View Full Version : California Prop 2 - Passed.
RandFan
7th November 2008, 06:57 PM
Prop 2 (http://www.californiapropositions.org/prop2.html)
Requires that an enclosure or tether confining specified farm animals allow the animals for the majority of every day to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up, and turn around. Specified animals include calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs.
I voted for it. It seemed reasonable.
ConspiRaider
7th November 2008, 07:11 PM
Yeah me too, Rand. On the 12 California State measures, I was a dismal 6 and 6.
But at least I voted for the winner of the Chief Exec spot.
Travis
8th November 2008, 01:37 AM
I was hoping props 1 and 2 would pass and that props 4 and 8 would not. As it turns out 1 and 2 did pass and 4, at least, failed.
Also a shameless admission of having voted for Obama!
The Nimble Pianist
8th November 2008, 01:54 AM
The animals we consume have spinal chords, neurons and ganglia just like humans. The least we can do is provide them with a decent life prior to slaughter.
brodski
8th November 2008, 02:06 AM
The animals we consume have spinal chords, neurons and ganglia just like humans. The least we can do is provide them with a decent life prior to slaughter.
but should we let them get married?
The Nimble Pianist
8th November 2008, 02:28 AM
but should we let them get married?
Unless you speak Chicken, how would you be able to know if either said "I do"?
volatile
8th November 2008, 06:17 AM
but should we let them get married?
Only if they're a cock and a hen.
ConspiRaider
8th November 2008, 09:53 AM
Unless you speak Chicken, how would you be able to know if either said "I do"?
"Chuck, do you take this brood to be your lawfully wedded woof?"
"I cocka-doodle-do."
"And you, Daisy, do you take this mane to be your lawfully wedded horsebreed?"
"I moo."
"Then by the power vested in me, I now pronounce you Mane and Woof! Chuck, you may now groom the brood."
Moochie
8th November 2008, 11:07 AM
I'm incredulous that anyone would put the right of people to marry to the vote.
M.
RandFan
8th November 2008, 11:47 AM
I'm incredulous that anyone would put the right of people to marry to the vote.
M.I agree, 100%. What does that have to do with Prop 2?
The Nimble Pianist
8th November 2008, 12:11 PM
I'm incredulous that anyone would put the right of people to marry to the vote.
M.
Agreed, however there are other threads dealing with proposition 8
Prop 8 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=127610&page=2)
Dragoonster
8th November 2008, 12:31 PM
I was hoping props 1 and 2 would pass and that props 4 and 8 would not. As it turns out 1 and 2 did pass and 4, at least, failed.
Also a shameless admission of having voted for Obama!
Same here except I went No on 1, considering the budget is bloated, we're in a recession, and every year propositions want to add billions to it. I go against most spending measures as long as the budget is generally out of control and the measures are luxuries.
4 was parental notification right? That ad with the bubble going through the air then bursting was really on point.
How did people vote on Children's hospitals, and house-buying aid for veterans? I voted No on each--hospitals because children can go to normal hospitals; and existing hospitals are often underfunded anyway. Vets--because IMO if they deserve benefits above normal people, these should be written into their service contracts at the time of their serving, not handed out afterwards. Doesn't quite seem fair.
Oh, my prop 2 opinion: I'm all for animal rights whenever they can get them, so it was a no-brainer. It didn't seem like it would affect the industry much either, and if it does they can always take their slaughterhouses to a different state.
Moochie
8th November 2008, 02:30 PM
I agree, 100%. What does that have to do with Prop 2?
Thanks, I've removed myself to yon thread.
M.
Fnord
8th November 2008, 03:17 PM
... I'm all for animal rights whenever they can get them, so it was a no-brainer. It didn't seem like it would affect the industry much either, and if it does they can always take their slaughterhouses to a different state.
Or to Mexico.
RandFan
8th November 2008, 06:31 PM
Thanks, I've removed myself to yon thread.
M.Been there done that. :)
Travis
9th November 2008, 03:53 PM
Same here except I went No on 1, considering the budget is bloated, we're in a recession, and every year propositions want to add billions to it. I go against most spending measures as long as the budget is generally out of control and the measures are luxuries.
Yeah but California is never going to just have billions of dollars sitting around (thanks prop 13) and this kind of project can be done in lieu of airport & freeway expansions that might be much more expensive.
Even though it won't directly benefit me the idea of a 250 mph train from San Fran to LA does seem a good idea.
Dragoonster
9th November 2008, 04:22 PM
Yeah but California is never going to just have billions of dollars sitting around (thanks prop 13) and this kind of project can be done in lieu of airport & freeway expansions that might be much more expensive.
Even though it won't directly benefit me the idea of a 250 mph train from San Fran to LA does seem a good idea.
Good points.
