people with poor reading comprehension are jumping to unwarranted conclusions! Not again!

Hehehe - You have poor reality comprehension - is this different from or worse than poor reading comprehension?

[Velvet_Jones]

I don't support sport hunting.

I do - but I use all the meat I harvest as well.

[listopencil]

I do - but I use all the meat I harvest as well.


Perhaps we have a different definition of sport hunting? When I say "sport hunting" I mean taking an animal just for the pleasure of the hunt w/o using the carcass, or only taking trophy parts. Sort of like the sport is the kill, and you're done once the animal is dead.

[listopencil]

I realize that many definitions exist, and I'm sure they don't all agree with me, but this is what I meant:

'Hunting without collection of a food or other commercial product; hunting for trophy or prize."

http://www.answers.com/topic/sport-hunting

[HonestChieffan]

HonestChiefFan, with your vast knowledge of the American political system, can you explain how hunting regulations and laws is something the OIRA gets into?

Cass Sunstein is not an extremist, unless you mean he is extremely respected in the field of Constitutional Law.

No, I cant explain it. Seems like a further reach of bureaucratic control. The fact I can't explain it doesnt change the fact however. Does he not seem rather extreme in his views to you?

[Inspector]

Actually, from context and his speaking style I think he is advocating an end to "sport hunting". A few minutes before this part he was talking about using existing law to help protect farm animals, and looking at European law as a guide. The sticky part is this: What exactly does he consider hunting for recreation/sport?

As far as I'm concerned you (or someone) needs to eat what you hunt or it's wrong. There are times when you might kill an animal w/o eating it, like euthanasia or self defense, but that's not hunting. You don't take animal life lightly and you don't waste the flesh of an animal you kill. First of all you are wasting food, but more importantly you are ending life for no reason. It's hard for me to explain, but I think that part of being a human being is putting a value on the living things around you. But if you go take down a deer, then you and your family live off of it, so be it. Humans first.


Although I've got to say...there have been a lot of animals I've known that I'd rank higher on the scale than several humans I've seen.

I was raised around a nut when it comes to hunters.

God bless my grandmother (and rest her soul) but she was a little wacky about some things.

I grew up on about 60 wooded acres in south KC - on 87th between Hillcrest and 71 highway. We had 2 lakes (stocked) and a lot of woods.

One day grandma saw two guys down at the lake (about 150 yards away from us) gigging frogs. Now grandma thought of her land as a wildlife preserve and had "No Hunting" signs posted all along the border of the land on 87th street.

So she sees these guys gigging frogs and runs into her house. Next thing I know she has her pistol and is taking a very careful aim. And then, she fired. Twice. Shoot to kill.

Thankfully it was a small pistol and the bullets probably went about 30 yards or so and then hit the dirt. Nobody was hurt...well, except for some frogs.

That was the day I realized that some people get a little carried away with their animal rights stuff.

Now that I think about it, I bet she is one of the reasons why I'm so weird now. Hmmmmmm....

[mikey23545]

It's really hard to even take anything Bunion or Jetson71 post anymore. They are bringing shame to the meaning of the word "apologist"...

[SHTSPRAYER]

I think Van Jones is a queer.

[BucEyedPea]

It's really hard to even take anything Bunion or Jetson71 post anymore. They are bringing shame to the meaning of the word "apologist"...

I'd have to agree their true colors are showing: deep shade of pink/red.

[SHTSPRAYER]

I think Van Jones and B.O. are sword fighters.