I am saddened that all too often I turn on the television or pick up the local newspaper only to read about another horrific incident of animal abuse; once again it has happened, this time in my own back yard.

A Lantana, FL pet shop owner who had 26 cats, dogs, a rabbit, a bird and a hedgehog seized from her and was jailed on unspecified charges. Authorities also found five dead dogs and cats in her freezer.

There are puppy mills in which sometimes dozens of animals are confined to small cages; destined only for breeding. These animals often never feel the kind touch of a caring human being; receive no comforting petting; and no love at all.

Reports have been developing of even pet store owners breeding animals in cages in their homes in deplorable conditions. Unscrupulous breeders over breeding dogs and cats in order to make a buck are becoming more and more common.

For these reasons, I am proud to say that Lake Worth, Florida has become the first city on the East Coast to ban the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores.  The city of Lake Worth, Florida only allows the sale of dogs and cats on the same property where they were bred, which effectively prohibits pet shops from selling animals.

There is no excuse for abusing animals.  We need stricter penalties, fines and jail time so that people will think twice before they abuse an animal for any reason. Sadly, we still consider pets to be chattel and, as long as they remain property, I am afraid we will continue to lag behind in our own humanity.

Perhaps we should be reminded of what a great and peaceful man once said: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

What do you want from the people you elect to public office?

Honesty? Candor? Fairness? Intelligence? Independent thinking? To listen to you, the people who voted them into office?

If only things were that simple. The problem is the noise. At least in Florida, legislators have a great many interests whispering in their ears and, so far, no shouting from constituents.

So, as the Florida legislature drafts, proposes and passes legislation for sweeping changes in the very best interests of the lobbyists whispering to them, let us take a look at the various interests gaining representative and senator attention:

$4.2 million – this is the amount of money spent just in 2011 by the top two dozen companies and special interests in order to court lawmakers.

$45 million – this is the amount of money poured into the 2010 elections by the 30 largest contributors to pick the special legislators we have today.

So, what have the special interests put on their shopping list?

• Walt Disney wants to maintain its tax advantages – bid, $188,010
• Universal wants tax breaks for its film company – bid, $181,549
• The Florida Association of Realtors wants a property tax cut – bid, $275, 500
• Health care and insurance groups want reforms to further improve their already plentiful bottom line – bid, $449,500 from just one of the companies
• Florida Power & Light, TECO, and Progress Energy want permission to tax customers to pay for solar plants – bid, over $748,000
• GEO Group, a private prison company wants, well, to run all Florida’s prisons – bid, $106,000
• Florida Chamber of Commerce wanted to get a very special Senator, John Thrasher, reelected – bid $1.5 million
• Florida Chamber of Commerce wants to better the bottom line of its corporate members, including Publix, Disney, land developers and other interests. They contributed even more to get our special legislators elected – bid $5.5 million
• Florida Chamber of Commerce did not want to lag behind in its efforts, so it continues to give in 2011 – bidding has started at $257,000
• AT&T wants a new phone bill (advantageous legislation) and so they gave and keep on giving – bid, $1.7 million on last year’s lobbyists, $1.4 million on last year’s campaign contributions and $177,847 so far in 2011.

These groups are not letting up either. It is reported that the Florida Chamber of Commerce has 30 lobbyists ram-rodding 65 bills.

It is no wonder that many lawmakers have warm feelings for the Florida Chamber of Commerce. As Rep. Mike Horner, a Kissimmee representative said:

“They are an invaluable ally. My door is always open to the Chamber, and they were very helpful during my election. But we ran on creating jobs. So, the idea that it looks like we may have a pro-business session shouldn’t surprise anybody.”

No, Mr. Horner, no one is surprised in the least. Business groups and corporations have paid well for what they have gotten. We voters just really expected legislators would represent Florida citizens, rather than foreign corporations.

In days of old when knights were bold and gentlemen believed in honor…

In those days of old, if you were to wrong me and failed to pay proper recompense, we dueled…often to the death. Today, in our democracy, we have access to the courts for redress of our differences without you and I being forced to duel.

Our “founding fathers” (Washington, Jefferson, Adams) never expected that politics would become a vocation. They saw political service as the duty of gentlemen owed to their country. It was an honor bestowed to be allowed to represent the people in protecting them and in furthering the best interests of the country or state.

