How does the "Happy Animals Act" sound?

How many more reasons?

Sometimes the blatant gall of the Bush administration manages to break through my layer of cynicism to actually make me despise the man (well, his politics at least) even more than before.
He violates human rights treaties (which I should remind you are on the SAME hierarchical level in American jurisprudence as the U.S. Constitution due to the Supremacy clause of the Constitution). If you want evidence of that, check out the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) sometime. Pay particular attention to Article 7, too, and think about the broadness of the term “no one” in conjunction with our treatment of prisoners at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib. The U.S. actually signed and ratified that treaty, so in theory, it is the "Supreme Law of the Land."

He violates the United States Constitution by rejecting the FISA courts (themselves possibly unconstitutional) and institutes wire taps on U.S. citizens, on U.S. soil, with absolutely no accountability to another branch of government or to the people. Why did the framers want for officials to have to get warrants to do such things? It must surely not have been to prevent abuse of power, right? Whether Bush has abused this new power or not, he has set a dangerous precedent in this power grab.

I balk at his Orwellian doublespeak when he champions legislation like the Clear Skies initiative that weakened the standards on air quality or the Healthy Forests initiative that opened large tracts of formerly protected forests to logging interests.

I’ve grown to expect such levels of harmful silliness from the hands of this administration. But today, I read a news story which made me wonder once again about the vast inconsistencies between the President’s words and deeds.

The Endangered Species Act is a piece of legislation which is dear to my heart. I flirt with the animal rights movement based largely on the writings of the philosopher Peter Singer, who wrote the book that first initiated the Animal Rights movement (“Animal Liberation” is to the AR movement what “Silent Spring” was to the Environmental Movement). Singer made a powerful statement when arguing about why non-human animals deserve some measure of legal protection when he suggested that what mattered was not the answer to the question, “Are they persons?” Rather, Singer countered, what mattered was the answer to the question, “Can they suffer?”

Normally the Endangered Species Act (the ESA) requires that certain animals, because of their rarity, are to be protected from hunting, harvesting, or over-consumption. Sounds like a good idea, for whatever reason. Whether because you view it as a way to preserve a special non-human animal species for the enjoyment of future generations, or a way to keep a species viable so that we can harvest again later, or to put the brakes on the wholesale genocide of entire species, the ESA is a good start to keeping non-human animals around for years to come.

Well, today, I read about a fun group of ‘ranches’ in Texas where for a nominal fee of about US $8,500, you can pick up a rifle and blast the endangered animal of your choice. Zebras, Oryx, Lions and Tigers… You name it - they’ve got it ready for you to shoot and mount on your wall.

Now, my horror at standard types of hunting and other bloodsports aside, hunting for trophies is infuriating. When a hunter kills a deer, say, in standard hunting, a shot in the body is quickly followed by a gunshot wound to the head to kill the suffering being much quicker. While in my mind nearly on the level of murder, a murderer who sees that his victim suffers as little as possible is surely preferable to a murderer who ensures the long suffering of his victim.

Hunting for trophies is precisely the second type of act. No blow to the head follows the shots to the body, because the head is precisely what the hunter wants intact and pristine, so that it can be mounted on a wall in his den. Hunting for trophies usually entails several shots to the abdomen or legs to disable the animal. Then to prevent any more damage to the animal, the hunter will simply let it expire from the wounds before collecting the body.

How is this all possible with the ESA in place? Shouldn't the ESA be keeping animals, clearly marked as endangered on the ESA lists, protected from hunting of any variety, particularly while on U.S. soil? Not anymore.

Bush created an executive enforcement exception to the ESA, exempting ‘hunting ranches’ from the requirements of the ESA. So go ahead and shoot that Mountain Gorilla. Even counting the ones left in the wild (about 700), there are only about 1,500 left alive anywhere on the planet.

Whoops. Make that 1,499.