Making the Double A-List in California

This just in from the land of fruits and nuts, specifically, from Nancy's and Diane's and Barbara's constituents:

A STATEWIDE (for starters) ANIMAL ABUSERS REGISTRY.

You know, like the National Sex Offender Registry, only different.

Some context: Californians recently legislated certain "rights" to food such as pre-butchered pork, chicken and beef. The NYT reports:

"Last fall, California became the first state to outlaw so-called tail-docking of dairy cows, where the tail is partly amputated to ease milking. In 2008, voters in the state passed Proposition 2, which gave hens, calves and pigs more room in their crates or cages. That law has upset many in the California egg industry and prompted some agriculturally-minded residents to even talk about seceding from the state."

I've got nothing against people treating animals humanely. I've got nothing against holding people accountable for torturing animals that don't wear beards and turbans and shout 'Allah Akbhar' as a prefix to killing other humans. But I've got EVERYTHING against extending "rights" to animals. Especially when the very people who plea the loudest for elevating them to human (and beyond) status are the same ones who so willingly deny unborn humans any such rights or who seem so willing to elect governments that would, given the opportunity, dismantle the Bill of Rights.

Make no mistake, those of you who are thinking, "Well, why shouldn't we publicly shame people like Michael Vick and those who viciously abuse those poor defenseless animals", this is just the next step along a very slippery slope that the likes of PETA, ALF and others have been greasing for a long time. And there's an enormous difference in the commerically-driven shaming of someone like Vick and the government using citizens' resources to lead the shaming. Any of you out there own a...excuse me...have an animal friend/partner/companion/whatever the BS PC term du jour is for "pet", that has a docked tail? Pinched ears? Clipped wings? De-clawed paws? Kept in a cage? Kennel? Tied to a post? Neutered? Spayed? Otherwise denied being "free range"?

You're next.

Any of you ready to see your food bills rise dramatically as farmers and processors contend with more costs and less production? If you answer yes, then you can pay more right now to get what you want. In fact, that is pretty much my point here. If you want to change the way food is produced in this country, you can do that by voting with your purse/wallet. It's precisely why there is an industry that is growing rapidly to fulfill this increased demand. But to have the government step in and impede citizens in their pursuit of happiness or by taking or limiting their personal property by superceding those rights with animal "rights" is dangerous.

And it isn't a very long putt to see where all this heads with hunting.

I'm reminded of something I think maybe George Carlin once said about animal rights, "You know, if you asked a bear how he feels about animal rights, you know what he'd say? NOTHING, HE'S A FREAKING BEAR!"

California can't really be blamed. It's what happens when a whole nation starts leaning too far left. All the nuts and fruits roll to that end. They can stay there for all I care. But so can their "laws."