prop 2.

before addressing any further issues, i want to remind anyone who might be reading this how very important it is to read the propositions you're voting on for yourself. though something might seem to be in alignment with what you believe, make sure the wording is appropriate, thorough, and inclusive. a badly written amendment is a LOT of trouble. it is a permanent addition to our constitution and should not be voted for lightly. with that in mind, i look at it this way: when in doubt, vote 'no' (or don't vote on that prop at all). maybe you don't agree with this, but it's my opinion that, no matter how it might seem to fit or refute your beliefs, if you don't fully understand what you are voting for, you have no ground to vote to add or change something in our constitution (one of the most precious things we have as americans/californians). read them for yourself (not interpreted by a party's slant) and decide if you believe they will clarify something unclear or missing in our current constitution.

on to prop 2. prop 2 is titled "Standards for Confining Farm Animals". it will set standards in veal, battery, and sow gestation crates (affecting calves, chickens, and cows) to ensure that the confined animal will be allowed to turn around, lie down, stand up, and fully extend its limbs.

growing up next to a ranch, i am aware of things that not everyone has the luxury of being aware of. my back yard was cattle country and, as a child, i made friends with the inhabitants. i saw slaughterhouses and gestation pens and all the stops in between. and i know that many cattle ranchers are very humane in their treatment of their livestock. there are some who are not...some who are far from humane...but many who are integrous (booyeah).

i say that because i want to make it clear that i do support ranchers and ranchers' rights, and i believe the government should keep its nose out of things as much as possible.

that being said, i do believe it is absolutely necessary to set standards in the handling of livestock. i am voting yes on 2. this proposition is well worded and the standards set are very reasonable. there is no requirement for hardwood flooring and pewter fixtures. it is a simple (and should be logical) expectation to allow the captive animals to move the limbs God gave them.

beyond the obvious humane issues, it is important to our health that the animals we potentially ingest be given physical freedoms. when an animal is pent up unnaturally, their instinctive reaction (as yours would be) is to panic, to struggle. this situation causes them stress and they release hormones (just like you do) in that panic. those hormones are then served up on your plate and you ingest them. yes, it's true mr. and mrs. veal-lover. it is better for everyone involved if we pass this prop and set this standard.