Category Archives: Law

UPDATE III: ‘The World’s Smartest Birds, Set Free’ (And Made Happy)

Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Ethics, Law, Lebanon

Just this once, a good-news story “in the fight against wildlife trafficking”: “The World’s Smartest Birds, Set Free,” by Charles Bergman, writing at Slate.com.

Libertarians know too well that legislation tends to have unintended consequences. For example, a prohibition on trade and trafficking in these sentient creatures has meant that their main predator—man—has proceeded to decimate the bird population’s habitat. For when the birds can’t be harvested, the supporting ecosystem loses its commercial value too. It’s an unending, heartbreaking quagmire.

Or, do we accept that some values are uniquely Western—like the worldview that wild life has its own intrinsic value independent of man? And if so, what is to be done about the kind of cruelty we in the West cannot abide? Clearly education is invaluable. Can demand be reduced through education? Markets for these magnificent, social creatures are, after all, fueled by demand.

This is a start:

… African Grey parrots are among the most heavily traded of all animals. Their popularity is fueled by recent research on their astonishing intelligence. In some ways, their cognitive abilities rival those of a 3-year-old child. Alex, the “genius” African Grey parrot studied by Irene Pepperberg, had a vocabulary of more than 100 words and a sassy tongue—a smart Alex.

They may be the smartest birds in the world.

According to Rowan Martin, the energetic ornithologist who managed our release of the parrots, about 2 million African Grey parrots have been captured from the wild for the global pet trade since 1975.

This figure is staggering. Most of the parrots were captured as part of a thriving legal trade in wild-caught parrots. It seems counterintuitive …

MORE.

UPDATE I (11/15): FACEBOOK THREAD:

“This is the paradox of parrots. We love them for being like us, for talking like us, and for bonding with us. But then we find ourselves unprepared for the challenges they present in our busy lives.” Another important, poignant piece by Dr. Charles Bergmen: “No-Fly Zone: Denied Their Natural Habits, Millions of Pet Parrots Lead Bleak, Lonely Lives.”

UPDATE II: As to John Paterson’s assertion that, “If you’re going to own a bird, you should always own two”:

Not so. Mark Anderson’s reply is the correct one. Anderson writes: “I love birds. It’s not necessary to own two as long as you give your bird attention. In fact, birds tend to be one person kind of spirits. My bird didn’t like to see anybody but me.”

Indeed. I work from home and can give my parrot what he needs. Provided you make the effort, parrots can fall deeply in love with their companion human, so much so as to regard him or her as a mate for life. This is how intense they are. So long as he is hugged, kissed, praised (OW actually displays his wing feathers each time I call him a “beautiful poi.” He can tell from the tone of my voice that I am admiring him), and respected. They must be let loose to fly in the house (the home must be safe), and they must seldom be caged. Like a 2-year-old child, OW is only sent to his room (caged) at bedtime, when his parronts go out, when he needs some quite, alone time. Thus, he puts himself to bed and goes in-and-out of his house at will, b/c it is no longer a prison cell. His cage is simply real estate he owns. One of many. The sacrifices are enormous. And we were unable to keep our other parrot, given the confines of our home and the stressors of work. That sadness over relinquishing a parrot never leaves me (ditto my husband).

UPDATE III (11/17): My husband corrected me, as to the above. Yes, to raise a parrot in an ideal way takes sacrifice. Not everyone can do it. Therefore, it is wrong to set unrealistic benchmarks. It takes a few years to bond with and gain the complete trust of these brilliant little individuals. While you are doing so, you will need probably to keep the parrot’s wing feathers clipped. If you work long hours, your bird will be caged, but make sure that you bring him into the family fold when you get home and let him loose then to bond and receive love from his flock. He may want one-on-one, as our parrot does with my husband when he gets home. That he must have. So, adopt discarded parrots, and work to bond with them, only through kindness and rewards. Never punish a parrot. They learn to hate. They will tolerate nothing but persuasion and calm, reasonable conduct. Walk away if parrot is being naughty. Once you bond with the animal, you can then cultivate flight. The other thing Sean mentioned is this: Provided you can cope, two parrots that like each other and can hang out is a good thing. If they don’t like each other—and in their affinities they are just like human beings—then more than one parrot will not enhance the two’s existence.

ObamaCare ‘Settled Law’? More Like Legislative Sleight Of Hand

Constitution, Democrats, Healthcare, Law

The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” or whatever Obamacare’s undercover name was when it was smuggled into the books, was passed using legislative sleight of hand. Alluding to the broad consensus that gives law imprimatur, I quipped in “What If The Media Were Moral?” that Obamacare (unlike the Constitution) was not the law of the land.

