POST SCRIPTS

Don't get me wrong here, I realize PETA can be pretty outrageous and radical and I take exception to that kind of conduct because it takes away from the plight of some really worthy causes.

I'm not sure that people understand caged chickens spend their entire lives in a cramped space the size of a standard sheet of paper. As a result their feet rest on the wire cage and develope sores, they also get diseases from high ammonia levels and become lame and crippled. When their time for slaughter comes around commercial places treat them pretty bad. They are often thrown around violently and suffer broken legs and wings. The chickens are hung upside down, then run through a stun bath with voltages so low the chickens are often completely conscious. Next the chickens' throats are slit and they are next dipped into scalding hot water to remove their feathers. Sometimes the chickens remain conscious during the ordeal. It's pretty sad.

Given that egg prices are extremely low and that caging a chicken is really inhumane and produces chickens of poor health, I think this is one we can afford for our own health's sake, if not for the chickens. It would cost only a few cents more per carton of eggs to give the birds more of a life... absent the torture.

I can't help but think that the way big business raises chickens with all the drugs and mistreatment that it won't come back on us in health problems. We raise free range chickens and we almost never lose a chicken to illness. These are extremely healthy birds that produce for many years.

Our chickens meander about feeding naturally in open grass land. They have a safe and clean roost too. The eggs they produce far superior to the taste of anything you would get in a supermarket. We usually give our surplus eggs to friends and neighbors who prize them as a rare treat. Their taste makes normal eggs seem bland, it's really that much better!

We also raise cattle and they are very well treated and raised on natural pasture and never injected with hormones. We've had very good results in production. And yes, this too costs a little more, but the high quality product (safe and healthy) is well worth it to select buyers who are concerned about such things.

Jack, I hear what you're saying. But if I know government...and I admit I haven't read the legislation...they won't bother to work with these farmers in any way they will just determine a date of compliance and heavy fines for those who can't make the date.

I assume we're talking about fairly big operations that produce quite a few eggs...not family ranches (lucky you for having great eggs!) I don't know how much land would be needed for roaming or the difficulties involved in "herding and gathering" from such an operation but I imagine if it's big enough that could pose a problem.

Maybe there is a better answer but it seems to me that a better solution would come from some entrepreneur with a better cage system that could be implimented as the farmer could afford it. Maybe they could have "chicken runs attached to them.

The larger point of the story is of course that this CA legislature is going to raise taxes...which is exactly the wrong thing to do.

How many times have we heard it? They always say it will bankrupt them ... and then it doesn't.

This is only another example of: you can do it decent ... if we make you.

That's what civilization is. Some of us are civilized ... and some of us need a prod. As long as the civilized out-number the prodded, we will be ok.

"That's what civilization is. Some of us are civilized ... and some of us need a prod. As long as the civilized out-number the prodded, we will be ok."

Libby, if ever there was a person who would use a prod on other people to get their way...its you.

"How many times have we heard it? They always say it will bankrupt them ... and then it doesn't."

First of all they didn't say it would bankrupt them...they said it wouldn't be worth it to remain in California.

And you of course are in a position to know how many businesses have or have not gone bankrupt because of the burdens imposed when taxation and regulation (or min wage or smoking bans) get out of hand. You have those stats right there in your left back pocket...along with that prod your so fond of.

Just out of curiosity...

Do you "civilized" people ever feel the smallest tinge of contradiction or irony as you drive past all those abortion clinics on your way to the "save the chickens" rally?

Nick you're in rare form tonight! I dount it...not even with a little "prodding"...LOL.

Anyone who eats eggs and beef deserves the heart attacks they cause. Oops, Jack, that was the other post. You don't believe cholesterol causes heart attacks.

Nick, consigning people to lives of misery ... this is not civilized.

I don't want government intervention either, in fact I hate government intervention, but I'm also a realist when it comes to recognizing certain aspects of our human nature that demand intervention. Libby said this too, "some people" need an incentive to be civilized. True and to the point.

