I hate to say it, but the Californians have done it to themselves again. Prop 2 passed in November and beginning January 01, 2015 chickens in California will be "free range chickens", just like the movie Chicken Run.

I think it gave a lot of voters a warm fuzzy feeling and it was endorsed by Wolfgang Puck, OH BOY! McDonald's and Burger King even got behind (for the P.R., of course); no one mentioned that McD's & B.K. only ask that 2% of their eggs be supplied from "free range" fowl.

It just shows that too many Americans have no clue where their food comes from, how it's grown, harvested, processed, shipped, cooked, etc. Too many think it grows in a plastic wrapper or cardboard box. Too few know what it really takes to make a living farming or ranching. Too few know how to cook something from scratch anymore; even eggs are coming pre-beat in a paper carton.

For all you Californians out there- hope you're ready to shell out $7.00 for a mere dozen of your organic free range chicken eggs. I'll keep eating my confined to a cage $2.00/dozen eggs!

Meanwhile... workers to care for the chickens are being transported from Mexico into CA 30 at a time in the back of a Yugo...

Joe,

I am taking a pragmatic stance on this one. Most of the world now lives in cities and large towns. Food is imported, often over great distances, from farms and processors. Feeding hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, and millions in our cities has forcibly developed farming and ranching into industrial processes; it's a matter of economy of scale and reduction of labor.

I don't contend that it's pretty, perhaps it's inhumane at times. Would I prefer my eggs come from free range chickens- chickens that live in a yard rather than a cage? Sure, but Dee and I have both raised chickens (she had hundreds at a time and sold eggs commercially); it takes a huge amount of labor and time to keep a typical farm hen house clean, to control lice, to keep the dung off the eggs (and wash them all before packaging). It is not practical to raise millions of chickens for McNuggets, wings, KFC, all white breast meat tenders, etc., for the consuming population. The same goes for the eggs. I would add that the food industry, the companies that make ready to bake/microwave/cook/boil/ready to eat food products are the largest consumers of egg products; it's not you and I buying eggs at the grocery store.

A better alternative is to buy locally. I fully support that and believe in the concept of reducing "food miles". However, that usually comes at a premium of cost and seasonal availability of anything other than meat and potatoes around here. We used to have chicken/egg farmers right here in our area. They could not produce the product for the same, lower price as what has become the chicken factories.

Finally, we don't have the number of farmers to switch to a solely free range chicken system. Economics of scale; small producers require a premium. Do you want to be a chicken farmer for our area? We are no longer an agrarian society, even here in Miles City. How many of you have raised chickens, ducks, pigs, or cows? How many of you dry or dehydrate food in the summer? How many can and pickle food? How many live on meat and flour alone? Have you ever milled grain to make bread, have you ever made bread? Without a bread machine! I doubt it.

FYI- At our home we still do all of those things every year. Because it's good to know how; it gives a sense of accomplishment; we know what's in our food; and we want our kids to have the skill for the future (in the event we revert to an agrarian culture again some day?). Besides it tastes better, most of the time.

How many of you have raised chickens, ducks, pigs, or cows? How many of you dry or dehydrate food in the summer? How many can and pickle food? How many live on meat and flour alone? Have you ever milled grain to make bread, have you ever made bread? Without a bread machine! I doubt it.
-------------

I haven't raised livestock unless a husband counts but I have canned, albeit years ago. I bake my own bread frequently, as well as biscuits, scones, challah, etc. I've even done it using a homemade sourdough starter rather than commercial yeast. I don't own a bread machine and only use the microwave to melt butter and occassionally reheat leftovers. We bought local beef from an organic farmer this year and we often have salmon that my husband caught himself off the coast of British Columbia . A store-bought freezer meal hasn't been in my house for years. We have a small vegetable garden and I buy from the orchard across the street.

I agree that people need to get back to basics and buy organic locally as much as possible. It would be good not just for the environment but for their health as well. However, I have the luxury of not having to work full-time. Making healthy meals from scratch sometimes takes a lot more planning and prep work. Not everyone has the time for that. And organic is more expensive.

But kudos to you, Chad, for passing on your skills to another generation. Those are the people getting short-changed by our need for convenience and speed.

It wasn't long ago that pork producers embraced the total confinement model of the poultry industry in an attempt to reduce materials handling and extract greater feed efficiency, primarily in hog finishing operations. In place of battery cages, manure pits were excavated benath steel grates and concrete slabs were poured upon which finishing pens were constructed. Moreover, large HVAC units and automated feeding/watering systems were installed to control temperature and save labor.

Next, breed associations placed almost total emphasis on driving the lean/fat ratios of finished hogs to extreme levels through selective breeding. The idea, of course, was to produce carcasses with minimum backfat - again, as an expression of feed efficiency and labor saved during processing. These goals were largely achieved over several generations of concentrated effort by breeders.