More about the concept from Gerard Magliocca (in the WaPo):

The Affordable Care Act is not settled law because the public remains deeply divided over it: More than half of Americans are opposed. But even more critically, congressional Republicans have withheld their stamp of approval. Many Republican lawmakers refuse even to call it a law; they keep referring to it as a “bill.”

Republicans offer several explanations for their rejection of the act’s validity. Most often, they note that the law was passed entirely with Democratic votes. This is in contrast to other major legislation, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was enacted with overwhelming bipartisan support and thus became settled much more quickly.

Republicans also cite the unusual procedures used to pass the health-care act — most notably, the budget reconciliation process that avoided a filibuster while moving the final legislation through the Senate. This tactic left many Senate Republicans feeling cheated.

Felt cheated? They were cheated. Via Michelle Malkin: The “procedural maneuver called ‘reconciliation,’ used to pass Obamacare, allows a bill to pass with 51 votes instead of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. It is not intended for comprehensive and contentious pieces of legislation.

More from Prof. George Reisman on the House:

In 2010, a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, without a single Republican vote, passed “ObamaCare” by a margin of 219 to 212. In a staggering act of misfeasance, hardly a single member had read, let alone studied, the 1,900 page law (2,700 pages according to some authorities), which had been dumped into the House only days earlier. The 219 members of that House who voted for ObamaCare were willing to impose massive, and massively expensive, legislation on the American people without any real idea of what they were doing. Had those members been members of the board of directors of a private corporation, their complete and utter lack of due diligence would almost certainly have exposed them to enormous law suits and, quite possibly, criminal penalties.

When Obeying Law Becomes a Political Bargaining Chip

Democrats, Healthcare, Law, Republicans

Nothing in the GOP budget proposal are the Democrats willing to accept, except for “one minor change sought by Republicans: setting new procedures to verify the incomes of some people receiving government subsidies for health-insurance costs.” (WSJ)

John Hayward at RedState.com puts this “concession” in context:

One of the “concessions” Democrats are supposedly offering to Republicans is a pledge to obey the parts of ObamaCare that require income verification for those who receive welfare subsidies through the tax code – a requirement they would otherwise feel free to ignore.
… it’s increasingly clear that the powerful feel no compulsion to obey the law. … We’re only talking about a shutdown because the Ruling Class freely disobeys the laws – and they are laws – requiring Congress to prepare a budget for the federal government. The President and his party are fighting to protect ObamaCare, which they never tire of reminding us is the “settled law of the land,” as if that’s supposed to quash all dissent… but they ignore portions of that law as they please. …In return, Democrats demand the repeal of sequestration, the only remaining shred of a law called the Budget Control Act of 2011.
…Many of President Obama’s Shutdown Theater antics have involved violations of the law. …But even as the aristocracy luxuriates in the highest level of power – the ability to not only pass laws, but ignore them – demands for compliance and obedience from the rest of us grow more strident. …

No doubt, the U.S. is mired in moral decay. A question for RedState.com: Where were you lot when Bush was flouting The Law?

UPDATED: Someone Got Out Of Hand In D.C., So She Died (‘Capitol Punishment’)

Crime, Fascism, Government, Law, The State

Blow-by-blow coverage is ongoing in the moron media about an event in Rome. A subject “tried to go through a barrier at the White House with her vehicle Thursday then sped over to the Capitol.” Notice how police deploy the passive form of the verb—“shots may have been fired”—to detract from the fact that it is unclear whose “weapons [were] drawn.”

The end was predictable: “the suspect [was] fatally shot.” Officers managed to miss the 1-year-old baby who was in the car.

Every day police cars engage in wild chases that endanger civilians. No one mows them down.

UPDATE (10/4): “Capitol Punishment: Unarmed mom … gunned down by Capitol Police.” RT has entitled this story correctly, making up for the American media’s cover-up. It as as I surmised in my initial post above. The woman was unarmed; was pursued by police, surrounded and then mowed down in a hail of bullets.

At the moment, the public only knows what little it can glean from the available footage and witness accounts. They say she plowed into a security barrier and hit a Secret Service agent who tried to change her direction by waving.
After the police first opened fire on her, she floored the gas and drove off. But after a high-speed pursuit through Capitol Hill streets, she ran into Capitol Hill police officers, who surrounded her car after she slammed into a barrier. One witness reported one of the officers even sticking his weapon into the open window of Carey’s car.
She wheeled the car around and hit a police cruiser, while almost hitting several more officers, before driving off again. From that moment all that is known is that the officers shouted for her to stop as she moved away. Then shots were fired (multiple reports declare more than a dozen were heard in total) and Carey was killed in the vicinity of the Supreme Court. She received six bullets from police guns.

Glenn Beck says she rammed a barrier a block from the White House.

But that is all it takes to warrant death.