I believe there will always be those few among us who will cause the rest of us to have rules that we could have lived without. Case in point, if we didn't have protective laws for animals you only need ask yourself, would we have public betting on dog fighting today?

When we pass laws against things like dog fighting we are drawing a moral line in the sand; we're saying it is inhumane and benneath our level of humanity.

I recently read where a man stomped a puppy to death because it was barking too much and he went to jail for 6 months. He pushed the limit of what we consider civilized conduct and few among us would defend such a person. So, if the "gross mistreatment" of animals is the litmus test for what is civilized then the precedent has clearly been set many times over a broad range of animal rights issues.

It should not matter if it is Michael Vick fighting his pit-bull or Tyson Foods torturing chickens, the line has been established and they have crossed that line. Accountability is on them, not us.

If it takes our government (of the people and by the people) to drag them back over the line, then so be it. This was a line I never intended to cross anyway, so any laws here won't affect our freedom one bit, but it could affect your pocket book. We always pay something to protect freedom and with it our humanity..it never comes without a price. This time the price might be 10 cents more for a pound of chicken.

_______________________________________________

If you are worried about laws against such things being too draconian then it's simply up to us as reasonable people to devise a methodology that would "encourage" people in a fair manner to stop torturing animals.

I can't support those who cage chickens (as noted earlier) and cause them pain and injury their entire lives anymore than I can support the people fighting dogs. It's all torture.

A pure capitalist would say... we don't need any laws to govern our food supply, let the market place be self-regulating. If enough people get sick and die from say mad cow disease, then the market will change, don't worry about it. If enough people don't want tortured chickens it will change and so on and so on.

Sorry, but that’s not good enough. We've found that the market place is too slow to change to protect us properly. Even if it did change for awhile without some sort of laws it to stop it the problem will recycle itself later when all the fuss has died down. We need certain gov. entities to keep the standards up and uniform.

You would not want a food supply where the only regulating market force is "caveat emptor" would you? That's where we are heading if we turn a blind eye to animal torture because the economic impact might be more than some commercial places wanted to bear. We're better people than that.

I take this position with a certain risk, and I totally understand that. It leaves me wide open to attack as an evil socialist or worse. But, I know from my own moral basis I'm on the right track here and I feel comfortable about taking that risk.

The only question for me now, is how do we go about bringing certain big businesses back across that line of acceptable conduct? We should be able to figure something out, it can't be that hard to reach a compromise for the sake of our humanity.

"Nick, consigning people to lives of misery ... this is not civilized."

Ohhh, so that is the reason you advocate the snuffing out of human life at its most innocent, and defenseless stage....mercy.

Wow, you are quite the humanitarian.

Libby gets to choose who lives and who dies based off of her analysis of their potential misery.

Apparently in Libby's world, letting a child be born into a difficult situation is uncivilized, but injecting the birth sack with a high concentration of saline, which burns the child internally and externally is ok.

Or maybe injecting a needle into the skull and and destroying the brain tissue, then systematically cutting off the limbs so the carcus is easier to extract...that is in your mind..."civilized"?

Look, I'm not making this stuff up, these are the types of procedures that you appear to think are appropriate.

Tell me Libby, if the US Government had applied this barbaric method to the 9-11 hijackers, or maybe to a child rapist, what would you response have been?

I am always eager to learn more about the morale high ground from such...experts...as modern liberals.

Nick I can understand the analogy with abortion and that is very important too, however I'm hoping we can focus on the animal issue for now and the morality of protecting them from undue misery and torture. Abortion is so big it overwhelms this lesser issue. When that happens the new ideas and dialog break down and nothing is accomplished. I would like to see some consensus on this issue from both sides.

I understand Jack, and this is your site, and I respect that.

But I don't compromise just for the sake of compromise.

And a million people all agreeing on the same thing may be consensus, but it doesn't make it right.

