Witch hunt continues: Fox goes after Sunstein with false smears
Continuing Fox News' witch hunt against Obama administration nominees and officials whom they have labeled "czars," Glenn Beck falsely claimed that Cass Sunstein, President Obama's nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has said "you must be an organ donor" and "you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain," and Fox News reporter James Rosen also distorted Sunstein's writings about organ donation and animal rights. In fact, Sunstein advocated for reforms to the organ donation system, but not for mandatory donation, and he did not advocate against rat removal.
Beck falsely claimed Sunstein "believes that everyone must be an organ donor"
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Here's what the regulatory czar does, in case you don't know. This is the most powerful man around. He is the most powerful invisible man you'll ever see. He regulates laws -- past, present, and future.
What does he do? What does that mean? It means he can take a law -- he doesn't have to pass anything, he just takes the law -- imagine all of the laws on a big board and they're just nothing but dials and knobs. He just tweaks them.
Now, what does that mean for you? Well, from a man who doesn't believe we should be eating meat, from a man who believes that animals should be provided attorneys in the courts of law, a man who believes that everyone must be an organ donor, a man that believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain.
In fact, Sunstein recommended organ donor policies that would save lives while "preserving freedom"
Sunstein said states should consider either presumed consent or mandated choices. In Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, Sunstein and Richard Thaler wrote that in order to save more lives through organ donation, "[w]e think that states should give considerable thought to presumed consent or mandated choice, on the grounds that either approach would be likely to save many lives while also preserving freedom" (Page 180).
Under "presumed consent" policy, citizens "would be presumed to be consenting donors," and could "easily" opt-out. From Nudge:
A policy that can pass libertarian muster by our standards is called presumed consent. Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate, and they could do so easily. We want to underline the word easily, because the harder it is to register your unwillingness to participate, the less libertarian the policy becomes. (Page 177)
Under a "mandated choice" policy, individuals could be required to make their preference known in order to renew driver's license. From Nudge:
Although presumed consent is an extremely effective way to increase the supply of organs available for transplant, it may not be an easy sell politically. Some will object to the idea of "presuming" anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. We are not sure that these objections are convincing, but this is surely a domain in which forced choosing, or what is referred to in this domain as mandated choice, has considerable appeal.
Mandated choice could be implemented through a simple addition to the driver's license registration scheme used in many states. With mandated choice, renewal of your driver's license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences. Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes. The options might include "yes, willing to donate" and "no, unwilling to donate." (Page 180)
Rosen misrepresents Sunstein's position on "routine removal" of organs
Rosen selectively quoted Sunstein's comments from Nudge on "routine removal." From the September 9 edition of Special Report:
ROSEN: [T]he professor said it was, quote, "not impossible to defend" the routine removal of organs even from living patients with "certain hopeless conditions" on the basis that the state "own the organs. But Sunstein was willing to settle for "presumed consent," which would force citizens to opt out of organ donation.
In fact, Sunstein said "routine removal" "violates a generally accepted principle" that people "should be able to decide what happens to their bodies
Rosen ignored Sunstein's comment about personal choice in the passage on "routine removal." In Nudge, Sunstein and Thaler did say it is "not impossible to defend the routine removal of organs even from living patients with certain hopeless conditions on the basis that the state owns the organs." However, in the next paragraph, they stated: "Such an approach violates a generally accepted principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies." From Nudge (emphasis added):
The most aggressive approach, which is more than a default rule, is called routine removal. Under this regime, the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission. Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend. In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life.
Although this approach is not used comprehensively by any state, many states do use the rule for corneas (which can be transplanted to give some blind patients sight). In some states, medical examiners performing autopsies are permitted to remove corneas without asking anyone's permission. Where this rule has been used, the supply of corneal transplants has increased dramatically. In Georgia, routine removal increased the number of corneal transplants from twenty-five in 1978 to more than one thousand in 1984. The widespread practice of routine removal of kidneys would undoubtedly prevent thousands of premature deaths, but many people would object to a law that allows government to take parts of people's bodies when they have not agreed, in advance to the taking. Such an approach violates a generally accepted principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies. (Page 177).
