lots of other posts on this.
this is the most current:
http://www.postpunkkitchen.com/forum/vi … p?id=65554

along with Francione, others who are against:
Cal-Maine Foods ($591,211) - Cited numerous times for spilling chicken manure and parts into rivers and streams, including an Ohio incident that killed 49,000 fish in the Stillwater River.

Moark, LLC ($504,314) - Paid $100,000 to settle criminal animal cruelty charges in Missouri.

Foster Poultry Farms ($250,000) - Referred by the Better Business Bureau to the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising related to animal welfare claims.

Gemperle Enterprises ($216,288) - Recent investigations found evidence of abuse and mistreatment of hens at one of Gemperle's California factory farms.

United Egg Producers ($185,000) - Paid $100,000 to settle false advertising claims with 17 attorneys general, including California's.

Quality Eggs of New England ($100,000) - Quality Egg owner Jack DeCoster was fined 3.6 million for federal health and safety violations as one of his egg factory farms near Turner, Maine.

Hillandale Farm ($96,000) - Hillandale Farms was fined $128,000 for violating national safety regulations after a worker died when he fell into the company’s corn silo in Florida.

National Food Corporation ($94,450) National Food was fined $54,000 for releasing excess pollution from its egg processing plant in Washington State.

Weaver Brothers ($87,500) - Exposed by an undercover investigation in 2002 finding routine animal cruelty.

Armstrong Farms ($64,221) - Sued by Dept of Labor for paying several dozen employees less than minimum wage for up to two years.

Dixie Egg Company ($64,000)-Dixie Egg Company paid $1.5 million in a wrongful death settlement after one of its truck drivers struck and killed a 25-year-old student.

Norco Ranch($53,587)-Norco Ranch was sued by an Illinois food supplier for supplying Salmonella-contaminated eggs that sickened 17 people. As well, the company had to kill a quarter million of its chickens after they became infected with Exotic Newcastle Disease.

Ritewood, Inc.($29,600)-Ritewood was fined $105,000 after it spilled two million gallons of chicken waste into rivers.

Pilgrim's Pride ($25,000) - Exposed by whistle-blowing employee in 2004 who secretly videotaped other employees stomping on chickens, throwing them against walls, and otherwise torturing them.

Golden Oval Eggs ($15,000) - Ordered by state of Iowa in 2008 to pay $200,000 in fines for environmental pollution coming from its egg factory.

Olivera Egg Ranch ($12,000) - Accused of exposing residential neighbors in Lathrop, California to toxic pollution.

Dolco Packaging ($5,000)-Dolco Packaging paid a $110,000 fine to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency relating to claims it violated Ohio’s air pollution laws.

Degussa Corporation ($2,500)-Degussa, a chemical company, is the subsidiary of a company that was prohibited from working on a Holocaust memorial project because the company supplied Zyklon B to Nazi concentration camps during World War II.

Naturally Recycled Proteins ($2,500)-Naturally Recycled Proteins was fined $4,000 in Nebraska to settle allegations that it violated air quality regulations.


obviously, i am voting yes;
i also collected signatures to put it on the ballot
and i'm coordinating the leafletting campaign for my county.

You should vote yes, consider it a test case for animal issues.   If this one does well, then you might see better pro-animal propositions next time.   But if it fails, then people won't be so likely to try that approach.     You're not endorsing the eating of eggs by voting yes.

Last edited by root (Tue 10/7/08 1:52 am)

root wrote:

You should vote yes, consider it a test case for animal issues.   If this one does well, then you might see better pro-animal propositions next time.   But if it fails, then people won't be so likely to try that approach.     You're not endorsing the eating of eggs by voting yes.

That's a good way to look at it.

don’t pretend a vote against animal agriculture reform is “real animal advocacy.” It’s not.

well put!  that's exactly right.

Elaine Vigneault wrote:

FootFace wrote:

Suicide Food recommends a Yes vote.

A perspective I can agree with! His thoughts:

1) California residents, please do vote Yes on Proposition 2, the farm animal welfare bill on the November 2008 ballot.