Unfortunately, politics has become a vocation and politicians have strayed from representing the people to efforts at garnering power. Today, in addition to the Florida legislature’s apparent need to legislate in the very best interests of their present constituents by passing legislation aimed at maximizing corporate profits, they have decided to take on the “balance of power” as well.

Our form of government is safe as long as the “balance of power” is maintained between the three branches: the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. Our system provides for a workable, but delicate, set of checks and balances meant to prevent one branch from gaining too much power over any other branch.

The Florida legislature, or at least the majority in the House, believes they know better than the founding fathers or, perhaps, they are simply living out their political vocation. In any event, the legislature now deems it knows best how to structure the court system and has just passed a bill identified as CS/HJR 7111. In this bill, the legislature has decided to put upon the people of Florida a constitutional amendment to recreate the way in which the Florida Supreme Court is structured, the way in which it operates and, ultimately, the seat of power over the judicial branch.

But why? Legislators have postulated several reasons for why this amendment is needed.

They say that death penalty cases can be moved more quickly to execution. According to former Supreme Court Justice, Raoul Cantero, this is completely untrue:

Mr. Cantero agreed they can take years to navigate the justice system, “but very little of that time is in the Supreme Court,” he said. “It’s just not the case that the Supreme Court is holding them and not deciding them.”

The Tallahassee.com reported one legislator’s and one former Governor’s view on the legislation:

The legislator said he wants to improve the court’s efficiency, including dealing with death-penalty cases. But a bipartisan group of former justices, former and current judges, former U.S. Sen. Bob Graham and Florida Bar leaders spoke out Thursday saying those reasons are without merit.

The legislators also maintain that specialization is important. One House member pointed out that: “The civil side can take away your property and your money. The criminal side can take away your liberty and your life.” Well, yeah, but this ignores the balance the court needs to arrive at many of its decisions. Some decisions find their basis in a mix of civil and criminal law. In addition, the Supreme Court is a court of review. The Supreme Court largely decides cases based on procedural and constitutional history and law; those are their areas of specialization.

The bill passed by the house also provides for additional provisions that would effectively do nothing but allow for “court packing”. They would allow for the party with the most power to pack the court with “their people” and maintain that control for as long as eight years or more at a time. Again, not really keeping with the whole “balance of power” portions of the constitution.

In a time when politicians claim they want less government, lower taxes and less spending, this proposal is an unnecessary expenditure of money; since some have estimated that restructuring the court will likely add many millions of dollars of overhead to an already operating fund starved court system.

Let us look at a couple of issues behind the legislative and executive branch that could be the motivation for this desire to restructure the balance of government power.

Some of the legislators involved in this court restructuring tried to get a couple of constitutional amendments placed on the ballot during the last election season. The Supreme Court found those constitutional amendments did not comply with the law because the summaries did not reflect the full or true nature of what the actual amendment was meant to do.

For all amendments, the Supreme Court is required to approve the amendments to confirm their form is in compliance with the law before they can be placed on the ballot. Every amendment you read on a ballot has gone through this very same vetting by the Court. Each election season, amendments are approved and disapproved by the Supreme Court. The Court quite often finds amendments do not conform to the law and exclude them from the ballot.

So, you decide. Is this an effort at necessary restructuring to solve a real problem or are these efforts simply in search of a problem that really does not exist? Are the real goals for the proponents of this constitutional amendment bill to improve the efficiency and specialization of the Court or to simply improve their own ability to control the Court?

April 9, 2011 is an important date and an important event will take place at the Meyer Amphitheatre in Palm Beach County. It’s called the “SleepOut” and it is a symbolic reminder of the phrase: “But, for the grace of God, go I”.

Imagine that you have no bed to sleep in, because you have no home.

Imagine that your children are cold, and hungry, and cannot attend school.

Imagine that what remains of your current life are now contained in a cardboard box.

In any given night, over 671,000 people are homeless. On any given night, over 248,000 of those homeless are families.

In any given night, over 120,000 of the homeless are considered “chronically homeless” and it should be with great shame that we know over 134,000 homeless are men and women who have fought for our country, for the rights of each of us to enjoy the freedoms for which this country stands.