Beck, Rosen distort Sunstein's comments about removing rats
Beck falsely claimed Sunstein said "you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain." From Glenn Beck:
BECK: Now, what does that mean for you? Well, from a man who doesn't believe we should be eating meat, from a man who believes that animals should be provided attorneys in the courts of law, a man who believes that everyone must be an organ donor, a man that believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain.
I mean, I'm fond -- you know, when I was 8 -- of the Michael Jackson song "Ben," I mean, just as much as any 8-year-old kid was. But do you really want a police officer, you know, telling Ben, who's just shown up in your home, "Ben, you have a right to remain silent. If they try to remove you from the home, you have the right to an attorney. And if you can't afford an attorney, Ben, one will be provided for you."
Rosen: "Rats could attack us in the sewers and court systems if all of Cass Sunstein's writings became law." Rosen also referred to Sunstein's writing on rats. From Special Report:
ROSEN: Rats could attack us in the sewer and court systems if all of Cass Sunstein's writings became law. The Harvard Law professor and Obama choice to lead the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs argued in 2004 that animals represented by human beings should be able to sue human beings and has even questioned whether humans can legally expel rats from our homes if doing so causes the rat's distress.
In fact, Sunstein weighed animal rights against "strong justification" for "eliminating" rats
Sunstein: "At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes distress and suffering." In the introduction to a book of essays he co-edited, Sunstein discussed the argument that rats may have a right against being expelled from a house. However, he did not assert that rats do, in fact, have such a right. Indeed, he noted that from a utilitarian perspective, "[i]f human beings are at risk of illness and disease from mosquitoes and rats, they have a strong justification, perhaps even one of self-defense, for eliminating or relocating them." From the introductory chapter to Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, titled "Introduction: What Are Animal Rights?"
WHICH ANIMALS HAVE RIGHTS?
There is an obvious question in the background. We have seen that animals might have rights in a minimal sense or in a much larger sense. But people do not see all animals in the same way. They might agree that human beings should protect the interests of dogs, cats and dolphins; they are unlikely to think the same about ants, mosquitoes, and cockroaches; rats, mice, and squirrels seem to be an intermediate case. It is often objected, to those who believe in animal rights, that their position would lead to truly ludicrous conclusions -- to the (ridiculous?) suggestion that people cannot kill ants or mosquitoes, or rid their houses of rats and cockroaches.
Those who emphasize suffering have a simple answer to this objection: Everything depends on whether and to what extent the animal in question is capable of suffering. If rats are able to suffer, then their interests are relevant to the question of how, and perhaps even whether, they can be expelled from houses. At the very least, people should kill rats in a way that minimizes distress and suffering. These claims should not be taken as radical or extreme; many people already take steps in just this direction. On this view, if ants and mosquitoes have no claim to human concern -- if they can be killed at our whim -- it is because they suffer little or not at all. Here we have some empirical questions about the capacities of creatures of various sorts. And utilitarians should certainly be willing to engage in a degree of balancing. If human beings are at risk of illness and disease from mosquitoes and rats, they have a strong justification, perhaps even one of self-defense, for eliminating or relocating them. (Page 12)
Attacks against Sunstein part of Fox witch hunt for "czars"
Fox has led charge against Obama administration officials they have called "czars." As Media Matters for America has documented, Fox News personalities have been leading the charge against Sunstein, Van Jones, John Holdren, and other Obama administration officials and nominees they have described as "czars" -- often by unearthing and criticizing statements the officials had made in the past rather than critiquing their job performance or credentials for those positions -- with Sean Hannity, for example, declaring that "my job starting tomorrow night is to get rid of every other ['czar']."
Following Van Jones resignation, Beck and Fox Business' Eric Bolling listed Sunstein, others as targets. On his twitter feed, Beck urged followers to "Find everything you can on Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, and Carol Browner." Similarly, Bolling stated: "Van Jones resigns. ... How about J Holdren Science Czar (mass sterilization) and Cass Susstein [sic]."
Transcripts
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: Here's what the regulatory czar does, in case you don't know. This is the most powerful man around. He is the most powerful invisible man you'll ever see. He regulates laws -- past, present, and future.
What does he do? What does that mean? It means he can take a law -- he doesn't have to pass anything, he just takes the law -- imagine all of the laws on a big board and they're just nothing but dials and knobs. He just tweaks them.