But something went wrong along the way. Physiology rebelled.

First, this new regime of breeding produced pigs that were structurally breaking down under the rigors of total confinement. These new pigs were fine-boned and their muscle systems were abnormally short & tight, which raised the arch of their toplines and completely impacted how they could stand and move. They were essentially crippled. Breeding stock was especially susceptible to unsoundness as boars and sows lived many times longer and grew to several times the weight of market pigs.

Then, because the heart & lungs were now constricted within rib cages that were both narrower and shallower, there were more frequent outbreaks of respiratory ailments such as rhinitis, pneumonia and pleuritis in herds around the country. More antibiotics were added to rations to strengthen immune systems.

Cooler heads have since prevailed among pork producers. Over several recent generations, a concentrated effort was made to reverse the damage done to the skeletal, muscle & respiratory systems of swine by extreme breeding. As a result, hogs overall are sounder and healthier these days.

Pork producers didn't have initiatives like Prop. 2 by which to phase-in necessary changes in the '70s but their industry very nearly collapsed without it. Which approach do you think would've been most costly, both in terms of dollars and of ethics?

If the egg industry collapses due to bad genetics and practices it will be their own fault. If Prop 2 was actually an intelligent reform proposed by people that actually understand agriculture it could be beneficial. It's not. It's feel good legislation written by the humane society and supported by people whose knowledge of livestock is based on how much they love their dogs and cats and how horrible the video they saw on the PETA website was. Even if you are 100% correct that the egg industry needs reform, that doesn't make prop 2 a good bill.

Being once a "chicken Farmer" and the niece of a confined hog operation, I believe this is the start to something more. Ask a confined hog operator if they think this is a grand idea, or the chicken farmers it is putting out of business. Today's public is used to making decisions based on feelings and warm fuzzies. Food is food, animals are FOOD. I remember touring Oschner's chicken farm, and walking by the crates of chickens, they weren't suffering. In fact common sense would tell a person that if there was a better/more efficient way of producing something farmers and ranchers would do so. In fact we are quite progressive these days. Oh, and FYI pig crates are to protect the baby pigs...ever seen a smashed litter of piglets cause mama laid down and wasn't looking???

Chad, thank you for bringing this issue forward, it is one Montana should look for, as I don't believe the people whose $$$ got that passed in CA will stop there.

I'm reading two fundamental arguments in recent posts, both of which are draped under the umbrella of sentimental capitalism.

First, there's the argument that it's just inevitable that we need to accept the inhumane treatment of animals as part of the cost of enjoying the benefits (costs?) of 21st century American life. Well, no it isn't and no we don't. If ethical standards are important to civilization, then we need to uphold them and pay the real cost of growing food in a humane way or we need to eliminate things like eggs from battery cages and veal from our diets. There are options.

Second, there's the argument that those of us who "understand agriculture" know what's best for consumers and that we'd better stick together or they'll come for us, too. It assumes that if we've spent some formative years on, say, a commercial cow-calf outfit in Fallon County that we have a working understanding of how cranberries are grown in Louisiana, wine is made in Napa, cheese is made in Wisconsin, chickens are processed by Foster Farms, etc. Agriculture is almost infinite in its scale, diversity and practice on this planet.

Levi, there are more differences than similarities between the ways that cattle are raised in eastern MT. and how eggs are produced in Turlock, chickens are processed in Livingston(CA.),veal is raised on 2,000 cow dairies in Tulare Co., and pork is produced under confinement in Fresno. To know one doesn't impart an understanding of the other. An educational field trip through the San Joaquin Valley is in order.

Both arguments also imply that food consumers are a captive market. As before, because of agriculture's rich diversity, there are lots of options, beside factory farms, for consumers. And a mobilized consumer movement won't hesitate to check the arrogance of a commodity group. Just ask the grape growers who survived the UFW boycott in the early '70s.

I'm sorry but that is not at all what I said.

I'm not trying to argue that the poultry business does or doesn't need reform. I have no idea whether it does or not. What I'm saying is that Prop 2 was a bad bill that will hurt farmers and not help animals. Simple as that. Even if everything you said is true and the egg business is in desperate need of reform, passing a sentimental but ineffective bill is not a solution. I am not claiming to be a person who knows about this stuff, only that the humane society probably isn't the appropriate body to reform the poultry business and those that should have some credibility in the business:

American Association of Avian Pathologists
American College of Poultry Veterinarians
Association of California Veterinarians
Association of Veterinarians in Egg Production
Association of Veterinarians in Turkey Production
California Chapter of American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists
California Food Animal Veterinary Medical Association
California Poultry Federation
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Poultry Science Association

All opposed the measure, while only one veterinary association actually supported it.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 12/5/2008).]

What an incredible list Levi, it really says something to think the vetrinarian groups were against it.