In a country where homelessness simply should not exist, it sadly does not take more than an unforeseen financial crisis to send whole families onto the streets:

• A medical emergency with no insurance
• A car accident caused by someone without financial responsibility
• A death
• A loss of employment

Homeless people simply yearn for an opportunity, a chance, to restore their lives and to get back on their feet. These unfortunate people are not there looking for a hand out – they are looking for a leg up, a boost.

Thankfully, organizations such as The Lord’s Place in Palm Beach County exist to provide the help, the support to get people back on their feet. Last year, through the contributions of business and individuals, The Lord’s Place was successful:

• Providing 500 men, women, and children with emergency housing and support
• Changing the lives of 83% of these people by helping them to no longer be homeless
• Serving 4000 people across a variety of services and assistance
• Provided over 10,000 meals
• Graduated 80% of people through their Education & Employment Programs

Please visit the SleepOut website to contribute to this very worthy cause. Be part of the effort to end the cycle of homelessness – be a part of the 2% solution.

It was a Democrat who made “court packing” a scheme, a political move. And, it was done by an American president I confess to admiring for a great many reasons; his plan to pack the US Supreme Court with only justices who would see things his way, is not one of those areas of admiration for me.

It was 1937 and the country was in the economic free fall of a deep depression. President Roosevelt had proposed a great many new laws as a part of his “New Deal” legislation. In fairness, the idea of the New Deal bills was to turn the financial picture around and get Americans back to work. Some of those laws had passed muster through legal review and many had not. President Roosevelt was frustrated by, as he saw it, a Supreme Court filled with obstructionists. His solution was to devise a scheme to replace justices who were retiring with “his” men and he had drafted a bill to allow the president (Roosevelt) the power to appoint an additional justice for every justice who retired (a 2 for 1 appointment deal). Fortunately for our country, the bill did not pass.

Today, we have a similar effort afoot. If our form of government is limited to only the legislative and the executive branches, then there is a danger that any law passed by the legislature is sure to be passed by the chief executive; whenever the two offices are held by the same political party. It is a loss of checks and balances that has kept our form of government intact for well over two centuries.

There are a number of ways to limit a three branch system of government with checks and balances on each branch (executive, legislative and judicial) to only two with little checks or balances. Florida may be on its way to having only two branches of its government.

One of the ways to control the judicial branch of the government is through funding. Although the court system in Florida is supposed to be independent, it receives its funding from the legislature and the executive branches. The court system is incapable of operating if its funding is limited or restricted. A number of Florida legislators have made it known that if the judiciary will not “cooperate” it is the legislature who “holds the purse strings”.

Another way to control the judiciary is “court packing”; make sure you can put as many of “your people” on the court as possible and keep them there. That can only be done by eliminating the current justices through retirement or defeats in merit retention votes and getting new ones appointed. A similar outcome can be achieved by increasing the number of justices that can occupy the Supreme Court and allowing the legislative and executive branches to fill the newly created justice spots.

Currently, there is discussion in the hallowed halls of government in Tallahassee, to do a number of things to the judicial branch. Limit the court system’s funding and create a second half to the current Supreme Court. Cutting funding could bring an already over burdened court system to a near halt. Foreclosure filings and the shenanigans perpetrated by mortgage companies in those foreclosure cases have created a huge back log for judges and clerks. Based on February 2011 numbers, Florida is currently second in the nation for foreclosure filings. Bring the court system to a halt and we risk no cases reaching justice and the potential that criminal defendants may be released based upon a lack of speedy trial.

The theory behind adding a second half to the Florida Supreme Court explains that the court is not processing cases fast enough and, at least in part, that is resulting in Florida’s inability to put people on death row to death fast enough. The reality, however, is probably more related to the political goal put forth by my favorite president – “court packing”. The constitutional amendment that is likely to be proposed by the Florida legislature would create a criminal and a civil side to the Supreme Court. Sound logical? It does and that is certainly what its backers will be hoping voters will think. This approach interestingly evades the real questions of whether cases are really moving too slowly through the Supreme Court in particular and whether “specializing” in criminal cases will allow more convicts to be put to death on a faster pace.

