CELEBRATING THE FOURTH OF JULY IN THE LAND OF THE FREE
(….with a Prohibition mindset in California)

It’s the Fourth of July again, but there seems to be less to celebrate these days. Things just don’t seem to warrant an all out party spirit for the occasion.

The economy is still a mess, lots of folks remain un-employed, and a lot of our best and brightest are still being mangled and killed overseas for no meaningful purpose in a far away land. Meanwhile, our Supreme Court seems bent on forcing us all into a one-size-fits-all health care straight jacket, and the folks out there in California, with a Prohibition mindset, have just sliced off one more bit of “freedom of choice” from our roster of civil rights. The Constitution? We don’t need no stinking ….Constitution! So says the glorious state of California.

You see, a strident animal rights minority there somehow managed to stampede its Legislature and its “Governor Moonbeam” to outlaw pate de foie on the grounds that the manner of its production was “cruel” to ducks used to make the stuff. Yes, as of the first of July that particular delicacy is no longer legal in California (but pot clubs are…despite what the Federales say about that!). It’s all redolent of the Prohibition mindset of the 1930s against any kind of alcoholic beverages….and we all know how that worked out!

It’s this kind of extreme single-issue zealotry that makes a mockery of that last line of lyrics in our national anthem….o’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave! Well, brave we may still be, but at the rate these bits of nonsense legislation keep happening to us….not so sure we still are….the land of the free. Such zealotry simply undermines everyone else’s civil rights to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness….which in this instance is the right of any of us to enjoy and indulge ourselves with an occasional munch on pate de foie, without having to become criminals to do so.

The consequences of this kind of legislative idiocy is that it arbitrarily damages a lot of people because it destroys their livelihood without compensation….such as farmers who raise ducks to produce it…. chefs and restaurant owners who’s clientele demands it of them…. and for stores who want to carry it for their customers. Without the right to do so, many are either put out of business, or, find a serious decline in the volume of business they might otherwise have, thus, lower profits. As for the rest of us, we’ll now have to find out of state sources for it.

So who should be sued for this kind of economic mayhem? Logically, I would suggest that both the individuals and the advocacy groups that promoted such a law should be the first targets of such action. As for the Governor and the state’s Legislature these should also have to face legal action on the grounds this laws violates both interstate and international trade as provided for by the –Commerce Clause- of the Constitution. Further, per the Supreme Court’s recent decision, the penalty for not observing this law can now be considered a “tax”. If so, it is an improperly imposed tax as well.

Meanwhile, as with any “prohibition” effort it’s quite likely that a very active black market will now develop for pate de foie for both the domestic and imported varieties of it. A black market which will require more resources for enforcement against it, and thus more tax revenues to pay for that, something which the state budget can ill afford. Furthermore, since the penalty/tax for violating this law is $1000, and up, anyone cited and charged for such violations will probably demand a jury trial to settle the matter. So it’s not inconceivable that there will soon be a deliberate mass civil disobedience over it, and, all involved demanding jury trials thereby so clogging the court system, the state’s legal system could come to a screeching halt.

Nor should we forget that –Prohibition- in the 1930s created the foundation and was the genesis for organized crime in this country. The question is….do we want a new round of that, to be called – The War on Pate de Foie?

Fortunately there is a source of –REAL- pate de foie gras which may be exempt from this law because it is an entirely different product than the one banned, and, it comes from the region of Alsace-Lorraine of La Belle France. It’s made from goose, not duck livers. So the state of California could find itself holding the wrong end of the stick if it tries to apply this law to interfere in normal Franco-American trade. As for any of those animal rights extremists who created this nonsense, they should be reminded of the following:

a)    French geese have been helping produce the delicacy for the better part of 1000 years, and there have yet to be any reports of any of them dying from the feeding procedure (well, until “harvest”, but then the whole bird is used, not just the liver).

b)    Geese are by nature extremely greedy feeders (compared to ducks).Humans simply learned how to cater to that “greediness”, to produce this delicacy. It’s even been said that once geese have been introduced to this kind of forced feeding they actually become addicted to it., and, get very foul-tempered if the process is interrupted  (anyone who has ever confronted a pissed-off 20-30 pound gander will understand what I mean. Only swans can be more ill-tempered and vicious).

Well, what are we willing to bet that the Governor and the entire Legislature who went along with this nonsense made sure they had their own stashes of pate before it went into effect (along with their illicit Cuban cigars, no doubt)?

CENTURION