DO NOT VOTE
...for Shirley Dean.
Okay, here are Carbolic's local election recommendations.
Do not vote for Shirley Dean for mayor. (I'm sick of Berkeley looneys; also, she wants to make UCB pay millions to Berkeley. My response: Screw off. We were here first.)
2. Do not vote for Phil Daly. (Hayashi worked on civil rights for Bill Clinton!)
3. Do not vote for Judy Shelton for the Rent Board. (She looks crazy. I don't trust any candidate who lists "artist" or "activist" as an occupation.)
5. Do not vote for Prop. 2. (How the hell do I know what kind of chicken cages should be used? This is a regulatory issue best decided by experts at the CA Dept. of Food and Agriculture, not a bunch of people who think that bunnies are cute.)
6. Do not vote for granting marijuana permits "as a matter of right." (Damn hippies!)
Okay, here are Carbolic's local election recommendations.
Do not vote for Shirley Dean for mayor. (I'm sick of Berkeley looneys; also, she wants to make UCB pay millions to Berkeley. My response: Screw off. We were here first.)
2. Do not vote for Phil Daly. (Hayashi worked on civil rights for Bill Clinton!)
3. Do not vote for Judy Shelton for the Rent Board. (She looks crazy. I don't trust any candidate who lists "artist" or "activist" as an occupation.)
5. Do not vote for Prop. 2. (How the hell do I know what kind of chicken cages should be used? This is a regulatory issue best decided by experts at the CA Dept. of Food and Agriculture, not a bunch of people who think that bunnies are cute.)
6. Do not vote for granting marijuana permits "as a matter of right." (Damn hippies!)
Labels: Elections, Only In Berkeley
posted by Carbolic at 8:17 AM
48 Comments:
Also: Do not vote for election recommendation number four.
you are sick of berkeley looneys... and thus want to keep in place a mayor who thinks military recruiters have no "right" to be in berkeley, supports "looney" groups like code pink, and threatens millions of dollars of federal funding in the process?
I say vote for Shirley Dean. Its time we had a responsive mayor who cares more about what happens in Berkeley than Berkeley's foreign policy.
There is only one solution: write in Carbolic!
#5
If you think our state should outlaw all but organic food, should ban french fries, should mandate hybrid cars, and if you generally believe that the middle class should tell the poor what is good for them, then by all means vote yes on prop two.
If you have any sense of social justice, moral boundary, or any connection to the real world in which most Californians live their lives, vote no on prop two.
9:12--
Check out this NY Times article. Yep, that's Shirley Dean tree-sitting. Here's the money quote: "'Nobody’s going to cut us down,' Ms. Dean, a former Berkeley mayor, told a crowd of about 75 supporters, 'and nobody’s going to cut these oaks down.'"
Basically, my election strategy is to oppose any candidate supported by Betty Olds (also tree-sitting), who was a key player in the Code-Pink/Marine protest disaster.
Dean is a particularly offensive representative of Berkeley NIMBYism: no development, no expansion of affordable housing, and no West Berkeley revitalization (through unrealistic zoning limits). And she expects UCB to foot the bill.
While I'm at it: she was also a supporter of the shameful "Save Iceland" campaign, which abused landmark preservation laws to devalue an underused ice-rink, in order to prevent its conversion into housing and a Head Start school.
Truth of the matter: you're always going to get some kind of looney as Berkeley mayor. I think Bates is the lesser of two loonies.
5 you are a complete idiot, and you deserve to be placed in a cage where you can move or turn around for the rest of your life. Prop 2 does not just benefit animals, but people two. Chickens that aren't crammed into tiny cages are 25 times less likely to produce salmonella eggs -- that is a SCIENTIFIC fact. And that is why it is supported by real scientists, environmentalists and consumer groups. The people funding the NO campaign are egg producers outside the state, not California farmers, most of whom already comply with the requirements, and who are being indicted for price fixing! Prop 2 would affect only huge egg industries who have more than enough money to give a hen a couple more inches of room. Europe and countless other states have taken the same steps, and the sky hasn't fallen. The egg industry's own economist wrote that it would cost less than one penny per egg (so it's probably even less). This measure calls for basic decency -- you could learn a thing or two about that.