In 2010, the Florida Supreme Court issued 241 opinions; approximately one per work day. That is in addition to cases in which they heard argument, but issued no opinion; reviews of death penalty cases; reviews of constitutionality of laws; and certain orders of governmental agencies. In addition, the Supreme Court oversees the running and management of all the circuit courts and appellate courts in Florida.

The Florida Legislature also wants to take away from the courts the drafting and approval of rules and procedures used by the courts in processing cases. In each year, the Supreme Court reviews rules and rule revisions that have been prepared by lawyers volunteering their time through the Florida Bar. The legislature would prefer that legislators take the time, each year, to argue, debate and hammer out the rules for the judiciary because the legislators in their ultimate wisdom see that process as more economical. They would then pass whatever rules this organization of lawyers and non-lawyers might dream up and then send it to the Governor (maybe a lawyer and maybe not) to approve, disapprove or ignore their recommendations. Maybe the legislature would have to start all over again if the Governor vetoes their rules. I wonder whether the efficiency of the legislature could produce rules in a year? Is this the best use of legislators’ time? Would they be better off spending their time reducing taxes and cutting already anorexic education budgets?

The conclusion is inescapable. Things have not changed a great deal since the 1930’s, when President Roosevelt made his attempt at taking over the US Supreme Court. Politicians are driven by power. Certainly many politicians began by wanting to “do good”, but power always gets in the way. When “your” particular brand of power is in control, you can become drunk and want to remove those nasty little constitutional stumbling blocks you see as in your way.

The last line of defense in Florida at this point is an educated voter who is unwilling to accept slogans, easy answers or the testimony of someone’s mother for arriving at a good, well thought decision. So, don’t take my word for it, read, consider, and act accordingly.

Visions of white clapboard houses with bright red barns have been a staple of Americans’ visions of farming for centuries. The farmer diligently working in his fields to produce food and material for the nation’s bread basket was a worthy subject of photos, paintings and stories throughout the last couple of centuries in America.

The tales of our country’s founding speak of equality and of simple beginnings. The truth is, though, our country was founded by big business farmers who, for the time, were operating large production farms.

In short order, at least in terms of the birthing of a nation, small farms and family farming became a way of life and worthy value. As always, the pendulum swings and big business got back into “family farming” with a vengeance. This has been followed by significant environmental impacts and exposure to humans of some very dangerous byproducts.

In the 1970’s “CAFOs” began springing up in rural America and even in some suburban areas. The term CAFO stands for: concentrated animal feeding operations. These operations are intended to be low cost, high production methods for raising animals and profiting from the manufacturing of animals: milk, eggs, and meat.

Some CAFOs are vertical integration operations and control every aspect of production. Others use poorly trained and ill equipped people to raise the animals for the larger processing CAFOs.

If you have a CAFO near you, it is likely to be obvious. The smells and cacophony of sounds made by very large populations of animals in very small spaces is obvious. These operations take animal excrement and concentrate it for later use or sale as fertilizer. So, often, in addition to the normal excrement byproduct, large amounts of “stored” excrement can be found piled on the ground at these operations. In addition, piles of animal carcasses awaiting hauling and disposal can often be found on the land of these CAFOs.

Farms produce waste and release chemicals into the environment; it is simply unavoidable. But, in traditional farming those materials are generally released in small amounts and across larger areas. In concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFA), the chemicals and other toxins are released in higher quantities and in much, much smaller areas. The potpourri of dangers include:

• Toxic microbes; including pfiesteria piscicida. Blamed for algae blooms in water and suspected of causing serious human illnesses, including: memory loss, headaches, rashes, upper respiratory irritations, muscle complications and gastrointestinal complaints.
• Toxic chemicals; including high concentrations of pesticides
• Antibiotic resistant bacteria; including MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus)
• E-coli
• Salmonella
• Trace elements; including arsenic and copper harmful to human health
• Flies
• Gases from decomposing feces; including
• Urine

In addition to the impact on humans, the environment is impacted adversely:

• Deforestation for animal feed production
• Unsustainable pressure on land for production of high-protein/high-energy animal feed
• Pesticide, herbicide and fertilizer manufacture and use for feed production
• Unsustainable use of water for feed-crops, including groundwater extraction
• Pollution of soil, water and air by nitrogen and phosphorus from fertiliser used for feed-crops and from manure
• Land degradation (reduced fertility, soil compaction, increased salinity, desertification)
• Loss of biodiversity due to eutrophication, acidification, pesticides and herbicides
• Worldwide reduction of genetic diversity of livestock and loss of traditional breeds
• Species extinctions due to livestock-related habitat destruction (especially feed-cropping)

