Whether you see animal welfare causes as a slippery slope or a stepping stone, one thing is for certain: factory farming sucks.

California’s Proposition 2 is one-two punch to the gullet of those Animal Ag-holes who consciously hold profit above all else.

Recently the Yes! On Prop 2 campaign released the following video: it’s cute, it’s catchy and most of all, effective.

3 Comments

1. 
   Comment by

   Ali

   on October 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm #

   I totally agree. It’s ultra effective. It’s not confrontational and it’s friendly. Best of all it gets the point across. It reaches out to people who think factory farming is wrong regardless of their eating habits.

2. 
   Comment by

   veganeditor

   on October 9, 2008 at 9:15 am #

   I’m going to have to be a voice of dissent here. Even if the video is effective in convincing people to vote yes on Prop 2, I think it’s also effective in convincing the people who want to be convinced–or who just don’t know the realities of farming and how *little* Prop 2 is actually going to do–that suddenly the animals are going to be living in a happy paradise, and people in California should have no qualms about eating them anymore. I’m bothered enormously by the representation of Prop 2 as a measure that is going to “stop cruelty” when it’s not. I ranted about it a bit more here: http://animalrights.change.org/blog/view/the_problem_with_hsuss_uncaged_video_for_prop_2_2

3. 
   Comment by

   BrownbirdRudyRelic

   on October 9, 2008 at 3:56 pm #

   Personally, I view the video as a smaller piece to a larger, imperfect campaign. Perhaps the piece does a disservice to the issue by stating that voting yes on Proposition 2 will in essence “stop animal cruelty” – it won’t. In my experience though, campaigns often speak in absolutes to sell their cause (In Yes! On Prop 2′s defense they do state “help” stop animal cruelty on their website). I think the video is effective in essence because it gets people talking (are we not doing that now?) and sheds light on an aspect of factory farming that some (or many) may not be aware of.

   Regarding Proposition 2: is this not at least a hopeful step in the right direction? Did you not, Stephanie say in your piece about “Top Ten Ways to Make a Difference for Animals” that “[One] can’t save every animal but [one] can make a difference, one decision and action at a time” Does this not fall in line with this sort of thought process?

   Nevertheless and regardless, I appreciate the comment, discussion and your website immensely.