Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Cass Sunstein:

Obama's friend, law school classmate, and nominated head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ("regulatory czar") has a lot to say. But first, what Wikipedia says about this position:
"OIRA reviews collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and also develops and oversees the implementation of government-wide policies in the areas of information technology, information policy, privacy, and statistical policy."


and now what Sustein has to say:
"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government. Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."

He wrote about his "Civility Check" idea in his book "Nudge":
"Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don't send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven't learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month."
Note: he is proposing that software be put in place to require a 24 hr delay of e-mails being sent (not just for profanity, mind you--all e-mails would be censored and delayed)

"[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms." -from his book "Radical Robes"


"[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture." from "Animal Rights"


Goodbye Constitution: 
“Why should we be governed by people long dead? ... In any case, the group that ratified the Constitution included just a small subset of the society; it excluded all women, the vast majority of African Americans, many of those without property, and numerous others who were not permitted to vote.”

“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” 


Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”

He's also a huge fan of Cost-Benefit-Analysis, even of human life. Meaning, he believes that a young person is worth $1.4 million more than a 70 year old person. Wow. I think there was somebody, once upon a time in history who believed certain people were more valuable than certain other people. And he wiped out those certain people who he didn't think had very much value.

Sunstein says that we need to weigh out the costs of things like the EPA's regulations on how much arsenic can be in the water: how much do these regulations cost, and how many lives do these regulations save, and how much do we value those lives?

Yes. This is who Obama has chosen. Scary? Confusing? Confusing like the White House-approved 747 flying over the 9/11 site today & causing people to scream? (simply for a photo shoot! And with no public apology from our Commander in Chief, by the way).  Confusion leads people to seek and trust in dictatorship--there are psychological terms for this, but I don't know what they are...

And on a lighter note, the puppy is very, very cute, and Karry just finished painting my craft room. :)

3 comments:

melancholic optimist said...

Brenda, I think a lot of the things you list as reasons why nobody should be happy about this guy getting appointed are simply things you disagree with personally.

I think almost everything you mentioned, and what I'm finding from reading up on the guy, is that he is against animal cruelty. Hunting *for the sole purpose of recreation*, activities such as greyhound racing where the animals are regularly abused and then thrown out as soon as they can no longer win races, mass production of livestock with incredibly inhumane practices of raising, milking and slaughtering are all very real problems (and not only effect the animals, but in the latter case, effect the food most people eat as well).

I don't see anything about him not wanting Republicans to talk to each other online, do you have a source for that? Same thing for wanting to ban eating meat. The only thing I see is that he's said he's against hunting for the sole purpose of recreation, but that it is justified for food or for protection of humanity.

Regarding cost-benefit analysis, I think it's fair to be worried about someone putting a dollar amount on a person. However, from reading about him, I think a lot of what he says about cost-benefit analysis makes sense - that is, you have to take into account all aspects of a situation and determine, will regulation really be beneficial, or will it end up hurting more than it helps? For instance, let's take the Iraq war. Did it get Saddam Hussein out of power? Yes. Was he bad? Yes. Was the overall benefit worth it? Pretty uncertain at this point. Iraq is still a mess, large numbers of innocent civilians died, people were tortured, maimed, killed brutally, the entire international community was thrown into turmoil over it.

Sunstein was also quoted as saying that it is impossible to rely entirely on cost-benefit analysis, but that it can be a useful guide in making decisions.

He's right about the constitution by the way. Which is, incidentally, why the founding fathers left the possibility for amendments. The ideas set out there, even if they were meant to take everyone into account, came from a very specific point of view (not to mention, the demographics of America have changed radically since then), and I don't think they should be upheld at all cost just because they are in the constitution, if it is clear that a different law would better fit the majority of the people in the country.

Note, in his suggestion of a "Civility Check" he suggests that it be an OPTION in the software, which someone could enable if they chose. He also suggested that maybe it just notify the user that the email may sound angry, and ask if they want to send it anyway. He did not propose forcing this on the entire country.

Anyway, you're welcome to disagree with his policies or whatever, but I don't think he's the Hitler/Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot you're making him out to be.

Brenda said...

Hi Dave, thanks for your comment. I'll respond more later, but I just wanted to share this video clip of Cass Sunstein talking: http://vodpod.com/watch/499851-facing-animals. His part starts around 39:00, and the part about no meat eating starts around 49:00. He says that perhaps animals should be allowed to live a long life, and then at the end (when they've died of natural causes??) they could be eaten. So no eggs? It bugs me that the term "adoption" is used for the acquisition of pets, and Sunstein said that his friend "adopted" some pigs. As if he was rescuing them from what they were *created for.* And labeling it "adoption" likens it to accepting a child as one of our own--pet ownership is not the same, and I really don't like the message it sends to adopted kids when people say it's "adoption." Blah. Anyways, that's maybe a different subject. I didn't know that hunters only hunted for recreation, I've never heard of that. Every hunter I've ever known of has been happy about their catch *for the meat.* It's unfortunate that our grocery stores are so limited in the types of meats they carry (chicken, anyone?:), and great that people can hunt to increase the types of nutrients in their diets. I agree that animals shouldn't be treated poorly or in a cruel manner. But they're not humans, and so the word "inhumane" is an interesting one to me, also...Meat is produced in such a way that is bad for the consumers, and the animals, for sure. But I don't want legislation coming down saying that my pastor, who raises a few cows & pigs for sale (for meat), can't do this or has to start treating them in some special way (they aren't raised in a cruel manner) because they need to be treated like humans. I worry at his phrasing, that animals should be treated like humans, and wonder how far it could be taken--should laws require certain types of dwellings for animals, and that they be talked to softly for 30 minutes each day? I don't know how far it could go. I would be much more at ease if he would have said simply that animals should not be treated poorly--not that they should be treated like humans. There's my 2 cents about that...More to come!

melancholic optimist said...

Yeah, I'm not big on going to great lengths to treat animals equally with humans either.

I think I interpret "humane" treatment of animals as treatment fitting how a human should treat any creature (that is, with respect).

I also don't think I would go so far as to say that I would wait for animals to die naturally before eating them, though he seems to be on the fence about that himself (as we've both found quotes of him stating different opinions on that).

From what I've seen of his views on things, I think small farms may have a lot to gain from his policy. It sounds to me like he has a bigger problem with hunting than with farming.

I certainly don't agree with everything he proposes, about animal rights issues or about economic policy, but I also don't find him that alarming.