Now, what does that mean for you? Well, from a man who doesn't believe we should be eating meat, from a man who believes that animals should be provided attorneys in the courts of law, a man who believes that everyone must be an organ donor, a man that believes that you should not be able to remove rats from your home if it causes them any pain.
I mean, I'm fond -- you know, when I was 8 -- of the Michael Jackson song "Ben," I mean, just as much as any 8-year-old kid was. But do you really want a police officer, you know, telling Ben, who's just shown up in your home, "Ben, you have a right to remain silent. If they try to remove you from the home, you have the right to an attorney. And if you can't afford an attorney, Ben, one will be provided for you." The world is upside down.
From the September 9 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (host): Just days after the resignation of the president's green jobs czar, the administration's nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has just cleared a major hurdle to move closer to confirmation by the Senate. But as correspondent James Rosen reports, a lengthy trail of theoretical writings and speeches is providing critics with some serious ammo.
[begin video clip]
ROSEN: Rats could attack us in the sewer and court systems if all of Cass Sunstein's writings became law. The Harvard Law professor and Obama choice to lead the OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs argued in 2004 that animals represented by human beings should be able to sue human beings and has even questioned whether humans can legally expel rats from our homes if doing so causes the rat's distress.
Later Sunstein, who has also urged the abolition of hunting, said he wouldn't use his White House post to advance animal rights. In another book, the professor said it was, quote, "not impossible to defend" the routine removal of organs even from living patients with "certain hopeless conditions" on the basis that the state "own the organs. But Sunstein was willing to settle for "presumed consent," which would force citizens to opt out of organ donation.
[end video clip]
Glenn Beck thinks he's being Patriotic as he goes thru his McCarthy like Paces.
It takes a special kind of hate for Fox News to keep Mr. Beck on the Air.
It takes a lack of Compassion and a Forlorn Hope with a Smidgen of Dispair.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Classic intellectual dishonesty here by the MMFA liars:
They've been called czars since the law creating was passed about 30 years ago.
This is insane. At least they tried to go after Clinton on (shaky) legal grounds.
Oddly enough, if you go back and archive all the crazy stuff that has come out of Beck, I am sure you would find statements that he would find outragious coming out of an Obama appointee
No, he stepped down because his lunacy was exposed, as well as his racism. He's a truther who believes that our gov't was complicit in 9/11. Scum, through and through, who in the view of sane people, had not place in our gov't. Had he simply called repubs 'a-holes,' he'd still have a job. That's your strawman argument.
I bet Beck sees a lot of invisible men.
Hey you morons!!! An exploration of an idea IS NOT the same as support for that idea!
I guess they shy away from anything of an intellectual nature.
you foks are so one sided you seem to have no common sense. some one please explain why rats "maybe" having rights is at all ok.
Why on Earth are we allowing these circus clowns this kind of unearned power over the discourse of our government??
Also, why in the hell is the Obama administration giving these insects this undo credibility by jumping when these idiots scream gibberish??
I can't help but mention the irony here as well. Liberals are always mentioning how they are the "middle class", "the working class", the ones who "understand what it's like to struggle". The ones who "simply want a better life for the children". The "cool ones" while the conservatives are the old rich ones acting like power hungry megalomaniacs. Yet, on the other hand bragging how their intellectual level is far beyond all others and it is so much better for them to make the decisions for all the "little people". After all, most Americans living the land between LA & NY are simply too simple minded to grasp anything of substance. There just too busy "clinging to their guns and their God".
I'm interested. What are the names of some of those who are bragging and what did they say?
They claim to support middle class America until that America doesn't share the same values. Then the same "little people become fearful people clinging to their God & guns. Your examples include:Pres Obama, Nancy Pelosi,the Clinton's Sen Reid, Barney Frank, Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Arlen Spector, Cass Sustein, Mark Lloyd, and on , and on ....
I'm confident Sunstein does not believe that any living body can ever belong to the state, but the whole euthanasia scare kind of segues right into these fears in the minds of Beck's audience.
