DAVID ROSMAN: Propositions A and B are good ideas, bad proposals

Wednesday, October 27, 2010 | 6:00 a.m. CDT

"What’s wrong with this picture,” is one of my newest catch phrases, along with, “What were they thinking?” There are a few others, mostly taken from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” but “42” would not be applicable here.

With less than five days until elections, I have been examining the proposed propositions closely and I am quite concerned. I have already written about Columbia’s Proposition 2 and the proposed Missouri constitutional amendments. Now it is on to Propositions A and B.

So, what is wrong with these pictures, and what were the authors thinking?

Proposition A sounds great until you use your crystal ball to look to the past and future. This is Missouri’s anti-earnings tax proposal, targeted primarily at St. Louis and Kansas City. I see major problems with this proposal and its implications.

First, the proposal wants the cities to “hold a referendum on keeping the levy in 2011 and every five years thereafter.” St. Louis and Kansas City voters already have the right to hold a referendum on their respective earning taxes. Voters just need to petition the election commission. In 60 years, they have not.

Second, Prop A states that if the voters reject the earnings tax, the cities will, “no longer be authorized to impose or levy such earnings tax.” This would place an untenable limitation on the cities’ ability to raise money, initiate future revenue bond and possibly limit city services, including police and fire protection.

Prop A would also limit other Missouri cities from incorporating an earnings tax. Adding taxes, however, is already discussed in the Hancock Amendment. Hancock says, “local government entity may not levy any ‘tax, license or fee’ that was not already in existence at the time the Hancock Amendment was adopted… unless approved by the voters,” per the Missouri Municipal League.

Third, Prop A appears to usurp citizen control over local taxes and give them to the state. Why take away the people’s right to determine their own tax levies?

The state already has control. Today, to incorporate a local earnings tax, a city already has to ask Missouri legislators for permission.

Finally, the proponents for Prop A have raised over $7 million. If you then believe Proposition A has wide spread support, think again. Missouri philanthropist Rex Sinquefield, the originator of this proposal, is also its funding source. According to, as of July, Sinquefield has contributed just over $7 million. What’s wrong with this picture?

My recommendation – Vote “No” on Prop A. It only duplicates laws and takes local taxation control away from the cities.

Proposition B is the “Puppy Mill Initiative.” This is just a badly written law. This does not mean I hate dogs. In fact, the dogs and cats I have owned over the years have all been rescue animals.

Foremost, Prop B will cost the taxpayers “$654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412),” according to the secretary of state's website. Government budgets are already hurting, and there appears to be no provision to cover the one-half million dollar annual expenditures.

Second, the proposal threatens only minor penalties for violation. “The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor.”

Third, the proposed law will not do what needs to be done: enforcement of current animal breeding laws that closes the illegal puppy mills and increase the number of state inspectors to enforce this proposed law. However, this would mean new taxes which a) the proposal does not raise, and b) cannot happen unless in compliance with Hancock. Your remember Hancock, don’t you?

What were the authors thinking?

Again, my recommendation is to vote “No.”

You do not have to agree with me, and I am sure some will not. I do ask that you do not rely on the commercials and brochures alone. As with the other ballot issues, my responsibility to you is to make sure there is a factual and open conversation. Ask yourself, “Is there something wrong with these pictures?” before you vote next Tuesday.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Ellis Smith October 27, 2010 | 6:41 a.m.

Still considering Proposition A, but will vote NO on Proposition B.

BTW, "42" when displayed on a solar-powered racing vehicle worldwide denotes Missouri University of Science & Technology. A Coincidence? Not on your life! Engineers and engineering students may not be literary whizzes, but we read science fiction.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 27, 2010 | 8:15 a.m.