I've kept my mouth shut on Two, but comments like the one above are why I'm convinced the crazed, wild-eyed, unhinged liberals (read: Bay Area) need to be gagged and kept in a dark, dark dungeon. You make the rest of us, who are sensible, look bad.
Who are YOU to tell me how I should feel about animals? I think they're raised for food and I don't care what "pain" they feel. No, they are not human. Stop. I know what you're going to say, but really, they're not human. I know, you think that chicken smiled you, I assure you, it didn't. It's going to be in my Jack's Spicy Chicken Sandwich soon. If YOU want your chicken to have extra leg room, go through a cardio regiment, take yoga lessons, eat tofu "worms," lay eggs while listening to David Byrne, etc., then you can buy your free range chicken at whole foods. Why should I pay extra to subsidize YOUR conscience? I'm already pissed off that starbucks is using the new eco friendly lids that crush straws for their iced drinks. Don't get me started on this one.
Armen you are complete idiot. Did you not listen to anything I said. You don't have to care about animals to vote Yes on prop 2. Prop 2 benefits YOU, the egg-eater, the meat-eater. There are so many health and environmental benefits I don't have time to go into them. It's in YOUR self-interest to vote yes. But go ahead and vote for McCain while you are at it.
Is that some clever pun about being "caged up?"
Armen,
Your comments about Proposition 2 are nothing short of hateful, ignorant, and short-sighted. It's also clear from your commentary that you are NOT AT ALL educated on the issues behind Proposition 2 and are making very hateful assumptions about its supporters. Do us all a favor and keep your ignorant opinions to yourself.
Anonymous, as someone who was torn on Prop. 2, you are not doing your side's argument any favors. You sound hysterical.
You do your side no favors by calling people complete idiots, either. I may think that Republicans are complete idiots, but telling them is the worst way to persuade them to support Obama.
just because you don't know how chicken's should be caged doesn't mean you can't do some research. Ask a chicken farmer. What, you don't know any? Maybe because you eat craptastic eggs. When you taste a real egg, you think it's worth the extra $0.11 per dozen.
Oh give me a f*cking break. So the only steaks we should sell is Kobe beef? The preaching of loonies is becoming farcical.
I'm starting to think this must be some kind of bizarre parody, but I don't think it is.
Armen -- there a couple different people commenting here so actually there are multiple people calling you an idiot. Personally, I'm not trying to convince you, as it's going to pass regardless of what your tiny little brain thinks.
I eat free range chicken and organic eggs, and I voted no on prop two. There are three reasons.
First, as someone mentioned above, we already have the FDA. Second, this legislation is moralistic, and (for me) it takes a lot to get behind governmental regulation of moral issues. That is, incidentally, the same reason I support gay marriage and choice. Third, proposition two increases financial burdens on the poor. Sure, it is a penny an egg or whatever, but how many eggs are sold in California? It has to add up to a lot of money and any way you cut it that money will be extracted from the poorer classes. In general I oppose cigarette taxes, sales taxes, and the like, for exactly the same reason. I may not feel the burden on a chicken tax but someone will, either individually or collectively, and why should they have to foot the bill for my moral views on animal cruelty and healthy food?
There are plenty of reasons to disagree with me, but I don't think I have said anything beyond the pale, and I don't think any of those reasons are uneducated or idiotic.
I was also torn, but after doing a lot of research I decided to vote yes and not so much for the animals' sake, although I do believe that animals, as well as humans, deserve basic humane treatment (pigs are, after all, smarter than infants, and prop 2 affects calves and sows):
1. Helps small farmers, who can't compete as effectively.
2. There is no evidence prices will go up. They didn't go up in Arizona or the other states that passed similar measures, or in Europe. The people funding the opposition have been indicted for price fixing (in in an internal memo, one of these assholes celebrated the fact that egg prices have skyrocketed because of their collusion). Thus, price has more to do with how these people run a business than whether or not they give a chicken a few extra inches.