I do know that the more restrictions we impose on American Agriculture whether it be cranberries...or pineapples, or cattle or chickens, the less we actually have to do with our business. If you don't think this is real, check out the recent EPA saying they can tax carbon emission of cattle by $86 per head. Since we don't make much more 30cents an hour now, we can just go in the hole.

I don't know much about raising livestock but I do know that the increased use of antibiotics in our food has contributed to the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. If there are methods that require the farmer to increase his antibiotic use then that method needs to be scrutinized. Warm fuzzies are irrelevant when sepsis is on the menu. Efficiency is important for farmer sustainability but other factors must be considered.

My favorite part is that this is the exact same electorate that Joe said was wholly unqualified to determine what form of relationship their own government should officially recognize.

But when it comes to telling Old McDonald how he should run his farm, suddenly they're all Ag scientists.

Once again, whether or not the will of the people has any merit seems decidedly Joe-centric

I'd be willing to bet that a good lot from that "incredible list" were formed purely to fight things like prop 2 and don't give a living ship about the conditions in which farm animals are raised. You can name an organization, law or act anything you want. It doesn't have to reflect reality. Ever hear of the "Patriot Act" or seen one of those Ron Popeil oven commercials where someone from "St. Joseph Hospital" endorses the product? He even wears a stethoscope, so you know he's a real doctor.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton (edited 12/6/2008).]

There you go again, Rick. One second you're comparing basic human rights to jello, and now you've equated the issue to poultry management. Good grief!

No wonder conservatives are afraid that recognizing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry will lead to Goat-matrimony. You all can't make the distinction between human rights and animal control.

HA HA HA HA HA HA

It looks to me like you're the one drawing false equivalence, there Steve.

I said nothing of the merit of either position. Just noting the irony that these same people who were uneducated, toothless rubes when you disagreed with them are suddenly enlightened thinkers, clearly holding their collective finger on the pulse of agricultural economics.

Obviously the most rational explanation is Levi's. They saw the PETA video.

http://www.southparkstudi...ips/91222/

What I'm saying is that there isn't necessarily anything ironic or even inconsistent because the two issues are so distinct from one another as to beggar the imagination.

People aren't likely to confuse church and state issues when it comes to legislating how to raise chickens. But when it comes to gay's marrying or (heaven forbid) parenting, then it's "Jesus bar the door!"

But that just proves my point:

On the one hand, you mock... sounding like this electorate is incapable of any sort of intelligent discernment where you disagree:

But when it comes to gay's marrying or (heaven forbid) parenting, then it's "Jesus bar the door!"

Then on the other hand we're hearing that these same voters have command-enough of agricultural issues to understand the economics of chicken egg production. There's no way around the irony.

well, actually there is if you just open your eyes. On the one issue, the great majority of people are likely to vote with a rational mind. On the other, emotions or other "ethereal" influences are more likely to enter the voting booth.

It isn't that people are stupid on one issue and smart on the other. It's that the same person can be rational on one topic and less so on another. That's the whole reason we have a system of checks and balances via the three branches of government - to address those rare instances when "majority rule" becomes "a tyranny of the majority".

I'd be willing to bet that a good lot from that "incredible list" were formed purely to fight things like prop 2 and don't give a living ship about the conditions in which farm animals are raised.

But of course you have no interest in actually finding out if that is true, you just make the assumption because they are disagreeing with the people you normally side with. These are real organizations, feel free to look them up. All of the information I am posting comes from the San Francisco Chronicle, which is one of the most liberal newspapers in the country. You can't go a week without reading about organics, slow food, etc on their pages. Not too likely that they are playing the part of shill to agribusiness.

Yes Steve, because of course, on your side of these issues, appeals to pure emotion are soooo taboo.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...fBHw_Ly124

Gee Rick, now that you mention it, I realize that there are very few emotions that I consider taboo. I experience a broad spectrum of emotions most any day. And yes, my emotions often fuel my personal opinions and my individual sense of what is right. I think that's just part of being human.

But being part of society involves putting aside our emotions from time to time, looking beyond our own little worlds, and recognizing that other people do things differently than we do and feel things that we might not feel - and that in the big picture, those things are every bit as legitimate and natural and "right" as the way we think and what we do.

And yes, I think some people are better at "walking in another person's shoes" than others are. And when the majority of us fail in our ability to do that, then I'm very glad that our Founding Fathers provided us with a court system to help remind us of the basic principles that provide a foundation for this Country - and it's laws.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 12/7/2008).]

Levi~ It was never my intention to put words in your mouth, only to outline the arguments being made here in opposition to Prop. 2 from you, Chad, and Mollie. If you believe an apology is owed you by me then, of course, you have it.

You've made it crystal clear that your position is that Prop. 2 will likely hurt farmers and will not likely provide more humane conditions for the livestock it targets. Thus far, I'm not convinced of either assertion.

