Horses or American jobs? Which is more important?

[Universe Prince]

Excerpts from "Mr. Ed Goes to Washington" by Jacob Sullum

Not content at trying to stop foreigners from catering to Americans’ taste for gambling, Congress is on the verge of passing a law aimed at stopping Americans from catering to foreigners’ taste for horse meat. I generally avoid the phrase cultural imperialism, since it’s often used by people who object to the voluntary consumption of American products by non-Americans. But when Americans want to forcibly impose their culinary preferences on people in other countries, it fits pretty well. As supporters of the horse slaughter ban never tire of reminding us, Americans are not big horse eaters. The three U.S. plants that slaughter horses, two in Texas and one in Illinois, cater mainly to consumers in countries such as France, Belgium, Germany, and Japan. Since the plants are owned by foreigners and serve a foreign market, the National Horse Protection Coalition asserts, “no U.S. interests are involved.” [...] ...My wife once discussed the strange American custom of treating cats like family members with a souvenir vendor in Guangzhou. Upon learning that we have three cats, the woman asked, “Are they fat?” One of them is a bit chubby, my wife admitted. “Oh, you should eat him,” the woman said. “They’re delicious.”

Rest of the short column at the other end of this link.

So anyway, I'm wondering what all the folks who talk about the importance of protecting American jobs think of all this. Is it okay to eliminate American jobs if it means protecting horses? Is protecting horses worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

[Amianthus]

Both horse and cat are tasty if prepared well.

[Universe Prince]

Of that I have no doubt, Amianthus. I have never had the chance to try either one. Though I did once, in Honduras, eat a burger with some mystery, and clearly non-beef, meat. It was delicious. And I have enjoyed alligator, bison and rattlesnake. I've heard that horse meat can be as delicious as beef, and I hope to try some one day.

[Amianthus]

Though I did once, in Honduras, eat a burger with some mystery, and clearly non-beef, meat. It was delicious.

A number of Central American countries use monkey meat in cooking. That may be what it contained. Although ostrich burgers are really, really good. Many Fuddruckers in the US sell ostrich burgers.

[_JS]

From a philisophical view I'll say that timeless answer UP...it depends. Obviously this particular question is raised with this particular story because eating the flesh of horses is not palatable to Americans.

Your question is:

Is protecting horses worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

Mine is:

How far would we go to have jobs in America?

It is a strange issue really. We won't allow farmers to grow marijuana, but we allowed the transfer of biological nastiness to Saddam Hussein (such as Anthrax cultures) in the 1980's. We allow plenty of pornographic material and a clear market demand exists for it in this country, but we did not allow the day after pill until recently.

It is a fickle society. The logical approach to your question would be a cost/benefit analysis. But we could just as easily ask another question:

Is protecting humans worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

[Universe Prince]

A number of Central American countries use monkey meat in cooking. That may be what it contained.

Hm. I hadn't considered that it might have been monkey meat. It definitely had a unique taste.

Although ostrich burgers are really, really good. Many Fuddruckers in the US sell ostrich burgers.

As their standard fare, or does one have to ask for it?

[Amianthus]

As their standard fare, or does one have to ask for it?

It's part of their "gourmet burger" line. You pay a bit extra for it, like $1. Ostrich meat has a very low fat content, however, and tastes better than beef IMHO.

[Universe Prince]

Obviously this particular question is raised with this particular story because eating the flesh of horses is not palatable to Americans.

Well, the question struck me because if the law that has passed the House passes in the Senate, then people who were not doing anything wrong could easily be out of a job because the legislation will outlaw their business for no other apparent reason but that some people think killing horses is really mean. Which made me wonder where the voices were of the people who talk about keeping jobs in America, protecting the jobs of working people. Does no one care that the people who work at business of butchering horses may lose their jobs? Which in turn made me wonder if there was some sort of moral trade-off, American jobs versus the lives of horses. Personally, I tend to favor people over animals. I feel I should add here that I really like horses. I've admired, since my childhood days, horses as majestic animals. At the end of the movie Hidalgo, with the mustangs running free, I was literally in tears because the sight was, to me, simply and genuinely beautiful. So it is not as if I'm coming at this from a position of not caring about horses. But in this situation, I think the trade-off between people losing jobs and saving horses is a lousy one for the people.

Your question is:

Is protecting horses worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

Mine is:

How far would we go to have jobs in America?

To be fair, I'm not in favor of protectionist policies. I think the hoopla about "sending jobs overseas" is a lot of noise about nothing. Jobs are not physical, finite resources that we need to keep in supply. Jobs can be created almost anytime, anywhere by anyone. My objection in this case is not really that some people may lose their jobs (I believe they could find other work) but that some people may lose their jobs because some group is pushing for legislation to protect horses. It seems to me like a hollow morality that says screw the people but protect the horses.

It is a strange issue really. We won't allow farmers to grow marijuana, but we allowed the transfer of biological nastiness to Saddam Hussein (such as Anthrax cultures) in the 1980's. We allow plenty of pornographic material and a clear market demand exists for it in this country, but we did not allow the day after pill until recently.

It is a fickle society did you say? Perhaps. It seems fairly reliable to me in that this or that moralistic group is always trying to get their moralistic preferences made into law so they can be enforced on everyone else. This is why I am disappointed but not surprised that so many objections to homosexual marriage are made into laws. This is why I am dismayed but never surprised by calls for bans on guns or bans on sodas in schools, et cetera.

The logical approach to your question would be a cost/benefit analysis.

That is an approach, but I don't know if it is the most logical one. I suppose it depends on one's premises. For me, the logical answer to my question is simply 'no'.

But we could just as easily ask another question:

Is protecting humans worth the cost in jobs of working Americans?

I confess I am not sure what you mean by that. Since I was asking about a situation involving the protection of horses from being turned into food for human consumption, I am not clear on what the human correlation to that would be. But then, I am thinking you didn't mean it that way. So what do you mean by 'protecting humans' in your question?

[Universe Prince]

It's part of their "gourmet burger" line. You pay a bit extra for it, like $1. Ostrich meat has a very low fat content, however, and tastes better than beef IMHO.

Hm. I was not aware of that. Thanks for the info, my friend.