Hmm. Déja vous all over again. Didn't I just have this discussion last night? And here we are again. Same deal. Another almost exclusively staunch defense of a wacko leftist? Agreed, Beck's rendition is sad entertainment. But, like I asked with Holdren, did anybody bother to read any of Mr. Sunstein's works? Even maybe summaries? After last night, I guess I shouldn't label him "progressive" so as not to offend anybody's sensibilities.
I notice you intellectual academics seem to have this fallback position pitching that any opinions shared in a piece of non-fiction is all for the sake of enlightenment and science and exploration and learning. And people like me shouldn't dare think that someone's writings could somehow reflect the actual opinions of these writers, these INTELLECTUAL GIANTS. (Echoes)
Sunstein is a straight-up wacko extremist. Even many liberals think so. He was an awful choice, even by Obama's standards. And now I hear talk of Sunstein being on the short list as the new Green Jobs Czar? Please just say no. This dude should rightly (and leftly) be scrutinized. When you defend a character like Sunstein, you damage your credibility. It's all right to eat one of your own once in a while. That's how you can actually get rid of the bad apples. Keep at it though. Just makes my life easier over the short and long haul. Pleasant dreams.
Please tell us of an extreme position that Sunstein explicitly supports. The article very clearly debunks Beck's accusations. What have you got?
I have no problems with scrutiny of our elected officials and their advisors and staff. I encourage it. However, the information obtained from that scrutiny has to be honest and Beck's isn't. So far, your contribution has fallen in the range of vaguely suggestive to nonexistent.
You left out that they have been lied to.
Obviously the poster does not read anything outside what Beck, Limbaugh or Coulter opines. Unfortunately, if you ate those bad apples, you'd die from indigestion. Or should I say, irritable bowel syndrome since they're pretty much irritable bowels.
Except of course, he's not even close to that.
Sunstein's wiki page
Sunstein confirmed thereby totally deflating Beck's whole argument about him being a "czar". He was confirmed by the Senate.
Article about Sunstein...
Seems as though, he's only radical because you say so, and his positions don't reflect that at all. Sort of like how you guys keep telling us OBama is some radical leftist, when he's about in the middle of things pretty darn firmly.
I love animals would likely hurt someone seriously if I saw them abusing a animal (excepts insects & reptiles; then I would probably thank them!) Seriously we have a duty to treat animals well & care for them properly. that said, I fully support lawful hunting, fishing, etc. It should not be banned. I also do not think a animal should be allowed to sue a human!! I also dont' think April 15th is a day of celebration?! Hello!!
There isn't enough space to list all things wrong with Susteins beliefs.
Also just because he was confirmed doesn't mean squat. all that means is there are a bunch of politicians who actually agree with this man's ideology and another bunch willing to do anything for more money & power. Notice how I did bother mentioning any party affiliation here. They are all the same & they all need to see what it feels like to look for a job!
You are very good at repeating talking points and very bad at both critical thinking and providing actual facts to back up what you say. Talking points without facts are emptier than fairy tales.
Your pathetic meanderings go on for several paragraphs, yet you never say ANYTHING. You seem to go off on Sunstein for being "progressive" or "educated" or "elite" or grunting in caves or being a wacko. No one is really sure. Yet, in all your paragraphs you fail to offer one ounce of support for any of your suppositions.
You should realize that your posts do not sound nearly as intelligent as you think they do. Offer some support or evidence and quit wasting so much time with your illogical vague references.
Gee, thanks for clearin' that up, sport.
Under the 2006 Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, an organ procurement organization (OPO) can assume you are an organ donor while they search for evidence of your true intentions. They can hook you up to artificial life support machines to keep your organs fresh, even if your advance healthcare directive says you don't want artificial life support. They can ask your family for permission to harvest your organs. They can ask a government bureaucrat for permission if they can't find your family. They can do all this even if the "organ donor" box on your driver’s license is blank.
The 2006 UAGA has been enacted in 39 states and the District of Columbia, including eight of the ten largest states by population (California, Texas, New York, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and North Carolina). Over 80% of the U.S. population lives in states that have enacted this law.
The 2006 UAGA stacks the deck against people who don't want to be organ donors. Unless your decision not to donate is documented in exactly the right way, OPOs can ignore your decision and ask your family or a government official to overturn it.
