As I was driving home today, the commentator on the radio was talking about the nominee for Obama's 'Regulatory Czar', Professor Cass Sunstein. Now the phrase "Regulatory Czar" was enough to chill my blood when spoken in the context of Obama and his leftie crowd, since their idea of regulation seems to be "take private property away from those who earned it give it to those who did not." I think that perception was added by the inclusion of the word "czar". But the best part was listening to the commentator describe the professor's bona fides. For that he read an article describing the professor's recent comments. That is when it dawned on me. These people really are trying to start a war by destroying this country. Honestly. When a law school professor, most recently at Harvard Law, which only reduces my perception of the school further publicly states:
“[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.”
What? I'm Sorry. I don't think I heard you correctly. Did you say "Animals should be entitled to sue with human counsel? You want to give Morris the freaking cat the RIGHT to sue someone??? This is what happens when you spend too damn long in academia and not enough time in the real world. A law school professor just proposed allowing animals to engage in lawsuits. The court system rarely works the way it is supposed to right now, with overloaded dockets and judges who go out of their way to keep from hearing cases. I'm betting the esteemed professor who is so willing to give these rights to our food, pets, and threats is thoroughly against allowing similar rights to unborn humans. That's just a hunch. If you are offended by that statement, go ahead and prove me wrong. But the flip side is the part about representation by human counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions on their client's behalf. How convenient. Human counsel gets to determine that Elsie really isn't contented and gets to sue Farmer Brown on her behalf...for a fee, I'm sure. And the best part? No one can ever challenge the attorney's interpretation of his 'client's' intent. I can see a whole new legal specialty cropping up around this. I'm sure all the big name law schools will pioneer these courses. Of course, if there is wisdom in allowing animals to sue, why stop there? Why not allow other living beings to sue? After all, I am quite sure your cactus doesn't like where you have it placed right now. What about those bacteria that you are damaging with the antibiotics you are taking? Come to think of it, you really are heartless for even existing. You are competing with those animals for the air you breathe. Consuming food takes nutrients they could otherwise benefit from. There are all sorts of plant species that could be living in the space your home currently occupies.
Of course, this 'regulator-to-be' wasn't content with his first deployment of weapons-grade stupidity. No, he had to go after another American tradition and human birthright:
“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.”
Remember, the smug intellectuals who don't like us having the right to keep and bear arms grudgingly allow that hunting is perhaps the only use that we illiterate peasants could legitimately have for a firearm, and therefore anything that they deem inappropriate for hunting is something we should not be allowed to own. Take away hunting as a justification, most likely with a...regulation, and "Voila!" "You don't have any right to own a gun, peasant! Hand it over, and oh, by the way, we are going to act as if your purpose in life is to serve us and not the other way around. Get used to it, or maybe we'll send you to a reeducation camp."
And banning meat-eating. I'm sure that fits in with the justification for the government telling us all what we can eat, and how much, after Universal Healthcare is forced on us all, at the cost of all we make. For our own good, I'm sure.
I just don't understand what happens to people to make them think that such things have any business being uttered seriously in public. I think on somethings that I have read in my life, The Bible, This Present Darkness, and I wonder...demonic possession? But then I could just as easily place my money on insanity. The insanity of the person who believes such things, and the insanity of the person who actively considers putting him in a place where he just might be able to transform it into law.
I really don't believe we can afford four years of such lunacy.