Letters for April 11, 2013

Meat is murder

Re “Where’s the beef?” by Alastair Bland (SN&R Frontlines, April 4):

The California Cattlemen's Association must think we all live in the Deep South of Mississippi to expect us to believe Assembly Bill 343 involves protecting animal welfare. It is just another attempt to hide the wrongdoing of animal agriculture behind the bloody walls of the slaughterhouses. If this bill passes through the California Legislature intact, we will know the historic supermajorities enjoyed by the Democratic Party in both houses will be meaningless when it comes to farm-animal welfare. Each and every carnivorous man, woman and child who does not kill and process the animals and their byproducts they consume enables the horrific abuse that the vast majority of farm animals endure at the hands of the animal-agriculture industry in this state.

Don Knutson


Fire the bureaucrats, reform will follow

Re “The rehab racket” by Raheem F. Hosseini (SN&R Feature Story, April 4):

The writer of this article must never have been in a bureaucracy. Whether it is the prison system or church, the bureaucracy acts to protect first the bureaucrat—his boss—and to make sure the peons down below do not embarrass him and the boss. One of the requirements of the system is the ability to write long, meaningless memos to the boss or outsiders saying, “The second coming is here, [but] only if you give me more money.” Nowhere in that maze is anything like results important. If you want actual reform, you have to fire the bureaucrats and start over.

Michael Fellion


Ag-gag and terrorist watchdogs

Re “Where’s the beef?” by Alastair Bland (SN&R Frontlines, April 4):

Would you pass a law that would allow a terrorist to supervise your food source? I think that you would fight hard and long to protect the industry that provides for you and your family. Why wouldn’t a responsible farmer or rancher protect you as well as his product? Remember, food may be available at the 7-Eleven, but it comes from traditional agricultural practice that has been serving we Americans well for over 200 years. Food processors do not make a profit from abused animals or crops. An abused animal would provide lower production, so what is the motivation for the industry to abuse? None.

However, with that said, what is the motivation for the animal-rights zealots? First, the zealot has a job that will increase cost by implementing not-needed rules; they will also get a feeling of importance and the bully reward of abusing the business owners. To glorify and permit the zealot is to glorify the terrorist. Think, think, think, then support the passage of a law that will protect your rancher. A free man does not have to ask permission.

Jim Demoruelle

Ville Platte, La.

Smart growth is still harmful

Re “The battle for smart growth” by Robert Gammon and Nick Miller (SN&R Feature Story, March 28):

Is smart growth really sustainable? Will it cause net carbon removal from the atmosphere? I don’t think so. I’m having trouble believing that the historical opponents of [California Environmental Quality Act], like developers and industry, aren’t the real drivers for weakening CEQA. And the fact that CEQA tug-of-wars tie up the process for years at a time is just an indication of fundamental political disagreement. The solution ought to be real discussion and win-win solutions, not a continuation of polarization with both sides talking in an echo chamber.

Muriel Strand