The Reading Eagle came down, strong, this morning against the notion that orcas should enjoy some constitutional protection because these highly intelligent beings, in the words of constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, are unjustly and "cruelly confined for purposes of involuntary servitude."
It should be noted that the federal lawsuit filed by PETA does not reference Larry Orkus, the hideous little man who masterminded the newspaper's journey into 19th century publishing practices, but to five orcas -- Tilikum, Katina, Kasatka, Ulises and Corky -- incarcerated at San Diego's SeaWorld.
Six days ago, a judge dismissed the lawsuit so the Eagle, irrelevantly, is now stating its piece:
[W]hat about seeing-eye dogs, drug-sniffing dogs, bomb-sniffing dogs, police dogs, draught horses or animal actors? How about family pets? Would Fido and Kitty be happier in the wild? How about parrots and other birds kept in relatively small cages, where they cannot fly?
And if those animals have a right to exist free, would the same right apply to mice, rats, termites and other creatures that invade our homes and threaten our health?
This, of course, is the dreaded slippery slope, whereupon extending dignity to sentient beings with greater intelligence than most Republicans could somehow extend to termites or, perhaps, the polyester fibers than make up Opinion page editor Jim Homan's everyday apparel.
We all should know that personhood only applies to human beings and embryos.