State organ donor registries, which OPOs must search under the 2006 UAGA, are also biased against non-donors. None of them, not a single one, will record your decision not to donate. They literally won't take “no” for an answer.
DoNotTransplant.com operates the only online donor registry that allows you to say “no” to organ donation in a way that will stand up under the 2006 UAGA. OPOs are required under the law to check this registry. If they find your name in the registry, they’re legally forbidden from harvesting your organs.
That makes Reagan and his followers "communists".
Frankly, Sunstein's stand on organ donation is a terrific idea that any pro-life wing-nut should be clamoring to be onboard with. But people like Beck and his followers don't have the guts to stand up for what's right and exist solely at this point to use false argument and innuendo to try and bring down a presidency.
How the "father of our constitution", James Madison, must be turning over-and-over in his grave by such demogogeury... against which he vehemently fought from Alexander Hamilton, John Randolph, and Patrick Henry.
"But he's not done with it yet"
"Sorry, Ma'am, he signed the card."
-Monty Python's Meaning of Life
Speaking of your responses, are you guys paid to do this by someone? ACORN perhaps? I just noticed that most of these posts came in during "working" hours. I guess my task here is more lopsided than I initially assessed. I may be up against the government payroll!
I jest, but really, who would have thought that asking people to do their own investigations into Sunstein would be so controversial? I feel I have done so and simply shared my own personal conclusions about him. In my opinion (I guess I'll qualify that more often so that folks don't mistaken opinion for written law), he is a leftist wacko.
You are entitled to your opinions, but I would venture to say few of you have really dug deeply into this guy and your opinions (IMO) thus carry less weight. If that presumption is correct and you have only superficial knowledge of his work, you are guilty of the same sins you accuse Beck and Hannity and their ilk (and me) of doing: cherry picking data/statements/articles to make a point, or worst still, regurgitating the opinions of pundits who have made up your mind for you.
Freedom of thought is a wonderful thing. Exercise those muscles some before they atrophy (marching lockstep within the safe confines of your flock doesn't count much). Sunstein can share whatever thoughts he has in his intellectual exercises. And I can in fact share with you many specific reasons why a person like Sunstein represents the antithesis of good governance (IMO). The dude is loopy. That's all right. I'm loopy too as many of you can attest. Tolerance of loopiness is one of my personal American cornerstones.
The difference is, my goal is not to impose my zany ideas on you through the force of law and regulation. I guess that's the libertarian part of me. Leave me be already. I think I have things under control fairly well thank you very much, and I don't need the Sunstein breed of control freak marching along and dictating all manner of things "for my own good."
And that's not a dem/rep issue either. Bush signed into law the mandate that I will have to introduce poisonous mercury-laden CFL's into my home starting 2012. That's sure to "save the planet" and will certainly lead to lower levels of mercury in our fish (please don't argue the mercury pollution from coal either--been down that road already). Stock up on incandescents if you haven't already--forgot, I'm sure there will be an "Incandescent Regime" at the ready with BB-guns and informant web sites.
Maybe you need a group of nannies running your life and look forward to increased dependency on the government. Have fun with that. I believe a bit more in self-reliance. I am one of those capitalist pigs who dares think that America is (was, I suppose) pretty darn good already. Tons of problems I acknowledge, but there is no need to reinvent it. American principles and foundations are not (fully) broken.
Rather than reinvent America, we need to restore it in large part, at least those rugged individualist portions of the American brain that appear to have been excised. Americans are largely good, compassionate, and hard-working people, and many understand that allowing the government to expand at an ever-increasing rate is not good policy and goes against American foundations (I especially find it rich that someone stated "Sunstein's stand on organ donation is a terrific idea" while also referencing James Madison--want to talk about crickets on this thread after that was posted). James Madison would not recognize America today as the product of his Constitution. On the contrary, he would likely be organizing another revolution!
Your responses to my post can be summed up with the following critiques: 1) I have made vague, unsubstantiated, unsupported claims "crickets chirping" "caseless and clueless"; 2) I go on and on and say nothing "verbal diarrhea"; 3) I get my information solely from right wing sources and only contribute talking points "Beck, Limbaugh or Coulter"; and 4) just plain stupid "posts do not sound nearly as intelligent as you think they do." Well, I'll throw in number 5 just because it makes me chuckle: "Sunstein's stand on organ donation is a terrific idea."