I will be voting YES on Prop B & NO on Prop A.
Prop A:
With residential flight from our major cities, I'm very concerned that if Prop A passes, the cities will lose the needed funds to maintain themselves. We all love going to Kansas City & St Louis for events, and without city earnings taxes, I'm afraid of what services & budgets will be cut. The remaining residents of the cities will then have over the top property taxes.... which will in turn cause more flight from the cities. When I was a youngster, I used to pay City earnings taxes when I lived in the county but worked in the city. I considered it my duty to help pay for roads, police, fireman, etc. I'll be voting NO on Prop A.
Prop B:
As a Missourian, I'm sick of living in the "Puppy Mill Capital of the US". Missouri claims this title because our laws are the WEAKEST in the nation! Missouri has 3 times more licensed commercial dog breeders than any other state, we attract the cess pool of the dog breeding industry.
Proposition B will add to & clarify current legislation regarding dog breeding & make the current laws clearer & easier to enforce.
Why would every Humane organization in Missouri endorse & support Prop B? Because they are the ones who have to deal with the aftermath of sick, matted dogs that have lived their lives in filth. The Commercial Dog breeding industry has 1 year to comply & come up to standards with Prop B. Shelters & rescues are already preparing to accomodate the influx of dogs they will receive when Prop B passes. Looking to the future, the passage of Prop B will mean less rescues, less cruelty, less euthanazia from overbred & abandoned breeding dogs from puppy mills.
I honestly believe that anyone who understands the horrific impact PUPPY MILLS have in the state of Missouri can only come to one conclusion & vote yes on Prop B. Missouri is the Show Me State! This November, Missourians need to show some compassion! Please join me in VOTING YES! on Prop B!
Vote YES! Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 27, 2010 | 8:31 a.m.

Marina..The fringe anti-humaniacs will have fun with this.

'A veterinarian's view of Prop B
I read the two pro and con views on Prop B printed in your Other View Section . The only similarity in their views was that both articles sounded like political ads slamming the other side. Both sides have legitimate facts to back up their point of view. I think it would have served the voting public better if they had stuck to the positives and not veered to the extreme.
As a practicing small animal veterinarian I have been very interested in both sides of this bill. The MVMA and the Greater St. Louis Veterinary Medical Association are both opposed to Prop B. Most of the veterinarians I know are in favor of it. As with any controversial issue, there are many facts and emotions that can be used to sway public opinion. It is the publics job to sort out their own truth.
I agree that the name of the bill is inflammatory and unfair. I also agree that there may be many licensed breeders that are doing a good job. There are also provisions in the bill that need revisions. Even my dog does not have "unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area". However, that is about all I can agree with that is negative about Prop B.
We can quibble about how much food, water, and shelter is adequate under the current laws. We can complain that there are not enough resources to enforce existing laws much less the new bill, but there are a few aspects of Prop B that really hit home to me and it should for everyone that has a pet and treats it as part of their family.
The fact is that the amount of space that a breeder can legally keep dogs confined in is atrocious. Under current law a two foot long dog can be legally kept in a 6.25 sq. ft. cage. That's not 6ft x 6ft, that is 2.5ft long by 2.5 ft wide. Draw that on your kitchen floor and see how much space it is. That space would be torture if it was used in proportion to human confinement. It is not any better for larger dogs. No wonder many of these dogs have socialization problems. I do not care if this is legal under the Missouri Dept. of Agriculture guidelines. We are not talking about chickens, pigs, or livestock. We are talking about animals that we take in to our homes, care and love for their entire life, and even treat, in some cases, as well as our children. It is also legal to stack the these cages on top of each other. The veterinary care requirement in the current law is so vague I can not even tell if a veterinarian has to do anything other than drive on the breeder's property once a year (or less) and say "hi " to the owner. There is just no written standard of care.....

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 27, 2010 | 8:32 a.m.


The bottom line is that Prop B is not a perfect bill,.
We need more enforcement of the laws we have but we also need a better law.
If passed, Prop B can have some of its provisions re-examined within a year by our legislature. If passed this next month, Prop B will have more teeth than the current law in place and will later become more easily enforced. The future of a better life for puppies born in Missouri is now.
Carter B. Smith DVM

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 27, 2010 | 8:46 a.m.

Terry, Thank you for sharing that letter. What a wonderfully written lettter to encourage votting for Prop B!
(Sorry, I've been away from the board for a few days. I accidently injured my left hand & typing with the bandages is more difficult than I thought it would be!)
On another note... Thank you Terry, Shelly & Ray...for taking the time to post a tribute to the fallen Columbia soldier. When a soldier in our community dies for our country, the least we can do is thank the family & express our sincere sympathy for them.
Vote YES! Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 27, 2010 | 9:41 a.m.