3. The measure will increase jobs.
4. Environmental and HUMAN health benefits. (No, we don't all need Kobe beef, but those recent recalls should tell you that there should be some basic standards.)
Slavery also probably kept prices down.
True -- I suppose keeping prices down always helps the poor. What about that beef recall though? Should kids be getting sick off cheap meat? Seems like there should be some limits to how low the standards can go.
Armen--I'm surprised you bothered replying to 10:30...since when did you care about the hysterical opinions of some random person trolling a law student blog?
So you're against 2, I get that, but do you really need the hyperbole? I voted for 2, even though I'm pretty sure I'm not a "crazed, wild-eyed, unhinged liberal." It's true I don't know much about regulating chicken cages, and I definitely have concerns about higher prices and the effects on California farmers.
But, the fact is, there are always good economic arguments against any environmental/animal regulation. There will always be some reason to decide in favor of the new development, the new building, the more lax regulation, and against the protection of an animal's welfare or an endangered species survival.
You don't want to subsidize my conscience, and that's fine, but surely we all (yes, even you Armen) have a line we are unwilling to cross, some point at which we are no longer willing to sacrifice ethical beliefs for economic convenience. To me, allowing living animals to stand up seems like a pretty fair place to finally put my foot down.
As to 2 specifically, Armen, Carbolic and a couple others are assuming that it's bad for local farmers and will raise prices, but from what I've read it is not at all clear that is the case (the effects seem uncertain, at best). If you have read up on the issues also and are convinced, on the whole, it's bad for California, by all means vote no.
But enough with this crap that anyone who votes yes is some sort of delusional hippy. It's perfectly reasonable to care about the welfare of animals, and to decide that our own convenience should only allow us so much. I am pretty confident, Armen, that somewhere in there you have a conscience too, and that this conscience of yours thinks bunnies are just adorable.
Actually, Armen looks kind of like a bunny.
I actually see more histrionics here on the part of the opponents to 2 than in what the supporters are saying. I eat the fuck out of chicken--damn, I'll eat a chicken in front of another chicken--and attempting to reduce the incidence of salmonella is compelling enough to risk being called a hippy.
Whatever, as long as gay teenagers can still marry their abortions on the new supertrain, it's all good.
Max, your entire argument depends on there not being a choice. There is a choice. You can certainly afford organic eggs and free range chicken. So, if you want animals treated the way you'd like them to be treated, buy food that meets your standards. I still don't understand why I have to foot the bill for your conscience. Let's put Roe v. Wade aside for a second, how appropriate would it be for the "majority" to impose their moral values on everyone else? If someone chooses to have an abortion, how does that affect someone whose religion prohibits the practice? Similarly, if I like my oppressed chicken, how does that affect your choice of "business class" chicken?
Vanessa -
I'm with you. I was hoping this thread was farce, but on election day, nothing is.
PS Total time it took me to stand in line and then vote: 4 minutes.
Armen--we're not going to resolve anything, because we are starting from totally different premises. If we cannot even agree on the basic assumption that animals feel pain and suffer, and that such pain and suffering matters, then we really aren't even having the same conversation. But I have a problem with your argument that moral values should never be imposed. And in fact, I don't think you actually think that's true, either.
It is true that, as a general matter, I wouldn't want to impose my morals on others (or more likely, have their morals imposed on me). But that's true only up to a certain point, right? For example, even though you appear to be an anti-bunnite, I'm guessing that you don't kill bunnies for fun, and wouldn't torture a bunny. And, I bet you would even be okay with it being illegal to torture a bunny. (Real life example: did you think Mike Vick should have gotten off with no penalty?) So why is it wrong to torture an animal for fun, but okay to do it if we're going to eat it?
