Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Jan. 28, 2003 / 25 Shevat, 5763

Jonathan Turley

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Quit horsing around, senator | For Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the return to Washington for the new session of Congress must have been daunting. With rising complaints over the loss of civil liberties, a new tax controversy and the rollback of environmental laws, it must have been hard to decide where to start.

Last week, her staff put speculation to rest. Feinstein is hard at work on a law to prohibit the slaughter of horses for human consumption. As an environmentalist, I would normally be enthusiastic about any animal rights measure introduced in this Congress. The Feinstein bill, however, takes the usual senatorial search for cost-free political issues to an absurd degree. The bill is part of a national effort to prohibit the export of U.S. horse meat to Europe, where it is a much-loved delicacy in nations such as France and Belgium.

Of course, even if the bill passes, horses will still be slaughtered by the tens of thousands for dog food and glue. Apparently it is entirely acceptable for a dachshund, but not a Frenchman, to eat our horses.

Americans have long viewed the equine appetite of our European cousins with legitimate disgust. Even with the advent of the Atkins diet, horse filets remain on par with beagle burgers as American culinary no-nos.

Yet, with 50,000 horses slaughtered annually in Texas alone, companies would prefer to sell the meat at a higher price to European restaurants rather than to rendering plants.

In 1998, Californians voted by a whopping 62% to make the sale of horse meat for human consumption a crime. Texas recently stated that criminal charges may be brought on the same basis. The result is that thousands of horses are shipped to Mexico and Canada for slaughter and sale.

It is hard not to feel sorry for the American cow. Feinstein says her legislation simply reflects the horse's "significant role in the history and culture of our country." After all, Roy Rogers did not ride a Holstein named Betsy. He rode a horse and would have hogtied the man seeking a Trigger tenderloin.

As for the cows, they get what they deserve. Cows apparently lack that key sense of loyalty, especially those surly, anemic milk-fed calves that we eat as veal.

And I will not even mention the wicked, un-American attitudes of more vicious species like lambs, chickens and turkeys.

Nothing prevents citizens from rescuing horses and putting them out to pasture. A number of such organizations have been formed and have rescued hundreds, if not thousands, of horses from slaughter.

A campaign to prohibit the slaughter of horses for any purpose would be understandable, but the obsession with human consumption alone is bizarre. Being boiled down for glue or being served up in cans of dog food hardly seems a more noble end.

For the horses, the use of their meat to feed Great Danes or real Danes is a rather precious distinction. It is necessary to be brutally frank. The horses' noble end under the Feinstein bill would still involve stunning them with a 4-inch retractable bolt driven into the brain and hanging them by a hind leg before their throats are slit.

Of course, for a politician, the horse meat controversy makes perfect sense. One can hardly go wrong in trying to keep some overstuffed Belgium banker from eating our horses. It is certainly a lot easier than trying to protect civil liberties during a war on terror or squabbling over tax cuts.

It does not matter that this clearly is not an issue for the U.S. Congress. This nation is based on the principle of federalism, leaving such matters to the states to decide for themselves. Nevertheless, you can expect that every member will soon have a button with a red line crossing out the image of some carnivorous Frenchman.

Meanwhile, if you have any thoughts on the bill, you can almost always catch the members hashing out legislative details at one of their favorite restaurants, Morton's, where they can toast the American horse over a good 20-ounce steak.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Jonathan Turley is a law professor at George Washington, Law School. . Comment by clicking here.

01/14/03: Public Payroll: a Family Affair; Nepotism in Washington poses a threat to institutional integrity
01/09/03: DARPA and democracy
12/24/02: The 13th juror
12/19/02: Back to the admissions morass
12/10/02: Pro-Choice at Expense of Free Speech; NOW case against abortion protester may backfire
12/02/02: A cruel bait and switch for vets
11/15/02: Junk justice
11/07/02: OUR second-class soldiers
10/30/02: 'Quirin' revisited: The dark history of a military tribunal
10/22/02: Un-American Arrests: Mass detainments of the innocent may be the ultimate form of crowd control, but the tactic is unconstitutional
10/16/02: Reverse pawn shops? Broke state officials across the country have been looking for businesses to buy their assets at a fraction of their worth to pay for budget shortfalls
10/08/02: A legal tattoo hullabaloo
10/02/02: Gagged justice sets dangerous precedent
09/25/02: The Great Salmon Rose Caper
09/17/02: Reparations: A Scam Cloaked in Racial Pain
09/12/02: This country's hidden strength
09/04/02: 1st Amendment protects even the ugliest among us
08/28/02: A secret court goes public
08/20/02: I defended Ashcroft during his nomination; he's become a constitutional menace
08/07/02: San Francisco embracing states-rights
07/31/02: Who needs Jenny Craig when you can have Johnnie Cochran?
07/22/02: The meaning of justice and the madness of Zacarias Moussauoi
07/16/02: The President vs. the Presidency
07/08/02: How one woman's whims dictates the rights of millions
07/02/02: Just say 'no' to extracurricular activities
06/24/02: Missing Ted Bundy
06/10/02: A comedy of eros06/14/02: 05/31/02: Beyond the 'reformed FBI' hype
05/23/02: Do we really need a Federal Marriage Amendment?
05/19/02: No "battlefield detainee" should leave home without a U.S. birth certificate
05/10/02: The perfect constitutional storm
04/26/02: 'Slave of Allah' wounds justice
04/12/02: The importance of being nameless
04/05/02: The adjusted value of justice
03/18/02: How Clinton got off: A law professor's take
03/11/02: Profiling and the terrorist lottery
03/05/02: Yes, Sharpton, there was a failure of justice
02/28/02: The Lay of the land
02/14/02: Living in constitutional denial
02/05/02: Legal Lesson for Afghanistan: War's Not a Slip-and-Fall Case
01/25/02: Sever "Jihad Johnny"'s ties to his homeland
01/21/02: "Out of sight, out of mind," but they're still prisoners
01/14/02: Your papers, please!
01/07/02: Prescription for disaster
12/18/01: Madison and the Mujahedeen
12/07/01: In the U.S., espionage crime is easy to understand but difficult to prove
11/19/01: What type of 'creature' would defend bin Laden?
11/19/01: Could bin Laden be acquitted in a trial?
10/28/01: The ultimate sign of the different times in which we are living
10/25/01: Al-Qaida produces killers, not thinkers
09/28/01: The Boxer rebellion and the war against terrorism
08/31/01: Bring back the silent Condit
08/27/01: Working out the body politic

© 2002, Jonathan Turley