David, Prop B does not require any additional funding. In fact, one fiscal review done by the City of St. Louis indicated that it will actually save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars from the general fund by reducing the burden on the City to close down substandard facilities. Inspectors will have clear standards, and the money raised from licensing fees and fines from violators will help pay the costs of enforcing the law. The Missouri Department of Agriculture is already charged with inspecting these facilities. Prop B simply asks them to look for different standards of care when they do.
For those who want to read the entire act you can do so here: and also get answers to common questions as well. Stop puppy mills in Missouri, and vote YES on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 9:50 a.m.

On the one hand you say that what's really needed is additional enforcement, on the other you say the problem with Proposition B is it will require funds for enforcement.

Can you see the disconnect?

The Department of Agriculture has been trying to get additional funds for enforcement. The funding the department mentions for Proposition B is the funding the department has needed all along in order to enforce existing laws.

So, what you're saying is that you don't want to enforce either the existing laws, or the Proposition B amendment.

As for your comment that this bill doesn't contain anything about how to pay for enforcement, that's because it's an amendment, not new legislation.

There is legislation already in place to enforce ACFA, which Proposition B amends. The enforcement costs are supposed to be covered by kennel fees. The only problem is that the fees were set in 1993, and every time a bill has been introduced to increase the fees to a more reasonable level, the agricultural interests do what they can to shoot it down.

Regarding your perception that the criminal charges aren't enough Proposition B's enforcement provision is actually quite strict, and more sufficient to meet the needs. What are the needs? To ensure all breeders pay attention to the rules, instead of just blowing them off, as many have done. And to make it easier for state personnel to close down bad kennels.

In the end, that's really what all of us want: ensure existing kennels treat their dogs humanely, and close down bad kennels.

It's about the dogs, nothing more, nothing less.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 10:00 a.m.

From the BBB report on the state of puppy mills in Missouri:

"Missouri’s program of regulating dog breeders is financed in part by the Animal Welfare Fund into which fees paid by breeders and others in the industry are deposited. The money is to be used only for enforcement of the ACFA. The state spends about $785,000 annually on inspections. Nine respondents to a survey, including Missouri, said that lack of funding hinders efforts to properly regulate and inspect kennels. The annual fees for licensing in 24 states range
from $48 to $179. Missouri’s fees range from $100 to $500 depending on the breeder’s report on the number of dogs sold the past year. In 2004, McCaskill criticized the method of verifying the per capita fee in which the Department multiplied the number of females by eight puppies sold (two litters of four each). If the number reported by the kennel was close to this estimate, it was accepted. McCaskill recommended a more exact procedure to ensure breeders were paying the proper amount. A 2008 audit of the Department of Agriculture by Montee noted that fees had not been adjusted since the beginning of the program in 1993 and recommended that the Department consider increasing them through regulation or legislation."

More on the BBB puppy mill report at

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan October 27, 2010 | 10:19 a.m.

The fact is that Prop B makes enforcement more likely. Each of these new criminal provisions better lend themselves to easy identification and prosecution by local law enforcement, because the officer can easily count the number of breeding dogs, etc., and could testify in court that the property had more than 50 breeding dogs without the need for experts. Likewise, it is readily apparent to local law enforcement if someone is failing to provide outdoor access for dogs. Under existing law, you need a tape measure, a calculator, and animal handlers to determine if the space requirements are being violated.

(Report Comment)
David Rosman October 27, 2010 | 1:20 p.m.

Thank you all for your comments. As a point of interest, the additional cost of Prop B was determined by the the state and will be on the ballot. The $600,000 plus cost does not include the extra inspectors needed to enforce the new policy. That is a separate issue and one that must be addressed.

With great appreciation to my readers - David Rosman

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 1:42 p.m.