I'd thought CalTrain already had a decent north-south route. Plus in my region (Monterey) there was a Prop Z that would improve local public transportation which I did vote for. Part of my reason was selfish.
The Nimble Pianist
10th November 2008, 12:18 PM
Good points.
I'd thought CalTrain already had a decent north-south route. Plus in my region (Monterey) there was a Prop Z that would improve local public transportation which I did vote for. Part of my reason was selfish.
I think it's the velocity that's in question here. The "high speed rail" (I'm assuming) will be similar to the bullet trains we see in Japan and Siberia.
Beerina
11th November 2008, 10:32 AM
It's odd. California keeps wanting to add billions to spending each year, even as they are begging the US government to help make up a shortfall.
If, as large as you are, you see the rest of the US population slap you in the face over this, that's why.
Sherman Bay
11th November 2008, 10:44 AM
Wonder if the price of chicken parts at the supermarket will go up if the cages have to be larger? Guess that's the price we must pay to have our meat enjoy its existence a bit more before we consume it with relish. Or BBQ sauce.
Disco
11th November 2008, 11:46 AM
I considered voting "yes" on 2; it was the only prop I would've supported this time around. I went with my initial instincts, though. I voted "no" on all of them; the system California has for initiating propositions for public vote has to change. It's way to easy to get a prop on the ballot around here, IMHO.
And I figured prop 2 would pass without my vote anyway.
mumblethrax
11th November 2008, 03:03 PM
Wonder if the price of chicken parts at the supermarket will go up if the cages have to be larger?
Only if you consider eggs to be chicken parts. Birds raised for their meat aren't typically caged at all.
fuelair
11th November 2008, 05:33 PM
I voted for it. It seemed reasonable.Technically it may have been - but I am certain it was PETA sponsored.
ConspiRaider
11th November 2008, 08:05 PM
It's odd. California keeps wanting to add billions to spending each year, even as they are begging the US government to help make up a shortfall.
If, as large as you are, you see the rest of the US population slap you in the face over this, that's why.
Hmm. And all this time I thought it was cuz Richard Nixon was borned here.
PhantomWolf
12th November 2008, 12:10 AM
How did people vote on Children's hospitals...? I voted No on each--hospitals because children can go to normal hospitals; and existing hospitals are often underfunded anyway.
I certainly don't want to derail the thread here, but this one is interesting. In New Zealand we have Starship Children's Hospital (http://www.starship.org.nz/index.php/ps_pagename/homepage) and according to all of the statistics it works. What adults tend to forget is that normal hospitals aren't build for kids even though they often end up spending a lot of time in them. Starship was build from the ground up with Children and families in mind and it is an attractive and friendly environment for children rather then the typical sterile and often frightening environment that most hospitals are. Starship was designed to help kids feel they are in a fun and friendly place, where they could relax and recover during what is often a traumatising time in their lives. Thanks to McDonalds, the hospital also has a Ronald MacDonald House for families of the kids to stay and live while their kids are in the hospital. It was probably also the only hospital on the planet with a McDonalds branch in it, though this closed down a few years back after a redesign reduced the clientele there and it become unprofitable.
Starship has proven that the concept of a children's hospital works, and their results show that when surrounded in a kid friendly environment and with children dedicated staff and equipment, that children heal faster and are less stressed and traumatised as a result of their hospital stay. The ability for family to be close at hand is also immeasurable.
I know it's too late for the ballot, but if it failed, and comes back up, perhaps next time it might be worth looking at with different eyes because while traditional Hospitals can treat children, they aren't designed to treat children, and that's a whole different thing.
Sherman Bay
16th November 2008, 11:12 AM
Only if you consider eggs to be chicken parts. Birds raised for their meat aren't typically caged at all.An egg is part of a chicken until it is laid, right? And if birds aren't caged, what keeps them from flying or walking away?
quixotecoyote
16th November 2008, 11:23 AM
Starship has proven that the concept of a children's hospital works, and their results show that when surrounded in a kid friendly environment and with children dedicated staff and equipment, that children heal faster and are less stressed and traumatised as a result of their hospital stay. The ability for family to be close at hand is also immeasurable.
I wonder what part of that is unique to children. My grandfather died in a hospital a few years ago and while he managed to hold on until all his family made a pilgrimage to say goodbye, I was a little sad that he had to spend his last days in such a cold-feeling uncomfortable place.
RandFan
16th November 2008, 12:45 PM
Technically it may have been - but I am certain it was PETA sponsored.Humane Society (http://www.yesonprop2.com/). Infinitely better IMO.
Travis
16th November 2008, 08:56 PM
Humane Society (http://www.yesonprop2.com/). Infinitely better IMO.
I've gotten many nice pets from them including several dogs rescued from dogfight rings that turned out super nice.
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.