Skip to main content
Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:30 PM PST
by keefknightFollow for Daily Kos
Add keywords that describe this diary.
Separate multiple keywords with commas.
- Search For Tags
- Browse For Tags
More Tagging tips:
A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?
Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.
If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office.
CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.
Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.
Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary:
Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House.
If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state
Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries
that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.
You must be a member of a group to use this feature.
by beaukitty on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:33:40 PM PST
I'm serious. What's the issue you feel?
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:35:42 PM PST
[ Parent ]
and being reminded that in order to become food it had to be slaughtered.... well, some folks just have major issues dealing with this reality. It is I believe, the reason behind the irrational hatred that many people show towards vegetarians.
by Shuksan Tahoma on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:07:15 PM PST
we're just put off by the anthropomorphization of our food and the comparison of animal slaughter to the death penalty.
Turkeys, like fetuses, aren't people.
"Let’s just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Let’s be Marines." - Sgt. Maj Michael Barrett on DADT repeal
by kyril on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:10:17 PM PST
Other fetuses are turkeys, dogs, etc.
I thought they covered that in biology class.
LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!
by dinotrac on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 04:23:47 AM PST
Although I don't think that it explains the "irrational hatred towards vegetarians". Then again, as a confirmed omnivore, I never understood that hatred; if eating meat seems like a bad idea to you, whether for moral, environmental, or purely health reasons, it doesn't seem like it takes any privileges away from me.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:19:47 PM PST
toward meat eaters.
I'm sick of the arrogance on both sides.
I eat very little meat now, and am limited now to mostly salmon, because I think fish has enormous benefits for health and longevity. If more vegetarians and vegans showed more patience, people would slowly come around. I heard a report tonight that google said that interest in a vegan meal went up 35% this year! That's good, I think. And more really healthy types like baskeball players are coming out as vegans, which are modeling the behavior, instead of lecturing meat-eaters from on a thousand-mile-high-horse.
I used to be an enormous meat-eater, but gradually got off of all beef, all pork, and am down to very little poultry. If the meat industry depended on guys like me, it'd collapse overnight, which would be fine with me. For one thing, the cattle and swine industry virtually wreck this planet. I came at less meat eating from an environmental/health pespective first. Then I came to have sympathy for all the wholesale sacrifice of animals going on.
But patience, for chrissakes! Animal eating and fishing has been going on for hundreds of centuries.
"There's a lot to be said for making people laugh. Did you know that that's all some people have? It isn't much, but it's better than nothing in this cockeyed caravan." --Joel McCrea as "Sully," in "Sullivan's Travels."
by Wildthumb on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:11:48 PM PST
case in point
by itchyredness on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:15:10 PM PST
Or just preachy self-righteous types?
by dinotrac on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 04:22:49 AM PST
vegetarians are very self-righteous and have the compulsion to let everybody know how morally inferior they are if they eat meat. After all, animals were only being turned into food for half a billion years before man even appeared on the planet.
If there is no accountability for those who authorized torture, we can no longer say that we are a nation of laws, not men.
by MikePhoenix on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:05:41 PM PST
What's probably more accurate is that the preachy ones are more noticeable and more annoying.
It's surprising how many vegetarians are actually out there -- not eating any meat, but not pointing it out to you, either.
by dinotrac on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 04:26:50 AM PST
at the preachy ones allow me to make rash generalizations.
by MikePhoenix on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 01:14:20 PM PST
but I empathize with those who are. I'm not entirely sure that it is ethical or moral to eat animals, even though at present, I do. Just my two cents.
-4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
by sunbro on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:38:52 PM PST
Empathize with the animals. Consider what's better for your body and the earth.
by MrJayTee on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:17:14 PM PST
in order that I may eat, I take some solace that the bird on my table tomorrow had a pretty good life in my yard until its time came. He had more space to roam than he and his flockmates could fully explore, and his only confinement at night was for his own safety.
Sorry tom, really, but I hope you're delicious.
"It is not, you fucking liberal prick." ..My RW friend Dave's last words to me.
by rb608 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:41:24 PM PST
I have chickens. I captured them in the neighborhood. I ended up with 20 roosters. My and my partner, RIP, killed 18 1st year roosters and made organic stock and a whole bunch of meat for winter dog stew.
The birds had been eating weeds and bugs and the fat was deep yellow. Excellent.
by qofdisks on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 12:46:18 AM PST
Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie
by Limelite on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:46:06 PM PST
She'll do it from a helicopter....a most "sporting" way.
by sunbro on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:50:14 PM PST
And FYI, we're having chicken tomorrow.
Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!
by JeffW on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:59:47 PM PST
The Olbermann commentary version is the best, if only in my opinion.
Warning: no pardoned turkeys here, in some graphic detail.
Happy Thanksgiving you guys, however you celebrate it.