David Rosman

Actually, that is primarily the extra cost. The fiscal note can be found at (PDF), and states for the Dept of Ag:


The Department of Agriculture indicated that this initiative petition will add additional responsibilities to the department's Animal Care Program. There is core funding for current responsibilities of the Animal Care Program but the current level of funding is inadequate to meet the current level of responsibilities. The additional responsibilities added by the initiative petition cannot be accomplished with existing funding.

The Department is concerned about the legal ramifications and subsequent litigation costs that may arise given constitutional concerns over the ballot language as written.

The Animal Care Program does not have the financial resources it needs to meet the current program requirements. The additional requirements of this initiative petition would significantly increase program responsibilities and could not be accomplished without a commensurate significant increase in program funding.

The program would need 7.00 additional animal health officers, 1.00 Office Support Assistant, and related E&E to meet the additional inspection requirements regarding
breeding frequencies, the reduced number of dogs allowed per kennel, veterinary care issues, and the other responsibilities specified in the petition. The estimated fiscal impact on state general revenue for program costs (based on first full fiscal year of implementation):

On-going expenses
Salaries $291,087
Fringe benefits $152,646
Exp/Equip $77,623
Subtotal $521,356

One-time expenses
Exp/Equip $133,412
Total $654,768


to be cont.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 1:44 p.m.


For one, the department's legal concerns really aren't their concerns -- any costs associated with this bill from a legal perspective are handled by the state attorney general's office, and they didn't indicate any additional needs for funds. Some counties mentioned that they may need extra funds for caring for animals for closed breeders, but most of this effort is taken care of by shelters anyway.

The Department of Agriculture makes the point immediate: they don't have the money to do the job now. There is nothing in the new laws that require any additional work, other than that the Department do the job it is supposed to be doing now.

Increased responsibilities? They have to count the dogs. They already have to check the cage size. They have to eyeball the kennels to make sure they have outdoor access. They check the vet plans and records anyway, so they have to double check to make sure all the dogs were seen.

Seems to me if the department had the appropriate number of inspectors now, none of this activity would add to their burden.

If anything, the new rules could make it easier. For one, there's fewer dogs to inspect. Two, the worst breeders will probably shut down, so fewer repeat offenders who take more inspector time. Three, this issue has definitely generated enough attention so that hopefully this state will do the right thing and ensure the department is adequately funded to do its job.

Folks can't say on the one hand, "We don't need Proposition B, all we need is more inspectors", but then turn around and say, "This bill is bad because it would require more inspectors". This isn't logical.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 27, 2010 | 3:13 p.m.

PLEASE PLEASE crosspost this report...


Time for these folks to leave the building.

Be warned..the pics are beyond distressing.

But this will sway the 'undecided'.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 27, 2010 | 3:52 p.m.

I've seen dead dogs before, haven't you?

All of this is already against the law. If MDA is not enforcing the rules then work on that. Prop B adds nothing to the rules covering the disposal of dead animals.

Prop B, by increasing costs for breeders that choose to try to meet the standards, may even increase the dumping of dead animals. Missouri's a big place - a lot of them won't be found.

Just more emotional smear tactics. These actions are not typical of licensed breeders, and are already covered by existing law.


(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock October 27, 2010 | 6:59 p.m.

WOW David and I agree on something. lol.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 7:18 p.m.

Mark, I've been going through inspections from the USDA for all currently licensed breeders in Missouri. I recognize some of the items from the report. The breeders are active, licensed commercial breeders.

I hope to have a spreadsheet, CSV file dump of my notes in the next day or two. I'll insert a link here so you all can see for yourselves.

A sampling of my notes:

"not avail for inspection, repeating, not enough space (large dogs with 3-4 inches clearance), cleanliness, dirt, drainage, maintenance, rodents, repeating, waste, wire floors with big gaps, dogs w matted hair"

"cleanliness, animals wastes, maintenance, dirty feeders, dead dog in kennel, chihuahua, others injured and no vet, not enough space, all repeating, no vet care, ungroomed dogs, no one avail for inspection"

"no vet, yorkie with embedded collar, repeating, cleanliness, maintenance, repeating, weather exposure, garbage, missed inspections"

That yorkie had a red collar that was too tight and ended up embedded in that poor dog's neck. The inspector noted it in 2008, and then noted the same dog with the same embedded collar again in 2009.