I am tired of arbitrary things being used as a substitute for victory.

To be perfectly honest, I probably fall somewhere between you and Tina on this issue.

But no amount of good intentions on your part Jack will convince Libby to let this discussion play out in a mature fashion.

And despite the fact, that I have just presented Libby the perfect opportunity to prove me wrong...she wont.

"This is only another example of: you can do it decent ... if we make you."

How many times have you been faced with the big bill for state mandated regulation on threat of heavy fines or shut-down for noncompliance? My guess is never. It's pretty easy to sit in smug self satisfaction when you don't have to come up with the cash or apologize to customers for higher prices.

My post was about businesses leaving the state and taking jobs and tax revenues with them. California is in deep doo doo...this is not the time to put pressures on business that will drive them out of the state.

Jacks comment sent the conversation in a different direction, which is fine, but I just need to say I am not in favor of inhumane treatment of animals and I am in favor of "reasonable" regulation. Having said that, these farmers have been raising chickens this way for a long, long time. They, like the rest of us, have recently been hit with high energy prices and feed prices. Why is it OK to suddenly make them comply with new regulation NOW? I have not read the legislation but my experience tells me they will not pay much attention to what would work for the farmer...they will set a date and a structure for compliance that includes fines procedures for shutting the farmer down.

My point? In a society that works for everyone...ahem... businesses should not be treated like an evil ugly step sister. Government should also be alert to the concerns of the people who actually have to bankroll and make changes in order to comply with regulations. Libby's smug cavalier attitude is more the norm.

"But I don't compromise just for the sake of compromise."

And that's your privilege. But you don't get to say for me. Sorry.

"And a million people all agreeing on the same thing may be consensus, but it doesn't make it right."

It's not a perfect world. What you have to do is just accept the fact that there is nothing you can say, nothing at all, that will persuade me that abortion is worse than giving birth to children you are not fit to raise. Bringing people onto this planet to live lives of the "nasty, brutish and short" variety is absolutely the worst thing a person can do, in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion. So you go your way, and I'll go mine ... and all will be peaceful.

Bets, anybody?

Jack, the thing that impressed me about the KQED Forum on this was how most of the calls were on the animal rights' side. Some of them even saying the violence was excusable, which surprised me. And lots of them seemed to be very knowledgeable about UC's research policies and really laid into 'em. It's much more of a "coming thing" than I thought.

Nick, think for a minute about breeding animals for "research" purposes. What do you think about that? All in the service of man's greater glory, I suppose?

And any capitalist knows that a fat labor pool is essential to achieving low costs and a high profit margin.

Grisly. That's what it is.

You were speaking to Nick but you had to know, since baiting is your bag, that I couldn't let this one lie:

"Bringing people onto this planet to live lives of the "nasty, brutish and short" variety is absolutely the worst thing a person can do, in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion."

And the culture that makes abortion acceptable has made this exact scenario even more likely. People who aren't "fit" to bring children into the world do it all the time only now they are encouraged to live life and take care of troubles later...sometimes they abort and sometimes they don't but there is no denying that the availability of abortiions has spawned this free and easy lifestyle. That and plenty of handouts from government...

Libby, out of respect for Jacks wishes, concerning this Post, I have responded to your comments regarding abortion under "Obama wants Global Tax".

I eagerly wait your colorful response.

"And the culture that makes abortion acceptable has made this exact scenario even more likely."

Huh? How can ya live in misery if ya were never born?

Nick: "I eagerly wait your colorful response."

I wish I could've taken bets.

"Huh? How can ya live in misery if ya were never born?"

As I said, "People who aren't "fit" to bring children into the world do it all the time only now they are encouraged to live life and take care of troubles later...sometimes they abort and sometimes they don't..."

The aborted ones don't...but their brothers and sisters do...easy abortion is one of many things that encourage the kind of life style and choices that lead to more miserable lives and living conditions.