Approaching this from a different direction, you might agree (I hope) that farms cannot purposefully torture chickens before they kill them. In other words, farms shouldn't go out of their way to make the killing worse than necessary (say by drawing out the death over many hours instead of as quickly as possible).
Well, if that's the case, then isn't the issue really just about were we draw the line (i.e., what level of suffering we are willing to tolerate)? Your line is obviously drawn in a different place than my own, but the important point is that you have a line somewhere (or at least, I hope you do). I'm not really interested in figuring out where your line is exactly, but just that one exists, as it shows that some moral regulation is necessary (and so we are talking only about how much, not whether there should be any).
The point of all this rambling is that regulation is not so black and white as your comment attempts to make it appear. Laws and regulations are constantly drawing lines based on the perceived ethics of our society. I don't think Prop 2 is really that much of a moral imposition.
One last point, that I know will have no effect on you--but I do think animals feel pain and suffer, and that their interests deserve recognition when we make laws. (And there is very nearly societal consensus on this--see again, Mike Vick, animal abandonment and torture laws, etc.) The problem, of course, is that animals cannot speak for themselves, and so they depend on humans to speak for them. I'm glad that there are so many people ("crazed, wild-eyed, unhinged liberals" exempted) willing to be the voice.
Also, Armen, you suck at fantasy football.
Max, you're right. If you think how we treat pets and animals raised for consumption in our criminal laws are equivalent then there is no agreement. Note: I think people who torture pets should rot in prison. But I couldn't care less about how my chicken breast spent its upbringing.
P.S., you and Disco Stu are paying for my VV meals if this crap passes.
I didn't say equivalent. But there is something between none and equivalent.
I'll pay for your meals, but it's nothing but veggies.
Max, that's an interesting point. Can you explain how your arguments cannot be used for a hypothetical proposition that would ban all meat consumption?
I was saving this for later, but what the hey:
Lisa: When will all those fools learn that you can be perfectly healthy simply eating vegetables, fruits, grains and cheese.
Apu: Oh, cheese!
Lisa: You don't eat cheese, Apu?
Apu: No I don't eat any food that comes from an animal.
Lisa: Ohh, then you must think I'm a monster!
Apu: Yes indeed I do think that. But, I learned long ago Lisa to tolerate others rather than forcing my beliefs on them. You know you can influence people without badgering them always. It's like Paul's song, "Live and Let Live".
Paul: Actually, it was "Live and Let Die".
Apu: Well, whatever, whatever. it had a good rhythm.
Can you explain how your arguments cannot be used for a hypothetical proposition that would ban all laws or regulations protecting animals in any circumstances?
This is not so much relevant as hilarious (and no, I'm not doing much at work today):
Marge: All right, Lisa, if you don't want lamb chops, there are lots of other things I can make. Chicken breast. Rump roast. Hot dogs.
Lisa: No I can't! I can't eat any of them!
Homer: Wait a minute wait a minute. Lisa honey, are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad! Those all come from the same animal!
Homer: [laughing] Yeah, right Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.
Yes. For example, torturing pets cannot be discouraged by any choice made by you or me. But you can do your part to have chicken treated however you like before you eat them. I think that's a huge difference. But you just want a) everyone else to accede to your choice and b) to subsidize it.
Armen -- get your facts straight. You can go to jail for torturing pets.
O.....K......and I stated otherwise how?
Extremely well-articulated Max! You get my vote.
Armen -- do you have a life or a job? Or do you spend all day blogging? Someone needs to get laid.
10:30/10:52/11:22/12:03--If consumers prefer chicken-friendly eggs, then the market will respond. Obviously, many consumers would prefer to pay less for eggs that are less tasty or have a (marginally) greater risk of salmonella. The free market works.
11:48--you can't credibly argue that a given measure will both (a) increase jobs and (b) not increase prices. And frankly, I don't care about small farmers. If you want to pay more for small farmers' produce, then go ahead.