This is an active, still licensed kennel.

The "good" breeders blame individuals like me, Terry, and Marina, or organizations like the HSUS and the ASPCA, and a host of others for Proposition B. What they should be doing is look at this data and realize that we aren't the blame--their peers are.

If commercial dog breeders want to know who is responsible for Proposition B, tell them to look in a mirror.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 27, 2010 | 10:23 p.m.

I'm personally sick of living in the meth kingdom.
Our children are at risk and stuck in a broken system. HSUS says that our moral compass is off? Will they say and do anything to win? You bet!!!! Barbara Schmitz proved it!

(Report Comment)
mark anderson October 27, 2010 | 11:49 p.m.

Our colleague Dr. Stoltz wrote the smartest article about why this proposition doesn't work. Maybe they should have consulted our profession. Who is HSUS? NON-PROFIT

read and learn the true facts

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 28, 2010 | 12:09 a.m.

GUEST COLUMN: It's not about puppies-

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 28, 2010 | 4:40 a.m.

All your pictures show is that there is not enough enforcement. We have 23 pages of current regulations that require stricter compliance than one page of "common sense " regulation. Apparently from previous pictures posted and comments in posts, it proves some are not blessed with common sense.

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen October 28, 2010 | 9:33 a.m.

"Third, Prop A appears to usurp citizen control over local taxes and give them to the state. "
Yep...Prop A is Big Government disguised as being anti-government.

(Report Comment)
maria hargrove October 28, 2010 | 9:47 a.m.

HSUS has become an organization not about animals but about money and power. Wayne Pacelle stated in a debate that they are Christian and moral. Barbara Schmitz/MO. HSUS attempted to discredit a veterinarian with a clever story that was exposed on air as a lie. They have ripped our kennel clients to shreds in their propaganda. This just is not right. People need to wake up.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 28, 2010 | 11:58 a.m.

And maria hargrove, when a vote comes up on HSUS in this state, we'll have a discussion on the HSUS. In the meantime, this is about Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 28, 2010 | 2:48 p.m.

Tell that to Michelle:
("Michelle Cascio October 27, 2010 | 1:17 p.m.
I do work for The Humane Society of the United States, as the casework coordinator for the Puppy Mill Task Force. The task force investigates complaints of alleged cruelty in large commercial breeding facilities also known as puppy mills. I log the complaints, I work the cases, I contact local law enforcement and I deploy for the rescues. I provide care in the emergency animal shelter and I find placement for the SURVIVORS with local animal shelters and rescue groups. I doubt there are very many people with more direct experience with the inherent cruelty in puppy mills than me.")

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 28, 2010 | 2:57 p.m.

("Mark A Landers October 28, 2010 | 1:28 p.m.
There is a tiny minority of less 1500 that is being attacked. They have little in economic resources. By nature, they are a group of introverts that have chosen to relate to animals rather than people. They don't have the political wherewithal nor the money to combat such an attack.

A rich powerful group has come into our state and made name calling, sterotyping, purposful deception, and lieing appear to be acceptable.

Hear this person in action

She is an attorney, does that her immune from accountability?

On that link you can listen to her debate veterinarian on Prop B.

The animal rights industry believes with their power and money they can make Missourian's accept this behavior.

Wayne Pacelle has said, "Missouri's moral compass is off"

I say bullying in any form is never acceptable.

I say Wayne Pacelle's perception of Missouri is off.

Vote NO on Prop B

Mark A Landers

Saturday and Sunday I told my story in the comments section on this article. It's way over 250 words so too long to be news worthy. It's numberous posts during the day and night.

At this point in my life I don't think anything is beneath the animal rights then this paper ran this story

Now I not only fear for my dogs that are living, but I fear they may come and dig up my dogs that have passed just to see if I buried them deep enough. Dear God what is happening in America? Why can't people read and verify facts?

Please people wake up and listen to what you are saying and what you are doing.

My partner keeps telling me that it's not me you are attacking personally that you guys don't realize how you have been used by these people to make money for themselves. But it is me that you are attacking.