Mollie~ Hey, I had no idea that you've had work experience with swine confinement facilities. I agree with you that farrowing crates save litters and are a good idea. Prop 2., however, is silent on farrowing crates and only addresses gestation crates. Why confine a bred sow to a space just large enough to stand within? You know how intelligent pigs are. It just drives them nuts.

Rick~ I've said that I couldn't support Prop. 8 because I think it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. I like Prop. 2 because it provides for the more humane treatment of animals by the stewards who manage their care and feeding. Two separate issues, limited linkage, no contradiction. And I'm sorry, but I've made no remarks re: the wisdom or intelligence of California voters with respect to either proposition, as you've suggested.

You may not support equal rights under the law or the humane treatment of animals but, really, do you have anything of substance to contribute to this discussion or are you simply all about the snark these days?

[This message has been edited by JOE WHALEN (edited 12/7/2008).]

I wouldn't call it snark. It's a fair point.

You live by the sword, then charge fowl when you get your first cut.

You have no qualms about taking away people's ability to choose. You talk like this is just the consumers' making their preference known. In reality that couldn't be further from the truth. One trip to the grocery store during a local run on eggs (say around Easter) should tell you that.

You'll always notice the 'sweat shop' eggs are always the ones gone first. Which eggs are the only ones left? Those $4 a dozen 'free range' eggs you'd prefer we all eat. That is consumer choice. Driving what looks like a misinformation campaign to develop yet more restrictions on farms by people who don't know any better... that is something else.

Is it within their rights? Absolutely. But at the same time those rights to referendum don't start and end along whatever contours Joe or Steve find comfortable.

And that doesn't even get into what Levi's saying about the feel goodism. The end result will be a handicap for local producers, with more eggs coming from out of state or Mexico. It'll look alot like their energy policy, actually. It's just the result of people governing as if the world were the way they wished it was. Well-intentioned, but ultimately more damaging than doing nothing.

those rights to referendum don't start and end along whatever contours Joe or Steve find comfortable.

I really didn't want to launch a long diatribe on this topic, but that snarky comment begs to be addressed fully. Those who prefer quick snippets would be well advised to move along to the next post now.

Rick, the only "contour" I am uncomfortable with is the notion that something as basic as human rights can ONLY be decided by the referendum method.

Most people today would laugh at the idea of holding a referendum to decide if non-Christians should have the right to serve in public office, or non-land owners the right to vote, or blacks the right to go to the same schools and live in the same neighborhoods as whites, or women the right to equal pay. But not so long ago each one of those issues divided the nation to one extent or another (and in the case of slavery nearly destroyed it).

Some of the referendums held on those issues eventually got it right, but only after long, drawn out struggles. Others never did get it right (ERA, for one). But on all those issues the courts got it right before the majority did (albeit not always on the first try), and our nation has steadily become a more just and fair place because of those legal decisions.

Last month in California, the majority voted to amend the State's constitution to deny rights to a particular minority. The word
"majority" has almost a magical, comforting ring to it. But the fact is that 2.3% of voters* were allowed to strip gays and lesbians of a basic human right - a right the true majority (est. 90%) takes for granted every day of their lives.
(* since the vote was 52.3% for / 47.7% against, a shift in the sentiments of 2.3% of the voters would have turned the decision on its head.)

Should any percentage of voters - whether it be 2.3% or 23% - really have the power to deny certain individuals the "inalienable" rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness just because God made them a little diffent from the majority of us? How long will it be before we look back on these crazy "Defense of Marriage" referendums and pray, "God, forgive us. We knew NOT what we were doing."

Then there's the fact that public sentiment changes - sometimes significantly - over time. That is why human rights should NEVER be subject solely to a popular vote. When the majority gets it wrong, the wronged minority deserves their day in court. And if the court gets it wrong the first time, then another day in court is due - and another - and another - until the wrong is indeed RIGHTed.

If in the middle of the legal struggle, a political referendum is held or legislation is adopted that does "get it RIGHT" - then so much the better.

Someday we may very well seek forgiveness for our current methods of raising chickens, but I have a hunch that such "poultry" sins will weigh less heavily on our collective hearts than the sin of discriminating against our fellow humans - whether that discrimination be based on race, color, creed, national origin, gender, or sexual orientation.

Just my two cents worth...

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 12/7/2008).]

Steve Steve Steve...

We're falling back into the same old trap. You want your guys to be free to live however they please. That's fine. I understand.

But at the same time you want to tell others what they can and can't do. You don't own any chickens. Yet you would take authority to determine what others should do with theirs. Who understands the chicken business more? The farmer who raises them, or the guy who happened to catch a PETA commercial while flipping through the channels?

As you've shown us over and over again, freedom is in the eye of the beer holder.