Max Power--
1. If you think that popular referendums are appropriate tools for legislating(animal rights) morality, then I assume you have no principled argument to approving Propositions 4 and 8 on the same grounds.
2. There's a basic difference between purposefully torturing someone for fun, and knowingly not treat animals most gently while you are slaughtering/harvesting eggs.
3. I agree that animal abuse should be prosecuted. But it's because we don't think that humans should abuse animals; it's not because animals have any inherent human-like rights. In other words, animals don't have interests deserving legal protection.
4. Ultimately, you're right--some kind of regulatory line needs to be drawn. But who should draw it? I don't know--maybe federal and state regulatory agencies, with actual knowledge and expertise? My main point is that CA voters (like me) are NOT knowledgeable on this issue, and simply being a vegan or
"speaking to a chicken farmer" isn't sufficient.
So you don't care about small farmers but you care about big agribusiness? Nice. And frankly, I don't believe that Prop 2 will increase prices -- it's a scare tactic, that's it. (Nike uses sweat shop labor and yet their shoes are more expensive than the brands that don't. Price does simply does not correlate with lower standards.)
Also, there is no rationale for being allowed to torture animals raised for food but not pets. Many animals raised for food are smarter and more advanced than pets, and some animals raised for food are the same species as pets (e.g. pigs and in Korea, dogs). What difference does it make the way an animal dies?
As fun at this animal rights discussion is ... can I ask opinions on redistricting? Yay or Nay?
1:46--
1. I don't care about either small farmers or big agribusiness. I just care about cheap eggs.
2. The correct analogy is not forcing Nike to increase production costs, but preventing competitors from decreasing their costs. Like chicken-friendly eggs, Nike purchasers aren't basing their decision on prices.
3. As my italics indicates, the difference is in intent--purpose versus knowledge. Have you taken Crim Law yet?
4. I don't care about the intelligence of animals. I follow the traditional perspective: the difference between humans and other animals is of kind, not of degree. In other words: I think newborn humans should be treated better than cows, even though the latter is more sentient.
1:56--Go ahead!
Not to detract from the Prop 2 bickering, but in addition to what Carbolic said, I found the Berkeley Daily Planet to be a useful guide in deciding who not to vote for.
1:46:
Nike=eggs from chickens not kept in cages (if you have the money and want to pay the premium, go ahead)
shoes from Payless=eggs from caged chickens, whose prices may be affected by increased regulation
1:46 you did not understand my point at all. My point is that price does not directly correlate with regulation or non-regulation at such a modest level. And yes I took crim law. And yes I think cramming animals in tiny cages constitutes intent to torture. I also took animal law -- you can be liable for torturing an animal even if it was for economic reasons. I will also remind you that we used to experiment on disabled people and have slavery based on alleged inferiority.
Uhh, last time I checked french fries were vegan. And if you hate Berkeley looneys, no one is making you stay here.
And if you hate Berkeley looneys, no one is making you stay here.
nothing makes my blood boil more than that argument (well almost nothing). it's akin to saying, well if you don't like the policies of this country(read Bush), then leave. since when did we stop allowing people to complain about this country? Nothing's perfect, and things don't change unless we voice our concerns. I'm not saying that i agree or disagree with what Carbolic or Armen have to say, but regardless they have a right to complain about the "Berkeley looneys" as much as you have a right to bitch about Bush or [insert political figure/powerhouse here]. This "put up or shut up" mentality is ridiculous at best.
Um, hating the people who live in Berkeley (which is what I believe hating "berkeley loonies" implies) is nothing like hating a politician who runs a city. I am sick of people who constantly complain about Berkeley's liberal residents and yet remain in the city. This has nothing to do with dissent, which I fully support. Absolutely concerns should be voiced, but if you really hate a place and its residents so much, then why stay? It's one thing to say you hate Bush; it's another thing to say you hate Americans.
Hayashi is one of the most incompetent party hacks in the democratic party. He's been running and losing for years. Looks like he finally found some voters to eat his BS.
Post a Comment
<< Home