Let's actually start with 5 because the wording is important and ties into 1. Here you have someone using the term "Sunstein's stand." I will assume this person has read Nudge and seems to think that Sunstein's musings reflect his opinion (go figure!). It's funny how that happens when a writer uses terms like "we propose" and "in our view." That is the crux of this matter really. Rather than listen to posts like that or the words of Beck or Olbermann or kooks like me, why not investigate yourselves?
Once you glean what you can from what is obviously not just an academic exercise as some of you tend to allay, you might not be so quick to defend Crass. He does actually believe a lot of this stuff. It isn't just banter to him. "We hope that conservatives, moderates, liberals, self-identified libertarians, and many others might be able to endorse libertarian paternalism." It's his personal philosophy, not just some paper he wrote to describe a range of ideas.
Soft paternalists like Sunstein (not sure why he attempts to replace soft with libertarian), are smarter than you. You all too frequently don't have the wherewithal to make your own decisions without a "nudge" from the state in Sunstein's world. And to add to the insult, he seems to pervertedly think that his ideas expand upon freedom rather than restrict it.
You want specifics, let's talk about one of his nudges that has gotten media attention. On page 235 of Nudges he and his coauthor Thaler write in the Dozen Nudges chapter, "We saved our favorite proposal for last [that's not advocating right?]...We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the email you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'WARNING: THIS APPEARS TO BE AN UNCIVIL EMAIL. DO YOU REALLY AND TRULY WANT TO SEND IT?...A stronger version, which people could choose [Yay! Freedom! Thanks Cass!] or which might be the default, would say, 'WARNING; THIS APPEARS TO BE AN UNCIVIL EMAIL. THIS WILL NOT BE SENT UNLESS YOU ASK TO RESEND IN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.'" See, we aren't smart enough to know we are being uncivil or ranting on MMFA in his world (I don't know how many times he uses the word "unsophisticated" in that one book).
I can hear some of you already saying, "He backed down from that stance." So? It made it to print didn't it? This quote was keyed personally by me from the actual printed page, not some first draft notes. And at the time of his writing, it was his "favorite proposal," not just an aside with a "Some people think" disclaimer.
There are plenty of other examples and I could go into detail with them all and give you my take on each, but I go back to what I said in my initial post: do it yourself. Why would you want me to "take things out of context" rather than have you make your own honest assessment? If you won't take the time to educate yourselves about characters like Cass, why is it up to a kook like me to cite example after example of his kookiness?
This brings up the "verbal diarrhea" claim. Guilty as charged as can be seen above. I talk a lot. Too much admittedly. All the more reason to not listen to whatever range of sources or kooks and instead go to the only true source: the man and his writings. I do not get my information from Beck or Olbermann. I have not been "cyberbalkanized" as Cass would put it and instead try to gather as much information as I can get from the source itself, and if that fails, to take in a range of opinions.
To those of you that will undoubtedly cry that I only gave one example, and so you won't ask me again for specific examples (given my diarrhea problem), I will give you another on that old organ donation topic. Page 180 of Nudges (sounds so innocuous doesn't it?): "Although presumed consent is an extremely effective way to increase the supply of organs available for transplant, it may not be an easy sell politically. Some will object to the idea of 'presuming' anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. We are not sure that these objections are convincing, but this is surely a domain in which forced choosing, or what is referred to in this domain as mandated choice, has considerable appeal." Reading that, am I not supposed to conclude that Sunstein thinks presumed consent is superior to mandated choice?
I can continue playing this game but have written more than enough. I will though address the "stupid" thing. I don't claim to "sound intelligent" and do not have the superiority complex many folks here (and many politicians) are plagued with. I am simply a father of a 3-year-old boy who wants to try to preserve the good I see in my country and redirect it back onto the correct path. If I investigate people like Sunstein and conclude he is a wacko (IMO), I have no choice but to voice that in any way I can. MMFA is one such vehicle and is why I am here. For those of you who might still care, my father is all right and recovering in the hospital (if it helps any in getting you to spare well wishes, he is a registered Democrat).