I'm so hungry I could eat a ...

Stock up on horse meat!

Riding a broad wave of bipartisan support, the House on Thursday approved a bill to ban the slaughter of horses in the U.S. for human consumption.

NOW, I don't want to get off track, but when the House rides a wave of bipartisan support, does that mean the House rides itself? A President, for example, being aligned with a particular party, might properly be said to ride a wave of bipartisan support. Or maybe the bill rode the wave of support. But the House? That's not on.

"This whole slaughtering process is an illicit, concealed, inhumane process as it relates to horses," said [Rep. Ed] Whitfield [R-KY], one of the bill's co-sponsors and its most vocal champion on the House floor.

“Illicit” is a funny word choice. Is it really concealed? Really?! I gather the process is inhumane as it relates to horses -- but is it also concealed as it relates to horses?

About 90,000 horses were slaughtered in the U.S. last year.

Let's record this for later: ninety thousand.


The opponents of the bill:

"What are you going to do with 90,000 unwanted horses? Who's going to provide for their care?" asked [former Texas Rep. Charles] Stenholm, who was the top-ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee until 2004. "It's not in the best interest of the horses. There is nothing in the bill that provides for the humane treatments of horses."

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns echoed those concerns Wednesday in a letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). Johanns wrote that passage would likely lead to "a reduction in the humane treatment of horses."

Johanns should know, if only because (wow, this is awkward) he'll be responsible for unwanted horses!

`The Secretary shall assume responsibility for any equine that is unwanted by an owner.'.

Onto the bill's supporters:

"We're looking at an industry that, beginning to end, is extremely cruel," [deputy legislative director and a lobbyist for the Society for Animal Protective Legislation Chris] Heyde said.

“Beginning to end” means something when the industry includes raising the animals, but it's a bit empty to point out the slaughter industry is cruel.

In the U.S., horse meat is sometimes used as feed for zoo animals.

Just recording for later.

More coverage of the support squad:

"It is one of the most inhumane, brutal, shady practices going on in the U.S. today," said Rep. John Sweeney, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the ban.

You know you don't have rights when: your slaughter is described as “shady.” But Sweeney scores points with the kids for speaking their language.

Sweeney argued that the slaughter of horses is different from the slaughter of cattle and chickens, because horses are American icons.

I have always supported legislation banning the slaughter of baseball players and jazz musicians for this very reason. They are fucking icons. Sing it, Rep.

Another way in which the slaughtering practices differ: 90,000 kinda sorta doesn't matter.

"They're as close to human as any animal you can get," said Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C.

The interviewer caught Spratt administering a true/false exam. This one's false.

I make: wise campaign contributions horseshit

A quick look at the revised text:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SHIPPING, TRANSPORTING, MOVING, DELIVERING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING, PURCHASING, SELLING, OR DONATION OF HORSES AND OTHER EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.
`(1) The term `human consumption' means ingestion by people as a source of food.'
`(4) The term `slaughter' means the killing of one or more horses or other equines with the intent to sell or trade the flesh for human consumption.'.

So our icons may be consumed at the zoo? Lawmakers are, like, so weird.


If you'd like nightmares, learn what justifies laws to the lawdrafters themselves:

`(1) horses and other equines play a vital role in the collective experience of the United States and deserve protection and compassion;

This overstates the distinction between horses and livestock.

`(2) horses and other equines are domestic animals that are used primarily for recreation, pleasure, and sport;

Ummmm, okay.

`(3) unlike cows, pigs, and many other animals, horses and other equines are not raised for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption;

Not only is this basically the same as `(2), it's a laughable example of the naturalistic fallacy.

`(4) individuals selling horses or other equines at auctions are seldom aware that the animals may be bought for the purpose of being slaughtered for human consumption; and

I don't believe this. Anyway THEN FUCKING TELL THEM.

`(5) the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the Department of Agriculture has found that horses and other equines cannot be safely and humanely transported in double deck trailers;'; and

Can I bring Secretariat to the slaughterhouse in my Radio Flyer then?

`(8) the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce, and the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, receiving, possessing, purchasing, selling, or donation in intrastate commerce of horses and other equines to be slaughtered for human consumption, adversely affect and burden interstate and foreign commerce;'.

HUH? Seems the author requires a prosthetic Wernicke's area.