New veto continues unfavorable pig cruelty


Alon Goldfinger, For Eastside

In this new decade, many people have begun to see the true face of politics, whether it is from shows like House of Cards or from the various examples of public manipulation. Although many people believe television shows to be fiction, some show a frighteningly realistic view of politics. In today’s world, politicians might be looking to satisfy their own private ambitions over the public.

Chris Christie, like many politicians, prioritizes productivity over morality. While productivity is a great ideology, morality should definitely be favored. By recently vetoing the Pig Crate Law, which eliminates pigs from being kept in crates in slaughterhouses, Chris Christie has a possibility of maintaining his relationship with the state of Iowa, but with the loss of trust from his citizens.

This decision is not only imprudent morally but it is also an untactful move in politics. Although this veto gains Christie the support of Iowans, especially Iowan farmers, he loses his trust in the very people who vote for him. Thus, this veto only hurts his chances in his anticipated run in the 2016 elections.

Living in a society where animal cruelty is continuously frowned upon, Christie should understand the risk of going against a bill which helps fight against this very issue. As Christie gained a notorious reputation for the supposed bridge scandal, he should be passing laws to make him look better in the eyes of the people, not to make him look worse.

This veto’s greatest fault, however, is its morality issues. By vetoing this act, Christie condemns pigs to live in unsanitary crates which ruin the pigs’ health. the pigs turn into a crazed state, biting the bars of their pens, leaving bruises and tooth damage. The pigs will die more often from unsanitary conditions than from any other cause, which marks a loss in profit for the factory farms.

While the governor of Iowa believes that this veto is justified because this is an issue that most people are unaware of, I believe that whether it is a popular issue or not, it is still an issue.

In addition, when considering whether one should solve a problem, he or she should not consider the popularity of the problem because popularity is a swaying, abstract idea. One day something might be unknown to the public, but it might be the talk of the town the next day. As a solution to this issue, the residents of Cherry Hill should attempt to help fight animal cruelty by either donating to or starting a charity for the previously mentioned purpose. It will not only raise awareness for this problem, but also help benefit the animals as well.

As Christie would most likely not approve of another proposal to fight against animal cruelty, the state’s best option are private companies that would not be restricted by the bias of the state government. In order to solve Christie’s morality issues, we should attempt to elect appropriate state advisors, as the next governor vote will not be until four more years. This issue is one of those instances when television shows like House of Cards tells us some of the truth about life, and it is ultimately up to the citizens to change for the better.