Obama: Correct by Accident

Thursday, January 17, 2008

Barack Obama threatens, if elected, to introduce confusion about the meaning of the term "individual rights" to the highest level of the government of the freest nation on earth:

Democrat Barack Obama says he won't just be a president for the American people, but the animals too.

"What about animal rights?" a woman shouted out during the candidate's town hall meeting outside Las Vegas Wednesday after he discussed issues that relate more to humans, like war, health care and the economy.

Obama responded that he cares about animal rights very much, "not only because I have a 9-year-old and 6-year-old who want a dog." He said he sponsored a bill to prevent horse slaughter in the Illinois state Senate and has been repeatedly endorsed by the Humane Society.

"I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other," he said. "And it's very important that we have a president who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals." [bold added]
Consider that last sentence in bold in light of the following episode in Zimbawe not too long ago:
Hungry Zimbabweans threatened to kill and eat a giraffe after it wandered towards the outskirts of the capital Harare, it has emerged.

Scores of people rushed to the scene after the adult giraffe entered Seke district from surrounding farmland. Police said several wanted to butcher the animal "for the pot", according to the state-owned Herald newspaper.

"We have to guard the animal," said one officer. "We have to remain here until it is taken to a safe place."

The incident comes as wild game increasingly falls victim to President Robert Mugabe's policies, with impoverished Zimbabweans turning to any possible source of meat. Poaching is reportedly rising rapidly, with two elephants recently killed in Hurungwe. [bold added]
When, as I summed it up before, "[s]tarving human beings are being forbidden at gunpoint to eat animals," the true meaning of Barack Obama's words becomes apparent.

While it is true that wanton cruelty to animals does reflect a poverty of spirit and can indicate psychological problems, to claim that animals have rights on a par with human beings is quite another thing. In fact, it is to claim that man has no rights.

"[H]ow we treat ... animals reflects how we treat each other."

Indeed it does. Just look at Zimbabwe, Mr. Obama.

-- CAV


Dan Edge said...

Very nice, very interesting integration, Gus.

Incidentally, I was looking at all the democratic candidates' party platforms the other day, and to my surprise I found Obama's to be the least offensive.

--Dan Edge

Gus Van Horn said...

Thanks, Dan.

"... I found Obama's to be the least offensive."

Oh boy! This is going to be a long year!

Tracy said...

So you're against animal rights because there's a chance the U.S. may run out of food? I wouldn't say that's logical reasoning. Especially because the reality is that billions of animals suffer and are slaughtered each year in the U.S. alone. Why not look at reality instead of some unlikely hypothetical?

Incidentally most of the grain that is produced goes to feed animals who are then killed for food. It'd be more efficient to simply give that grain to people.

Like animals? http://www.chooseveg.com/vegetarians-save-lives.asp
Wanna lose weight? http://www.chooseveg.com/obesity.asp
Care about the environment? http://www.chooseveg.com/global-warming.asp

Gus Van Horn said...

No. I am against so-called animal "rights" legislation because the concept of "rights" (see first hyperlink in article) does not apply to non-rational animals and, as the atrocity that took place in Zimbabwe shows, when animals are treated as if they do have rights, it is done at the expense of protecting individual rights, which is the sole purpose of government.

Incidentally, only capitalism makes our massively productive economy possible in the first place -- while leaving individuals such as yourself perfectly free to bypass the "inefficiencies" (and superior taste and better nutrition) of meat products.

Elaine Vigneault said...

a. Obama is not an animal rights activist. He is not going to act in the interests of animals.

b. Tracy's right. In the US we grow corn to feed the cows that we eat. If we sent that corn to feed starving Africans instead, we'd feed a whole lot more people.

The humans protecting animals are not creating and sustaining famine, the US economy and culture is.

c. The concept of rights doesn't have to be understood by those who are protected by them. Children are just one of many examples.

Gus Van Horn said...

(a) So. Animal rights activists, as I have already indicated twice, do not have the interests of a certain kind of animals -- human beings -- in mind at all, and most certainly don't act in this rational animal's interests.

(b) First of all, nobody owes anyone else a living and second, if African nations had rule of law and respected individual rights, they'd be able to feed themselves directly or through trade.

(c) Children, unlike animals, are human beings and, despite their not-fully-developed rationality, have certain rights (e.g., life) protected, while awaiting the full exercise of other rights (e.g., fully free action). Indeed, for adults NOT to forcibly restrain children about to misbehave would be in violation of the rights of adults.

Children mostly eventually can be expected to recognize the rights of other human beings. Animals never can. In addition, animals do not depend for their survival on the ability to think. THat is the very basis for the political concept of rights.

Andrea said...

I don't think you can conclude that someone is an animal rights activist based on one comment. A human(e) being can be both a consumer of meat and in full support of humans at the top of the food chain, and at the same time against unnecessary cruelty in the process.

Gus Van Horn said...


I never said that Obama is an animal rights activist -- but he himself implied that he supports the idea that animals have rights (which they do not).

Not wanting to visit wanton cruelty on animals is not the same thing as asserting that they have rights or attempting to encode such into law.


Anonymous said...

If humans would stop being cruel to animals out of some sick need to feel power then animals would not need to have rights in legislation. People who claim animals do not need/deserve rights for representation under the law as more than their current status as property are actually syaing it's OK to torture animals.

Gus Van Horn said...


I am saying that nonrational animals do not HAVE rights.

Rights are a concept applicable only to rational beings. They are not granted by God or the state, but exist because of the nature of a rational being.

As for whether I think it is OK to torture animals, I would suggest reading my post.