I posted some pics of my kennel and dogs on facebook last night. I am not computer literate so don't expect a lot. I know its not as good as most of the licensed kennels in Missouri. And it's not as good as I want. But it is what I have.")

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 28, 2010 | 3:28 p.m.

Ray, come on.

Michelle said who she worked for because she was pushed on it. And she also didn't say Proposition B was about HSUS, which you and others keep implying, to obfuscate the issue.

Proposition B is about Missouri commercial dog breeders, Missouri puppy mills, and the dogs. Nothing more, nothing less.

And your last comment was, well, not particularly coherent. Have you thought that maybe you'd make your points better if you commented less, and took more time to make reasoned, thoughtful arguments in your comments? Too frequently it seems all you do is copy and paste, and with little regard for topic.

But that's just me. If you're having fun, go for it.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 28, 2010 | 3:44 p.m.

This ain't fun.
I just don't want to see Missouri's people and its economy hurt.
Proposition B is bad for Missouri.
Dogs will suffer with or without it. Seems to me that the Proposition is a lose-lose situation for this state and its people.
What's your problem with Bark Alert and what kind of Lefty-Prog Agenda are you pushing?
(You bonding women never cease to amaze me.)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 28, 2010 | 4:21 p.m.

Women tend to bond when considering the options.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 28, 2010 | 4:51 p.m.

That we do.

I'm reminded of the wisdom of XKCD

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 28, 2010 | 8:25 p.m.

We do not have the right to be inhumane & cruel. The current law on the books regarding licensed dog kennels is the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).The ACFA is not enough. It was a good start 18 years ago... but there are no penalties beyond fines in the ACFA. The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act will actually make it a misdeamenor crime to run a puppy mill. Not to mention creating better standards of care & better definitions of that care. Missouri needs this legislation.
Yes on Prop B!
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 29, 2010 | 3:05 a.m.

Possibly this will put some perspective on our collective disagreement.
A reminder that if nothing else, we share a common humanity.
And possibly we should be kinder to one to everything..
Because here is the alternative:

Tomorrow Oct. 30 at 12/15, the funeral of Pfc. Dylan T. Reid of Springfield
will be picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church.

Terry and Kelli Reid, as they bury their son, will be subjected to protesters carrying signs saying' Thank God For Dead Soldiers" "God hates Fags' and 'Thank God for IUDs'.

The Reid family will need some extra support, even if it is only our prayers.

'Westboro Baptist Church Picket Schedule
Daniel Funeral Home in Lamar , MO October 30, 2010 12:15 PM - 1:00 PM

WBC will picket the funeral of Pfc. Dylan T. Reid to remind this nation that God Himself is killing these soldiers in His wrath. The death of the young men of a nation in their prime is not a blessing but rather a curse of God for this doomed land!'

The Lord no longer builds the American house; nor does the Lord watch over and protect America. These soldiers are dying for the homosexual and other sins of America. God is now America's enemy, and God Himself is fighting against America.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller October 29, 2010 | 10:30 a.m.

Welcome to my world David! Reason and logic cannot compete with emotion and misinformation. You fought the good fight and for that you have my respect and admiration.

(Report Comment)
David Rosman October 29, 2010 | 6:31 p.m.

This conversation has become most interesting. It seems that every one agrees with me on Proposition A. No one has argued otherwise. In fact, no one seems to care.

Again, with only a couple of exceptions where the writers have gone waaaaaaaaaaay off topic, thank you all.


(Report Comment)
R Kerr October 31, 2010 | 7:14 p.m.

Two points.
1. Re Prop B, it's always informative to look at the groups who are pro and con on an issue. The MO farm bloc opposes Prop B on the grounds that it could "be extended to animal agriculture per se. I see that as classic conservatism: 1) profit rights trumps animal rights to humane treatment, aka 2)don't let the "big government" prevent me from being cruel to "my" animals. Exactly the same argument that BP and Massey mining made re safety regs for "their" employees.
2) If MO residents were prone to think before voting, it wouldn't be a conservative state.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.