Democracy returns! Fido and Fluffy won’t be on nation’s menu

So much for gridlock. On Sept. 12, the U.S. House of Representatives proved that its members can, in fact, reach across the aisle to find common ground. On taxes? Spending? Foreign policy? Well, no. They agreed, on a voice vote, that they should get to decide what you can or cannot have for lunch.

The Dog and Cat Meat Trade Prohibition Act of

2018 is exactly what it sounds like: A bill “to prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption.”

What’s up? Is there some pressing public health concern at stake? Is America in the throes of an epidemic of stolen pets ending up in stew pots?

Well, no. According to the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Longboat Key, it’s about “how beloved these animals are for most Americans.” They “provide love and companionship to millions of people.”

In other words, it’s all about making Buchanan, the bill’s co-sponsor, Alcee Hastings, D-Delray Beach, and a bunch of other politicians look warm, fuzzy, and caring to the vast majority of Americans whose dinner plans don’t include Manx cordon bleu and pulled shih tzu sandwiches.

I’m one of those people. I like dogs (I have two) and tolerate cats (my wife and kids have four). That makes it pretty simple for me. I don’t want to eat dog or cat ... so I don’t.

As for those who do want to eat cat and dog, well, in what universe is that any of my business — or, more to the point, the House of Representatives’?

There are countries on Earth where the slaughter and consumption of certain animals is officially discouraged or even illegal. Two that come to mind are beef (India) and pork (Muslim countries and Israel). My guess is that most Americans think that’s pretty crazy. And yet we have a house of Congress trying to make America like that.

That this bill passed on a voice vote means that not one out of 435 U.S. representatives objected to passing the equivalent of Sharia or kosher law right here in America. And it wasn’t even based on any kind of coherent religious/philosophical argument, just “oooh ... they’re so cuuuuuuuute.”

And that’s it for this installment of “why we’re better off when Congress doesn’t get anything done than when it does.”

THOMAS L. KNAPP,