But on all those issues the courts got it right before the majority did (albeit not always on the first try), and our nation has steadily become a more just and fair place because of those legal decisions.

That's funny because it wasn't that long ago I thought you were lamenting the Court's stonewalling equal pay rights. And how about that decision that said the government can seize your property and hand it over to a strip mall developer if it so chooses. Was that the court standing on the Right Side of History?

Seems more likely to me that the reason you admire the court so much at this point is simply that they're making decisions more to your liking than the other branches of government. I think eventually you'll find out that's a really slippery standard.

I expect that Steve will soon offer an expert and thorough rebuttal to your latest post, Rick.

But the more you go on, the more I'm convinced that had Lee not surrendered to Grant at Appomattox you'd be a supporter of slavery.

(hehe - Well, Joe, I don't know about the "expert" part, but I'm at least hopeful about the "thorough" part)

**************

I really didn't want to post a lengthy rebuttal on this topic, but Rick has left me no choice. Readers who prefer snippets are advised now to move on to the next post or thread, cuz this may take a while.

That's funny because it wasn't that long ago I thought you were lamenting the Court's stonewalling equal pay rights.
I know the (Roberts) Court recently screwed up on some "right to work" and "equal pay" cases, but I have no idea what you're talking about here since I don't recall posting anything specifically on those issues -- so you'll need to refresh my memory on this one.

how about that decision that said the government can seize your property and hand it over to a strip mall developer if it so chooses.
Actually, Rick, I've never supported using eminent domain for anything other than acquisition of property for public utilities that are fixed by topography or other natural land conditions, such as the need for a particular sewer easement to follow the slope of the land. But you asked "Was that the court standing on the Right Side of History" and in this case, substantial precedent existed in support of Justice Stevens' opinion - so much so that it was actually the dissenters to his opinion who were practicing "judicial activism" (oh my!). On top of the legal precendents was a substantial history of real-world examples of the use of condemnation for economic development purposes, one of which was when George W. Bush as CEO of the Texas Rangers organization presided over the condemnation of hundreds of acres of healthy (but economically disadvantaged) neighborhoods that "had to be cleared" for the new Ballpark at Arlington -- but we didn't hear a peep from the Private Property Rights Advocates on that one, did we? So that particular sword is not a good weapon to use against me ... cuz it just plain won't cut.

Seems more likely to me that the reason you admire the court so much at this point is simply that they're making decisions more to your liking than the other branches of government.
Rick, if you actually had read my response (and I'm beginning to realize that you probably didn't) before responding yourself, you'd realize that the issues I cited occured at many points in time, not just recently. United States v. Amistad Africans (1847); Fairchild v. Hughes (1922); Brown v. Board of Education (1954); etc. That span of history, coupled with the fact that the Court's record under Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts has been dismal in the area of equal rights for women, the elderly, employees, etc., should be enough to convince even you that your accusation is little more than hogswallop. Either that or you truly have no understanding whatsoever of the ethos to which I subscribe.

I think eventually you'll find out that's a really slippery standard.
Well, number one, as pointed out above, that isn't MY standard at all. But in response, I think you would quickly find upon removing the third branch of government that you seem to despise so much, that the democratic whims of the majority unchecked by a countervailing force would be much too slippery for anyone's comfort (except those at the top, of course), and only slightly less totalitarian than more conventional forms of dictatorship.

Don't get me wrong. I love our representative democracy and I'm fully aware of the fact that citizens have had to use the power of referendum and legislation to right the wrongs of several Supreme Court decisions (e.g., the Dred Scott Decision via the 13th Amendment, Minor v. Happersett via the 19th Amendment, and so on). But I just can't sit and listen to people constantly belittle the role of the Courts without challenging such talk as "frivolous".

So, there's my two-cents worth, plus or minus a penny.

P.S. I think "Beauty" is what is in the eye of the Beerholder - sheesh Rick, at least get your drinking lines right!

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 12/8/2008).]

Which came first? The chicken or the egg? Interesting stuff, but I have to agree with Chad and Levi; this is misdirected legislation. I believe there are better ways to promote food safety.

And animal welfare. I guess the same arguments were made about pulling certain herbicides and pesticides off the market in the past, it will be the end of farming as we know it; we can't compete with foreign farmers; it's safe- really.

Is it bad that I'm eating KFC while reading this thread?

Original or Extra Crispy?

Kyle:

Only from a cholesterol standpoint .

Extra Crispy all the way!

Merry Christmas to you too, Joe

Steve, the missing link here is the wiggle room allowed in your definition of "human rights"

I'd say for the most part in this debate, your use of the phrase "human rights" can effectively be replaced with "What Steve Thinks"

for example...

Then there's the fact that public sentiment changes - sometimes significantly - over time. That is why [What Steve Thinks] should NEVER be subject solely to a popular vote.

