"Gimme Room!"

Consider “Proposition 12”, offered as a “Direct Vote” California initiative in the recent national election:

“Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Specified Farm Animals.”

A GOAT:  “Are we one of them?”

A GOAT WHO CAN READ:  “No.”

A GOAT:  “No fair!”

And we’re off to the races.

Let me forthwith acknowledge that this post was written before “Election Day”, so I do not have the official “Final Tally” concerning “Prop. 12”, though I have little doubt as to its outcome.  I mean, what are you going to say?  “The farm animals have enough room”?  You just haveto vote “Yes.”  For whatever reason.

SELF-INTERESTED CONSUMER:  “I heard they taste better when they can turn around.”

Including that (disgusting) one.

The thing is, even if you are trying to improve the conditions of (listed in the initiative) “Breeding pigs, veal calves and egg-laying hens”…

“But not goats.”

But not goats…

“Or non-laying hens.”

Them too…

“Or post-menopausalpigs.”

… and otherexcluded farm animals, the supporters of “Prop. 12” would still undoubtedly argue,

“It’s a step.”

And so it is.

Of course, there are critics of “Prop. 12” who are notanthropomorphic farm animals excluded from the “Excessive Confinement” list who passionately opposethis measure.  Including farmers who bear the financial brunt of revamping these “confinements”, for whom their agri-experience in this area tells them,  

“The ‘egg-layers’ are just fine!”  (With a frustrated hint of exasperation.)

The most aggressive opponents of “Proposition 12” are the “Animal Rights” advocates, who, despite the initiative’s acknowledgment of the problem and its proposed effort to improve things, adamantly insist,

“It does not go far enough.” 

“Animals should have bus passes and be able to travel wherever they want to”, is the “overstated-for-comedic-effect” expression of their argument.  

Although the “rational alternative” suggests equally mirth-inducing possibilities.

 “A foot-and-a-half ‘confinement.’  That’s a fifty percent increase for each ‘egg-layer’.”

“The cruel ‘confinements’ must be bigger!”

“How much bigger?”

“Eleven feet per chicken.”

“Two-and-a-quarter.”

“Nine.”

“Three feet, but that’s my limit.”

“We say, ‘Seven-and-a-half’, or no deal.”

Let’s stop there, shall we?... because none of that happened.  How could it?

Realistically, there is no mutually acceptable “Confinement Size.”

COLONIAL NEGOTIATORS:  “Why not?  We worked out the ‘Three-Fifths-Of-A-Person’ Rule.” 

Well done.  Here’s the thing in this “Animal Rights ‘Proxy War’” that, at least in this point in history, can only go one way.  Are you ready?  Because this is the emmis. (The undeniable truth.)  Okay, here goes.

No matter how well we accommodate the animals,

We are still going to eat them.

Everything else, by comparison, is just “small potatoes.”

WARDEN:  “From now on, there will be the Internet on ‘Death Row’.”

“DEATH ROW” INMATES:  “Hooray!”

Passing laws, limiting suffering?  Sure. The animals’ lives are improved, and it feels good doing the right thing.  But when you come down to it, who winds up with a better feeling about this? The animals, who have an inevitable date with the dinner table – 

Or us?