Finally, but perhaps more terrible, is the impact on the animals who are subjects of the mass incarceration for these CAFAs:

• Close confinement systems (cages, crates) or lifetime confinement in indoor sheds
• Discomfort and injuries caused by inappropriate flooring and housing
• Restriction or prevention of normal exercise and most of natural foraging or exploratory behavior
• Restriction or prevention of natural maternal nesting behavior
• Lack of daylight or fresh air and poor air quality in animal sheds
• Social stress and injuries caused by overcrowding
• Health problems caused by extreme selective breeding and management for fast growth and high productivity
• Reduced lifetime (longevity) of breeding animals (dairy cows, breeding sows)
• Fast-spreading infections encouraged by crowding and stress in intensive conditions
• Male chicks, which are too scrawny for meat and incapable of laying eggs, may be liquidated as inventory

The Environmental Protection Agency passed new regulations in 2008 to update exiting law in existence in 2003. In addition, there are regulations under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) portions of EPA Guidelines. Local zoning ordinances, health regulations, and Nuisance laws apply to these mass animal manufacturing operations. These laws are not well enforced and typically are only responsive to complaints filed against specific operations.

Sadly, little actual laws are applied on the federal level to protect animals victimized for the sake of profit. In addition less than half of the states in the US have any laws protecting the welfare of “farming animals”. Although modest progress has been made in protecting domestic pets from abuse and torture, farm animals remain largely unprotected victims.

I am familiar with Shakespeare’s quote from Henry VI, “The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers.”  Although, one should note, the quote is often used to malign attorneys when Shakespeare actually meant it as a compliment – the characters in his play were planning a revolution and the lawyers would be the ones who might stand in the way.

The surest way to chaos in society is to silence those who protect independent thinking and the rights of the citizenry.  Apparently in Florida, the second surest way to chaos is the destruction of the educational system.

Following the vote of the Florida legislature to eliminate tenure for teachers in the state, I started wondering when it was that the education system and educators became the first sacrificial lambs for the current Florida Legislature’s ill-conceived plan to solve the budget issues by destroying the education system, gutting the legal system, busting unions and fighting health care for all.

For all of those who believe that teachers are a group of overpaid, lazy, unmotivated, overprotected, lacking-in-innovation people who don’t care about the children in their care, the education they provide or the progression of their students, I have just one thing to say to you:  You have never been a teacher.

The teaching profession is a hard one to choose as a career.  Florida’s teachers are among the lowest paid in the entire country.  The population of students encompasses huge pockets of abject poverty, large groups of immigrants with little or no knowledge of the English language, transient students living in unstable households and a significant percentage of parents and guardians who do not support the education system or the teachers and administrators who are a part of it.

Florida’s teachers spend more time, on a daily basis, with their students, especially during the elementary years, than most parents do.  Their job, when done right, is vital and provides the foundation for future learning, for the developing the logical thinking and character and the understanding of consequences. Does it make sense to further devalue the importance of what they do by eliminating job security?

Tenure doesn’t prevent school districts from firing teachers who don’t do their jobs, don’t care about education or their students or don’t follow the rules.  Every state provides the means to do exactly that.

Many, many things have changed since I was a K-12 student.  What hasn’t changed is the devotion and dedication it takes to be a teacher who makes a profound and lasting impact upon a student’s life.  I remember every teacher by name who took the time to care about my education, the development of my character and my progression into the adult world.  Those teachers cared because society cared about them and understood the importance of their role in the education and development of the children in their care.  Those teachers cared because parents understood the importance of supporting their efforts.  Those teachers cared because the legislatures in the states in which they worked voted to support their salaries, their retirement benefits, their rights to be treated fairly and equitably and provided them with some sense of job security through the tenure system.

The devaluing of our educational system and the corresponding devaluing of our children may have been well summed up by Rep. Scott Randolph (D-Orlando):

“It’s amazing to me that the members in this chamber see no harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the plumbing care of their toilets.”