Basically, you assert that when your own feelings come into a question through referendum, it is good that you have the option of higher appeal.

The problem is that other people can define "Human Rights" to their own advantage as well. Some see a right to marry as a "Human Right." Others see the free exercise of property, and equal protection of livlihood as a "Human Right." As we've seen though, you have fewer qualms about inserting your own personal biases into someone else's business when faced with someone else's definition of "Human Rights"

Justice Stevens may say he has precedent, but as with many things, he's all wet. Your example of Arlington TX' stadium is a good example of this apples and oranges type comparison. The Rangers' stadium is owned by the City of Arlington. It is a public facility. Condemning private property simply to hand it directly to a private developer is unprecedented, at least as far as the Supreme Court goes. That doesn't mean it's never happened before. But you know as well as I that something happening before doesn't make it legal.

As Justice O'Connor stated, ignoring something so nakedly unconstitutional as taking eminent domain powers and transferring them to a private entity effectively nullifies the "public use" protection clause of the 5th Amendment.

Reading her dissent (as well as Justice Thomas' after) clearly shows me that your "activist" charge is unfounded.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw...8#dissent1

Well, number one, as pointed out above, that isn't MY standard at all.

Here is what you said.

Others never did get it right (ERA, for one). But on all those issues the courts got it right before the majority did (albeit not always on the first try), and our nation has steadily become a more just and fair place because of those legal decisions.

I brought up this legal case as evidence that discredits your theory. This court upheld a clear violation of the 5th Amendment, to the widespread dismay of the majority. Who are they accountable to for it?

What I'm saying is you give the court undue respect. It is nothing more than another political branch, only less accountable. Whether right or wrong on any given issue, this makes them the least favorable authority to govern.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 12/8/2008).]

Well, if "What Steve Thinks" is synonomous to abolishing slavery, recognizing the rights of minorities of various stripes (race, religion, sex) to vote, own property, hold public office, live and go to school where they choose, and basically enjoy life as an American, then I plead guilty as charged.

Thing is, I don't think I'm the only one who thinks it's "right" that our laws have evolved to include a broader definition of "human" over the years rather than a thinner one - regardless of whether that expansion has been through court or legislative action.

Apparently "What Steve Thinks" is the opposite of "What Rick Thinks" - and if that is truly so then I'll have to fall back on the words of another great Rick (ricardo) and say: "Hey Ricky, you got some 'splainin' to do!"

As for the rest of your argument, my response can be summed up in three words (mainly cuz I'm tired of typing): Nice try, partner.

P.S. Did you REALLY think that citing an opinion by Clarence Thomas was going to add strength to your argument?

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 12/8/2008).]

Joe,

There is no apology necessary for you voicing your opinion, no mattter whether I agree, or disagree. IN this case....
For everyone else
I am very fearful of what the "public" is in for when they have banned horse slaughter, and old crippled, horses are everywhere, and we have to import our food from other sources as so many laws have been passed we cannot afford to raise food in our own country, which is by far the safest place to get your food from as it is. I was horrified to find out there were two humane society's one that rescues animals and another HSUS, who has no shortage of $$ to use for whatever cause they feel necessary.

When you go to the store, take a minute to thank God, and an Ag producer for all they do.

Steve, there's a reason I referenced O'Connor first.

My point on Human Rights wasn't to claim title to the rightful definition. I certainly didn't intend to deny Joe or Yourself your rightful credit in the abolition of slavery

Though I'm not sure how in practicality, the court brought an actual end to slavery. I think there was a war of some kind involved there. Similar things could be said of Civil Rights. The courts are given far more credit than they are due.

Anyway, my actual point was that "Human Rights" means different things to different people.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT...706&page=1

Some claim Health Care as a "Human Right"

http://www.pdhre.org/rights/housing.html

Others claim Housing as a "Human Right"

http://books.google.com/b...&ct=result

Then for some, Food is a "Human Right"

I'll see how far that goes next time in line at the grocery store. I'll just leave that loaf of bread in my cart. When they ask why I don't put it on the counter, I'll say I'm not paying. I have a right to that loaf of bread. We'll see how that works.

It's pretty easy to establish that if we aren't fairly conservative with our classification of "Human Rights" they quickly lose their meaning. Having "Anything I need" become a "Right" defies their purpose.

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 12/8/2008).]

Ok Rick - I know that some portion of voters are withholding their support of extending full rights to gays and lesbians until there is uncontestable evidence proving a biological/nature link to sexual orientation, which I think is related to the issue you are getting at. And that is what distinguishes it from those other claims to human rights you named because I think (yes, an opinion) that we are not too far from the day that the proof will be provided.

My question is, how long do we wait? Better yet, why wait at all?

