Saturday, January 17, 2009
You Gotta Be Kidding Me!
No, not another post about my job situation. This is just some evidence of true American Descent. I'm not saying this lunatic's point of view will ever take hold, even in a nation with the liberal half of the population suffering from acute common-sense deprivation. But to think a genius like Obamessiah would actually give a twit like this the time of day, much less a post in his administration, says volumes about the trouble the United States of America is in for over the course of the next four years. Can you believe some think he'll get eight years?
4 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here's the entire abstract of the paper where this "radical PETA quote" is derived.
ReplyDeleteDo animals have rights? Almost everyone believes in animal rights, at least in some minimal sense; the real question is what that phrase actually means. By exploring that question, it is possible to give a clear sense of the lay of the land - to show the range of possible positions, and to explore what issues, of theory or fact, separate reasonable people. On reflection, the spotlight should be placed squarely on the issue of suffering and well-being. This position requires rejection of some of the most radical claims by animal rights advocates, especially those that stress the "autonomy" of animals, or that object to any human control and use of animals. But this position has radical implications of its own. It strongly suggests, for example, that there should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture. It also suggests that there is a strong argument, in principle, for bans on many current uses of animals.
I just don't see anything to make much of a fuss over.
"“[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.”
ReplyDelete“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.”
Neither of these is worthy of a fuss in your mind? Perhaps not from the mouth of some jerkwad liberal professor, but a political appointee? YOU GOTTA BE KIDDING ME1
Yes scary words. Now go read what the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs does and explain how this guy will suddenly be in a place to implement his societal changes carte blanch.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand how you can read the words of this guy and suggest that he deserves a place in anyone's cabinet. To have such absolutely wacky views and be in a position where all sorts of regulations cross his desk, to head up any department invites his goofiness to bleed into his job. As I said in the post, I'm not saying his views WILL have any impact whatsoever. But what kind of jackass puts such a nutcase in a leadership position?
ReplyDelete