The Food & Drug Administration issued a press release on March 4, 2011 to alert expectant mothers to complications of taking Topamax. The FDA indicates that a higher than acceptable number of infants were born with a condition called cleft lip and palate; when the mothers were taking Topamax (Topiramate).

Topamax, also known as Topiramate, was originally approved by the Food & Drug Administration for the treatment of seizures in epileptic patients. The drug has also been prescribed as treatment for migraine headaches alcoholism and weight loss.

The FDA has set forth the following information for patients:

• I f you take topiramate during pregnancy, there is a higher risk that your baby will develop a cleft lip and/or cleft palate. Oral clefts happen early in pregnancy, before many women even know they are pregnant. For this reason, women of childbearing age should talk to their healthcare professionals about other treatment options.
• Women of childbearing age who do decide to take topiramate and are not planning a pregnancy should use effective birth control (contraception) while taking topiramate. Women should talk to their healthcare professionals about the best kind of birth control to use while taking topiramate.
• Before you start topiramate, you should tell your healthcare professional if you are pregnant or are planning to become pregnant. Healthcare professionals may discuss other treatment options with you.
• You should tell your healthcare professional right away if you become pregnant while taking topiramate. You and your healthcare provider should decide if you will continue to take topiramate while you are pregnant.
• Topiramate should not be stopped without talking to a healthcare professional, even in pregnant women. Stopping topiramate suddenly can cause serious problems. Not treating epilepsy during pregnancy can be harmful to women and their developing babies.
• If you become pregnant while taking topiramate, you should talk to your healthcare professional about registering with the North American Antiepileptic Drug Pregnancy Registry. You can enroll in this registry by calling 1-888-233-2334. The purpose of this registry is to collect additional information about the safety of antiepileptic drugs during pregnancy. Information about the North American Drug Pregnancy Registry can be found at http://www.massgeneral.org/aed/.
• Topiramate passes into breast milk, but its effects on developing babies remain unknown. You should talk to your healthcare professional about the best way to feed your baby if you take topiramate.
• You should report any side effects you experience to the FDA MedWatch program using the information in the “Contact Us” box at the bottom of the page.
• You should read the Medication Guide when picking up a prescription for topiramate. It will help you understand the potential risks and benefits of this medication.

The incidence of oral clefts in children of mothers taking Topiramate has been significantly higher than that of children born to mothers not taking the drug.

I propose we overhaul the criminal justice system in the United States. We can save billions, possibly trillions, of dollars by simply instituting a new way of handling the criminal process:

YOU are now presumed guilty of any crime with which you are charged until YOU prove yourself innocent. In addition, when accused of a crime, YOU will be immediately jailed and no bail will be granted. YOU will not be released from jail until YOU can prove yourself innocent.

YOU have no right of privacy in your home if criminal officials believe YOU have committed a crime. Police are free to search YOUR home whenever they reasonably suspect YOU are (or probably are guilty) of a crime.

Think about all the money it would save if police and prosecutors do not have to spend the time and resources to prove YOU are guilty of a crime. Think about all that money saved if prosecutors do not have to spend their time proving YOU are guilty, they simply have to prove why YOU are not innocent.

How does that work for everyone?

What? You have constitutional rights?

But, as I have already told you, it will save billions, probably trillions, of dollars.

What? You are not willing to sell or compromise your constitutional rights simply to save money in the criminal justice system?

But, it’s a great deal of money we are talking about saving. I mean don’t you think you are being a little unreasonable? I mean it’s only a couple of constitutional rights and it will save so very much money.

What? You are worried that by giving up these rights the government might take advantage? You are worried that giving up these constitutional rights might make it that much easier for the government to steal the next constitutional right away from you?

R-i-g-h-t.

But, “tort reformers” are eager, in fact nearly giddy, to require that Americans give up the constitutional right to access to the court system in civil matters. Why not go all the way and include the criminal side?

“Tort reformers” are very eager to deny Americans the right to trial of ALL their legal rights before a jury of their peers in civil court. Why not take it all the way and include criminals.

I mean its criminals after all, right?

What? You are afraid someone may be unjustly accused and be convicted because they do not have access to the courts and to competent representation; particularly if they are trying to accomplish all that from a jail cell?

But, It will save all that money!

