Animal lover. That's me. That label sort of holds the same implications as "tree hugger." I guess I'm that too. I adore trees and nature, a solitary hike in the woods (OK, not completely solitary since Nico is always with me) is when I am the most myself, the most at peace with the world. Ken Burns' recent documentary on our national park system highlighted some of the people in history who held these same ideas, and that helped shape our nation, often against great political challenges. These people were heroes.
More and more these labels, "animal lover," "tree hugger," and the concept of someone as a "nature lover" have come to have negative connotations. What happened to all that tossing about of "compassionate conservatism?" We need more decision-makers in government who are looking out for our earth and its inhabitants, and that includes us as human beings.
I heard a brief mention today about Fox News vilifying Cass Sunstein, an accomplished political science and law professor with accolades too numerous to mention. He is a prolific writer with support for both liberal and conservative ideals (for example, he supports the death penalty and supported Bush's supreme court nominee John Roberts). He seems to be an incredibly intelligent, thoughtful modern day intellectual who is interested in the betterment of our country.
He wrote a book about the "Second Bill of Rights," proposed by FDR (but which sadly was never adopted), which I only recently learned about during the same aforementioned documentary on our national parks. The book is entitled, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever, and advocates the right to an education, a home, health care and protection against monopolies. I mean, Sustein sounds like the kind of guy who is looking out for us and maybe should be making some political decisions on our behalf.
OK, so here's where Fox News comes in with the contortion of someone who has a respect for living beings into a nutso "animal lover" who is going to take away your rights to do what you like in the privacy of your own home (one of their favorite fear-mongering tactics). Sunstein has written an incredibly interesting primer on animal rights, that can be found here: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/157.crs.animals.pdf
Anyway, our old friends at Fox News basically blocked this guy from getting appointed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs because they (Beck) stated that Sunstein believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain. First of all, they have (not surprisingly) contorted his views. This is the excerpt from his primer that Fox extricated and twisted:
"At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes suffering. And if possible, people should try to expel rats in a way that does not harm them at all. These claims need not be taken as radical or extreme; many people already take steps in just this direction. If we are getting rid of rats, we do so in a way that reduces, rather than maximizes, their distress."
Of course, the whole rat issue was taken out of context and I am getting away from my earlier point. The point is, people who take up the issue of animal rights or the environment are painted as radicals by the far right. A day will come when the barbaric practices of factory farming, vivisection, and circus animals will be looked on the same as human slavery, with disgust, dread and shame that we allowed it to continue for so long. Once again, I have to quote Sustein because his summary paragraph is so in line with my own beliefs and he says it so much more eloquently than I.
"...the emphasis on suffering, and on decent lives, itself has significant implications. Of course it is appropriate to consider human interests in the balance, and sometimes our interests will outweigh those of other animals. 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."
I believe people are awakening to the idea, but it is going to be a long struggle against several powerful industries whose interests are not in easing the suffering of animals. But if each of us makes an effort to reduce animal suffering in our daily lives, the impact will be felt, and will grow. I have hope that we can reduce the suffering in my lifetime by becoming informed and making compassionate choices in our consumption. Thanks for reading my blog.
5 days ago