2) While you're at it, consider voting Yes on the Little Old Lady Protection Act. LOLPA would outlaw pushing little old ladies down the stairs before mugging them. Although LOLPA has garnered much support, some detractors see in it an unnecessary restriction on personal liberty. Rest assured, LOLPA does not prohibit mugging of the elderly and would not prevent you from continuing to assault and rob anyone.

hahahaha!

The reason I even brought this up again here was because I just read Vegan Bits, who is voting no because of what Francione says. Argh!
http://veganbits.com/proposition-2-revisited/

I commented:

Me, I would vote Yes.
It’s not a choice between promoting happy meat or doing real animal advocacy, it’s a choice between voting yes or voting no. If you want to abstain from voting and go do real animal advocacy, fine. But don’t pretend a vote against animal agriculture reform is “real animal advocacy.” It’s not.

That's Footface's blog.  Other people have blogs too.

Does anyone have an argument in support of Prop 2 that reacts to the abolitionist belief to not support it?

I just watched the animated "Yes on Prop 2" commercial for the first time.  It can be seen here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqPJsfjjyZU

How is this ad not promoting "happy meat"?  I find it appalling and the vegans who made the ad ought to be ashamed of themselves.

EDIT: It doesn't look like the producers of the ad (Free Range Studios) are a vegan group.  So I guess I can't blame them.  But HSUS ought to be ashamed of themselves!

Last edited by Bryan (Tue 10/7/08 2:20 pm)

There is somewhat flawed reasoning about HSUS using their assets and revenue to support vegan outreach.

First off, they do.

Secondly, if they did as their core efforts they wouldn't have revenue or assets like that.

GuiltyofBeingTrite wrote:

mel c wrote:

Am I understanding the abolishionist position correctly in that they disagree with Prop 2 because it perpetuates the idea of animals as property?

they also say it will hardly change anything and consume a lot of resources to defend before and after it is passed.

Well, I suppose an argument against this is that even if it does only make a small change, that's more than the abolitionists can offer right now.

The way I see it, I would rather see an end to all animal use, but I don't see that as precluding me from also preferring small increases in animal welfare to nothing.

I suppose I have little patience for a group that appears to put more importance on theoretical purity than on actually ending or decreasing suffering... and this from someone who would otherwise identify as an abolitionist.

I do agree with you, Bryan, that Prop 2 is all about "happy meat," which we all realize is bullshiitake. I will vote yes on Prop 2 though, because the revolution isn't coming tomorrow. It takes little to no effort on my part to fill in that little bubble (and the same amount of effort it would take to abstain), and a reduction in suffering, no matter how small, is still a reduction of suffering.

The well-intentioned, though myopic, liberals who introduced this proposition will surely feel better about themselves and their happy steaks, but I don't think that people will suddenly step back and say, "Ok, they're happy now, I can stop caring." Maybe I'm just naively optimistic. I think legislation like this can be an opportunity to introduce new ideas to people, and perhaps they will eventually be willing to go a step further. The people who you think are wasting their time and money on this are, for the most part, not the same people who would fight for radical changes. And if they are willing to waste their money on acknowledging that animals have feelings, then I think that is a step in the right direction. I'm not saying you should donate your life savings to the campaign, but the work has been done. What harm does it do to you to vote yes?

In the meantime, while the long-term productivity of bills like this is arguable, I certainly don't see it as step backwards for the animal rights movements. And I am adamantly against the "anti-baby steps because changes only really happens when the shiitake gets really bad" mindset, because if you have the luxury of being able to lose brain cells over whether or not to check a box, chances are you're not the one on the margins who's getting forked over.

Last edited by mel c (Tue 10/7/08 2:38 pm)

Like I said, I am not voting against it.  I am abstaining.  Generally, here is why:

-I feel like if I vote YES, I am giving my tacit approval of animal exploitation.
-I feel like if I vote NO, I am saying that less suffering is not better than more suffering.

So it's a lose-lose situation in my own mind, which is why I'm abstaining.

IsaChandra wrote:

Bryan via Francione wrote:

And argument against THIS is that by spending 100% of our time on getting more people to go argue on message boards...

Fixed!

This doesn't really make sense seeing as how a supporter of prop 2 started this thread...