Sound ludicrous and silly? Maybe, but we should not place ourselves in the position of choosing “which” constitutional rights we are willing to give up.

“Tort reformers” are currently proposing on a federal level; what they have sadly, but successfully accomplished on a state level in over 35 states. They want to compromise the constitutional right of access to the courts because they claim it will save money.

Now, they will tell you they are not affecting any constitutional rights and they provide spin for this proposition; spin that they have paid big money to produce. As far as their spin goes, it’s like my great aunt always said: “you can spray air freshener all over a pig, but it’s still a pig”.

The fact is they are lying. They have every intention of compromising constitutional rights in favor of saving money.

Who do “tort reformers” want to benefit? Consumers? No.

Tort reformers want to benefit corporations, insurance companies and other big lobby concerns.

Let’s look at a few FACTS:

• Fact: Tort reform on a federal level would not save more than one half of one percent (according to the Congressional Budget Office).
• Fact: Tort reform would do nothing to the 98,000 patients killed every year by medical negligence.
• Fact: Tort reform will do more to increase social burden than anything else. Injured people with no constitutional access to courts will be forced to use medicare, medicaid, unemployment, and social security more.
• Fact: Frivolous lawsuits are largely a myth. A May 2006 Harvard study demonstrated that 97% of all medical negligence claims are meritorious.
• Fact: Cases are not “flooding” the court system. In fact, lawsuits have decreased by 79% since 1985.
• Fact: Businesses and corporations are far more likely to file “frivolous” lawsuits than are individuals.
• Fact: Capping damage awards has no affect on reducing insurance premiums.
• Fact: Capping damages DOES result in increased profitability for insurance companies.

A new study released by The Cornucopia Institute, an advocate for family farming, found that most of the common organic and cage-free eggs we purchase at our grocery stores are from chickens that are produced in an industrial-scale setting where no outdoor access is granted for the chickens and most birds are packed into sheds by the thousands. That isn’t the image we had about organic now is it?

The news was stunning because as an animal advocate and organic consumer, I thought I was making a good choice by selecting brands with organic or cage-free on the label.  I assumed, as I am sure many consumers do that “organic” meant the birds were humanely treated, not caged, and allowed to roam free as happy chickens.

It was worth it to me to be paying the extra money for that piece of mind that the animals were receiving humane treatment. However, the report by The Cornucopia Institute showed that organic and cage-free does not mean that the chickens who lay the eggs are roaming free.

“Organic eggs” means that the chickens just eat organic feed, and “cage-free eggs “means the chickens are not kept in cages, however, they are still packed together in dirty, airless, close quarters. Even outdoors doesn’t mean they are allowed to roam in the open air. It just means that the egg producer provides a small opening to access an outdoor area, usually a concrete patio.

The Cornucopia Institute released an egg scorecard giving egg producers five eggs for the best conditions and “exemplary-beyond organic,” and one egg for producers with the worst conditions or “ethically deficient-industrial organics, no meaningful outdoor access.”

Some “five egg” earners are (the best rated):

• Coon Creek Farms
• Kingbird Farms
• Krause Farms
• Neversink Farms
• Organic Pastures
• Cleary Family Farm
• Common Good Farm
• Highfields Farm
• Misty Meadow Farm
• Old Friends Farm
• One Drop Farm
• River Berry Farm
• Trout Lake  Abbey

These producers are “found locally or regionally under their farm’s brand name, and mostly through food co-ops, farmer markets and independently owned grocery stores and sometimes larger chains like Whole Foods,” reports The Cornucopia Institute.

Among the worst were:

• 4-Grain
• Born Free
• Chino Valley Ranchers
• Egg Innovations
• Eggland’s Best
• Garden Valley
• Horizon Organic
• Land O’Lakes
• Nest Fresh Eggs
• Oakdell

Well-known private brands with one egg rating were Whole Foods, Wal-Mart, Costco, Safeway and Trader Joe’s.

The complete scorecard can be found at Cornucopia Institute website.

“Organic should mean that it contains 95 percent organic ingredients and a government-approved expert has inspected the farm where it was produced to make sure the farmer follows the USDA requirement for organic,” according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. However, these standards don’t account for how the animals are treated so it is best to support farmers who treat their animals humanely. Organic production should mean production that is kinder to animals and to the environment.