www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-horses25may25,1,7080546.story
Yesterday Blagojevich signed into law a bill that bans horse slaughtering in the State of Illinois. In a way, it doesn't affect me--I haven't had a good piece of horsemeat since I returned from Japan five years ago.
But it's strange to see that the meat I gave up vegetarianism is banned in my state. It's weirder when I hear the lame justifications and the anti-foreign sentiment that has driven much of the campaign. "They're pets; not food!" Yeah, sure, right up to the point that one sinks their teeth into one. "The plant is foreign owned!" Yeah, but what about the workers who work there?
I have a great deal of respect for those who have so much love to give and have ample left over to give it to animals. I mean that genuinely. I just think it's a shame that human welfare is often neglected while so many of our resources go toward other creatures great and small.
It reminds me of a flyer I received from Alley Cat Allies, which decried that a huge percentage of feral cats receive no health care and that must be addressed. I thought, "Maybe I should become a feral cat..." (I worked part-time and went to school part-time and had no insurance even as I took care of others' children.)
At any rate, they are two different issues--it's one thing when Americans use our ill-gotten gains or well-gotten gains to promote our own issues. That's democratic capitalism in action--even when it's stupid. It's another thing when the government steps in to ban a food product and business opportunitiy that is not health threatening (unless you happen to be a horse) and non-addictive (unless like me, you absolutely love biting into raw horsemeat). To those who are utterly against any slaughter of animals whatsoever, I respect your position, but there are plenty of people who voted through this bill with a juicy hamburger in their other paw.
To conclude:
Horses are dumb animals compared to some of those we do eat.
Horses taste good.
That's all that should matter.
Having lived and worked on a horse farm for a while I developed an attachment to horses in a half pet / half motorcycle kind of way.
I suppose that sentimental attachment has created a conflict with my normal desire to see businesses run as freely as possible. Although on second thought, there were more than a few days when a particular horse would irk me enough to consider restringing my violin bow, stocking up on glue and sitting down to a nice traditional meal of Sauerbraten.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Have to say, Xian, I kind of agree with you on this one. If we are willing to eat veal, why shouldn't we even allow for the slaughter of horses if someone else wants to eat them?
Full disclosure - never eaten a horse :-)
Xian, I totally agree that horses and dogs can be good eats. I also share your feelings about all the time and money spent to help animals while humans are much more worthy recipients of help. I just feel obligated to point out that it was your voting process that led to this. Now, if only we had a system where other people couldn't tell you what you can and can't do with your property...
My system, huh? I had no idea I was so important.
Not your system, "your voting process". Remember when you said..
So I don't understand how you accept when people vote to take your money and spend it on what they want but you don't like it when horse slaughtering is banned. I don't see any difference between the two "cases" you mention:
Other than that in the first case you agree with the law, and in the 2nd case you think there is no good reason to have the law.
The sad thing is, this passed the second time because, and only because, Rod Blagojevich has a thing for Bo Derek.
Good post. Reminds me that I need to go out to the Humane Society and volunteer some, maybe adopt a couple more cats or pick up a dog to provide foster care for.
First smoking, then horsemeat. Everyone will experience the slippery slope eventually.
"First smoking, then horsemeat. Everyone will experience the slippery slope eventually."
Smoking wasn't first.
Not even close to being first. :-)
Oh, now we are dredging other threads to go off on stupid tangents and make poor logical connections. The quote you took answers your own question and you still choose to fabricate a ridiculous connection.
You think that the genocidal annexation of an independent country on the basis of a belief in racial superiority is no different from citizens selecting representatives to enact laws on the basis of popular votes. In other words, there is no difference between the seatbelt law and the holocaust.
Now can you stop stalking me with off-topic posts? Seriously, if other people want to support you on this, I'll back off. But seriously, do people think that to disagree with some piece of legislation prove the inepititude of democracy in general?
I imagine in a balanced system, that I will disagree with much of the legislation that comes down. I'm not saying this to be snarky--it's an honest question: besides voting on issues, what is your alternative? King Adam's monarchy?
Oh, and BTW, note the different sponsors of this bill on the national level...where are the conservatives? The Republicans are as bad as the Democrats on this issue.
Where is Queen and all her 'business rights' and 'gov't stay out of my business' buddies. Isn't this the same thing? Or is it only important when you have a financial gain? You all should be fighting this with the same passion as the smoking laws, or are you all hypocrites?
Smoking wasn't first.
Not even close to being first. :-)
My apologies. I meant to say "in the current legisative session."
Uh, Xian?? Are you accusing someone of blogjacking?
My alternative? Horses are property. You can do with your property whatever you want. That way there is no issue to begin with.
My alternative? Horses are property. You can do with your property whatever you want. That way there is no issue to begin with.
Actually, the issue has just begun, since the new law makes it illegal to slaughter your property, (horses).
No, what's your alternative to a democractic process.
Uh, Xian?? Are you accusing someone of blogjacking?
Sure, I guess. Either intentionally, or because he sucks at reading comprehension. Either way, it's not too constructive.
Ok look. I'm not trying to stalk you or blogjack. Thanks though for more kind words.
Having laws that truly protect private property does not deal with how other laws are passed. If private property was truly protected, then there would be very little for the government to do. For what little it should do, voting is fine.
There are two components to government power, how it is controlled, and its scope. A "democratic process" is a fine way to control government power, but it says absolutely nothing about its scope.
I didn't realize that you liked the fact that other people can decide what you do with your horses but simply disagree about this one particular thing. I guess for you it's a racist / anti-foreigner issue. I just hope you realize that if private property rights were really protected, the government (although democratic) could not pass such discriminating laws.
"I just hope you realize that if private property rights were really protected, the government (although democratic) could not pass such discriminating laws."
Except when people are considered property, of course.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Right, that's why you stalked me across multiple threads and attacked me for "my voting process"--you know, the one that the U.S. is founded upon.
Face it, you believe that any democratic process that involves taxation for any kind is bad. As I said, I understand that and accept that you hate democracy. That's totally your call. But can you go one way or the other? Either stop going off on this same tangent in most of the threads I post it, or go the whole nine and yell at Gordy and everyone else when they post anything after all, they believe in some form of democratic government with taxation as well.
This type of one-trick pony crap makes me yearn for horse slaughtering even more. :P
Ok. I'm done responding to anything you say. I wasn't stalking or attacking you for your voting process (a phrase I got from you). I was just trying to point out that democratic decision making emphasized over property rights allows a majority to pass laws that hurt minorities, whereas an emphasis on private property rights prevents such a thing.
Anyway, from now on, feel free to spout your leftist emotions without fear of comment from me.