And people wonder why the approval ratings of congress are in the gutter. A
bill on horses? Let me get this straight -- we shoot 'em if they get a broken leg, but heaven forbid we allow owners to sell them for purposes of human consumption (you know, something that is actually
useful)...
Unfreakingbelievable. Talk about useless, feelgood diversions.
At least a few people have been making sense:
Quote:
But critics of the bill said it violates the property rights of horse owners to dispose of an injured or unwanted animal as they see fit, including selling the meat to a horse processing plant for a few hundred dollars.
"At the end of the day this bill is not about protecting horses," said Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., who opposed the legislation. "All it will do is limit the options of horse owners and burden them with additional costs for care and disposal."
|
OK, not so bad... Rep. Collin Peterson gets it.
Hey, this reminds me -- didn't I just bring up the economic ramications of changing animals' status from "property" to... "something else" in the
Ape Thread yesterday? Sometimes I amaze even myself...
Oh, goodie -- Rep. John Dingell still retains some semblence of sanity, as well! Quote:
|
It took the long-in-the-tooth Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), the dean of the House, to rear up against the horse celebration. "It's a triumph of emotion over common sense," he scolded. "We have before us a solution, a poor one, to a nonexistent problem."
|
My heart aches from the virtuous beauty of his words.
Forums |