That was the original point of other thread I posted on here (which is where this discussion should probably be taking place). In the meantime, we have idiots justifying invalidating marriages that have already taken place because after the civil war slaveowners couldn't continue to lay claim to the slaves they held before the civil war. Is that crazy or what? And we have simpletons who fear that allowing gays to marry will open the doors to furniture fetishists marrying their sofas. I don't even know what to say to that kind of craziness... do furniture fetishists even exist?

How long do we ask a law-abiding, tax-paying, armed services-serving group of citizens to wait before they can enjoy equal treatment under ALL of our country's laws?

How long would you wait to be treated equally if you were different but you knew, in your heart and soul, that a "choice" was never involved - that you were born a certain way that made you different, but there's one small group (perhaps as small as 2.3%) that demands sufficient evidence to prove that claim beyond a shadow of doubt?

And the ultimate test - (I asked this once before) - how long would you wait before your son/daughter, neice/nephew, sister/brother, cousin, etc. could enjoy the rights most people take for granted (and in some cases truly do make a mockery of)?

Well, tomorrow is too long for me. I know others have different opinions about that. If they can still sleep soundly, then that's their problem.

[This message has been edited by Steve Craddock (edited 12/9/2008).]

Rick & Steve-
You need to get back on task. You've deviated so far from the original post that you should start your own "Rick V. Steve thread; on second thought I'll do it for you.

Mollie brings up a good point closer to the original topic- horses can no longer be sent to slaughter in California because voters didn't feel good about it. That's all fine and dandy, but, like it or not, many nations/cultures do eat horse meat. Cutting the flow from California probably had some impact on that food/protein source in parts of the world. It certainly effected the pet food industry.

Now before you get all righteous on me about eating horse, I think (read Chad thinks) that since we make pets of horses and ride them and treat them very different than cows, we have an emotional and sentimental bond with them. Many people can't fathom eating horses, yet they eat cows, chickens, turkeys, pigs, fish, those big brown eyed furry deer and elk, and other wild game. Well I can tell you from experience , horse ain't all that bad.

Mollie is right, California is rich in old nags and broken down crippled horses. No longer sold for slaughter, where at least some food/fiscal benefit is derived; they are now euthanized and buried or thrown in a landfill.

I think this thread gives a good example of the multiple downsides of less and less people being involved in food production. When we went from 39% of Americans living on farms in 1900 to 2% in 1990, we lost a lot of perspective on both sides.

On one hand we have a whole lot of city dwellers whose only experience with animals is their anthropomorphized pets and zero real experience with where their food comes from who start feeling like animals should be treated like humans because they have zero perspective on the subject. In the past when everyone at least knew somebody who was a farmer, people were a lot more realistic about animals and our relationship with them.

On the other hand, we have these massive factory farms that treat animals like industrial machines and whose only concerns are production and profit. This isn't good either, and it's probably the same root cause. The people making the decisions aren't directly connected with the animals either. Small farmers may not get too sentimental about their livestock, but most of them have respect and empathy for them to some extent where the executives at Tyson foods probably don't.

Like it or not though, we're not going back. Increased efficiency in food production on US farms is/has been absolutely essential, not only to the US but to the world as population grows. Some people can live off of stuff that was hand raised and organic, but in today's world that is an expensive luxury and an indulgence from a big-picture point of view. Feel free to do it if you like, but know that if everyone did that, we would not be able to feed ourselves.

I do think that agribusiness needs regulation, but the general public, the vast majority of which now have no experience with agriculture and no realistic perspective with regards to animals, are not the appropriate source for this regulation. If they are, you get bills like prop 2 which are well intentioned, but ineffective, irrational, and likely even detrimental.

Animal welfare directly impacts food safety and both matter for reasons beyond economics.

My earlier point concerning salmonella fell on deaf ears so I'll try a different approach: Modern poultry sheds housing thousands of birds bred with increasingly weakened immune systems like those targeted by Prop. 2, in warm and dusty environments, have been identifed by the WHO's leading epidemiologists as the primary source of the last three major outbreaks of the avian flu in Asia with a nearly perfect mortality rate among birds and the most likely propagators of a new strain of H5N1 avian flu with the real potential of killing 150 million people globally in a pandemic.

Between 1997 and 2002, over 4.5 millions birds were slaughtered to prevent contagion. 7 in 10 humans infected with the virus by direct exposure to infected poultry died within two weeks.

The virus is now mutating in several of these sheds in China, which has increased poultry production by 900% to 160M metric tons/yr. since 1980 under the industrial model. One day, a handler will show up for work in one of these sheds with early symptoms of a less virulent flu. Two flu strains will combine in a process known as antigenic drift and a strain of pandemic bird flu will be born that will be transmitted through human-to-human contact.

Once the pandemic strain is identified and quarantined, it will be at least 3 months before a vaccine can be developed. Meanwhile, legal and illegal shipments of poultry out of these sheds will continue virtually unabated and infected humans will travel to the U.S. during the incubation period.

