The NYT and the Washington Post both have articles this weekend on the Proposition 2 campaign in California. The Times profiles Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society, who’s group has been spearheading the campaign. The Post article gives the lay of the land on both sides of the issue.

I’m astonished by some of the Orwellian rhetoric that comes from the agribusiness folks:

Kelli Ludlum, spokeswoman for the American Farm Bureau Federation, a national organization that represents 6 million farmers and ranchers nationwide, said the measure sets a negative precedent for farmers everywhere. “Just because an animal is confined doesn’t mean that its welfare is compromised or that it’s not comfortable,” she said. In most cases, the confinement is for the animal’s own safety, she said.

Question, dear reader: Would you consider you welfare or comfort to be compromised if you spent your entire life confined to a space too small to allow you to turn around or extend your limbs?

You can get more information of Prop 2 here.