Once introduced on American soil, the virus will cover the continent in five days. There will only be enough vaccine produced and distributed in the days ensuing to administer to first responders in most communities, if that. There's no reason to expect that less than 7 in 10 people exposed to the new bird flu pandemic will die within a month.

The Spanish Flu of 1918 killed 40 million people. This one would be far worse.

This was the context of a FEMA Emergency Response Exercise conducted within Custer County by your local officials two years ago. It was a chilling scenario.

Do you suppose the four veterinary groups endorsing Prop. 2 that Levi listed were talking straight or were they only too happy to carry freight for the egg producers, broiler farms, feed companies, pharmaceutical firms and land-grant universities that pay the bills?

Trust who you will. As for me, I'll listen to the team of researchers in Asia, led by Dr. Kennedy Shortridge who identified the highy virulent HPAI H5N1 virus and has been working every day to prevent its mutation and contagion.

Happy Holidays to you too, Rick. Enjoy those McNuggets, Chad. Sorry to bug you, Bruce.

I don't do McNuggets. I also try to avoid foods imported from Asia and third world countries. Coffee and Chocolate are an exception. So are bananas, some tropical fruits, and I suppose shrimp and fishes.

It's unfortunate that so much food covers so many miles. I'd be very wary of anything that comes from China or much of Asia, especially if it's processed in any way whatsoever.

I pandemic flu COULD be devastating, much like Bovine Spongiform Encephalitis (mad cow) got into the food stream and killed a fair number of the English. I'm surprised how little is heard any more about the various prion diseases already in the food chain and within our pets.

Joe, for the record, I'd like to see more food provided locally from local farmers/ranchers/producers.. That goes for meat; processed meats (bacon, ham, burger, smoked/cured, sausages); produce, grains, processed grains(flour/bread/pasta); etc.. I'd like to see a larger farmers market in the season. I'd like to see local processors providing local retailers- perhaps cut out some middlemen and put the money in local pockets.

I go out of my way each spring, summer, and fall to find beginning of the year rhubarb growing in alleys and back yards; to find that local apricot or apple tree; to find wild plums and June berries; to struggle through thorns for buffalo berries; I hunt wild things and freeze them, smoke them, make them into sausage. Believe me, while I enjoy artichokes and calamari from afar, I try to get as much as possible around here. I see the problems with corporate farming and Ag-industry.

now im hungry

Joe, it's clear from your argument that you don't know what prop 2 is proposing. This is the wording:

"Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely."

This does not end battery cages. It just requires that they be slightly larger. This is not "free range" and it's not "cage free", it's just an incremental change that will cost a lot of money to implement, but not really change much at all. It is far from a consensus that there will be any reduced risk of salmonella from this, and there has not been a reported case of humans contracting salmonella from eggs in California for nearly a decade. Free range eggs have been shown to have much more bacteria on them and free range chickens have a higher prevalence of salmonella than caged birds, due to having more exposure to rodents.

Regardless of the benefits of free range or barns vs. cages though, prop 2 does NOT mandate an end to cages at all. I still see no evidence that Prop 2 will accomplish anything but costing farmers money. The purpose of this bill is to make humans feel better, not to help animals and not to enhance food safety.

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 12/9/2008).]

Levi, I understand Prop. 2 perfectly well, without your corrections. You'll need to search a little further up the thread to find someone misrepresenting my position with yet another straw man argument who would benefit most from your outline. "Free range" chickens aren't the only solution suggested by Prop. 2 and the measure doesn't ban battery cages, as you've suggested.

But I hope you're not suggesting that Prop. 2 requires all poultry sheds to be fitted with larger cages.

No, all that's required is to reduce the density of existing cages from, say, 6 hens per cage to 4 hens per cage so that the birds can stand up, turn around and spread their wings now and then. That's not such a big deal, is it? And, who knows? Maybe it'll eliminate some of the unfair advantage that poultry producers have lorded over cattlemen in the battle for the protein dollar for the past 40 years.

With that, I won't beat a dead chicken. I'm sure you guys will do well enough with that on your own.

So it simply reduces the production capability of all egg farms in California by 1/3. No big deal?

[This message has been edited by Levi Forman (edited 12/9/2008).]

There you go putting it in stupid Business terms, Levi.

Have you no feelings?

Joe, Reducing animal density does make sense from a pure contact point. But, as Levi pointed out, how do you keep the food chain fully supplied ? Driven by a pure profit motive, the large producers would fill the void using imported food supplies (China?) that are not as regulated as well as we are (bearing in mind how poorly we regulate now) That is why I believe there are better ways to address your scenario.
Chad, you do remember that Vietnamese Shrimp was being animal waste dont you? Got to watch that imported food.....

Joe, I wont 'beat a dead chicken' either. Seems like we both have much greater issues to confront, dont we ?