God be with you, Occupiers. God IS with you.
by Hohenzollern on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:09:42 PM PST
Unfortunately Rudolph is a co-conspirator in the promotion of a mass consumer marketing and materialist society that consumes resources and energy indiscriminately, like a bunch of drunken sailors. Unfortunately, Rudolph could not effectively make the required paradigm shift so Santa-corporate level had to terminate Rudolph's employment with extreme prejudice.
by LakeSuperior on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:20:41 PM PST
Rudolph, like many herbivores, was a significant excreter of methane. (Omnivores' fecal gas is mostly carbon dioxide.) As such, he was a grave threat to global warming, due to the heat-retention features of methane. More than that, since he was out-gassing in the stratosphere (being a flying reindeer and all that) a higher proportion of his flatus was reaching -- and remaining in -- the stratosphere.
Rudolph had to die.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:10:55 PM PST
Is this the cartoonists parable involving his persona in the turkey?
by LakeSuperior on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:49:31 PM PST
I've been a vegetarian for over 14 years and Thanksgiving is tough. It is surprising to me, in this progressive community, that animal welfare isn't more prominent.
Yes, I realize there are a whole lot of human welfare issues that have to be resolved, but I wish do wish critter rights had more of a voice here.
by Pandora on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:52:48 PM PST
all of us. Yet we mock those who think that maybe factory mass killing of animals for meat might just be not only inhumane but environmentally insane, not to mention unhealthy. Come on I'm having a organic chicken tonight for dinner and using the leftovers to make enchiladas for the few meat eaters among my guests at Thanksgiving.
Half the people coming for dinner on tomorrow are either vegans or vegetarians . Eat your meat, beat your meat but why get nasty about people who have enough sense to realize where and how we get our meat and more importantly what the factory production of meat is doing to the planet. Enjoy but please do not give those who are trying to adapt to a small planet a hard time.
by shaharazade on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:45:13 PM PST
that my post was "nasty" to those who do eat meat - I made a fairly mild comment in reference to the cartoon above and stated that I wished this site was a little more critter oriented. If you choose to eat meat, that's your choice. It's just not mine.
by Pandora on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:02:14 PM PST
.... cross the road.
DOMA delenda est.
by lineatus on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:05:23 PM PST
Yep, I'm an animal.
"But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton
by anonevent on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:06:40 PM PST
So I don't see how that proves you're not a plant. Perhaps you're a fir tree that can type?
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:33:31 PM PST
oxygen and sugar.
by dinotrac on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 04:31:17 AM PST
but this is such a common misconception among biology students that I can't resist.
Plants do both. Their cells oxidize organic molecules to generate ATP (i.e. useable energy) and give off CO2 as a waste product while consuming O2. Cellular respiration just like animals.
Plants also perform photosynthesis which is essentially the same process in reverse. Overall they do more photosynthesis than respiration (hence plants grow and reproduce) but they definitely do both processes.
As demimondian points out plants are net consumers of O2 and producers of O2 at night.
"We are normal and we want our freedom" - Bonzos
by matching mole on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 07:22:36 AM PST
If "you are what you eat", then one thing's for certain: I'm no turkey!
(I guess that makes me a Tofurky or an Apple or something.)
by Liberal Thinking on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:09:34 PM PST
The Fat Man's Prayer
Lord, my soul is ripped with riot,
Incited by my wicked diet.
We are what we eat, said a wise old man,
And Lord, if that's true, I'm a garbage can!
I want to rise on Judgment Day, that's plain,
But at my present weight, I'll need a crane!
So grant me strength that I may not fall
Into the clutches of cholesterol.
May my flesh with carrot curls be sated
That my soul may be polyunsaturated.
And show me the light that I may bear witness
To the President's Council on Physical Fitness.
At oleomargarine I'll never mutter,
For the road to hell is spread with butter.
And cake is cursed, and cream is awful,
And Satan is hiding in every waffle.
Mephistopheles lurks in provolone,
The devil is in each slice of bologna,
Beelzebub is a chocolate drop,
And Lucifer is a lollipop!
Give me this day my daily slice -
But cut it thin and toast it twice.
I beg upon my dimpled knees,
Deliver me from Jujubees.
And my when days of trial are done
And my war with malted milks is won,
Let me stand with the saints in heaven
In a shining robe - Size 37!
I can do it, Lord, if you'll show to me
The virtues of lettuce and celery.
If you'll teach me the evils of mayonnaise,
The sinfulness of hollandaise
And pasta a la milanese
And potatoes a la lyonaise
And crisp fried chicken from the south!
Lord, if you love me, SHUT MY MOUTH!
"The scientific nature of the ordinary man is to go on out and do the best you can." John Prine
by high uintas on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:05:00 PM PST
If only I could live up!
by Liberal Thinking on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:57:58 PM PST
Something meat eaters should consider: What exactly gives you the right to take the meat of other animals? Just because you can? It's one thing when it's a question of survival, as it is for so many in the world, but when it's just a lifestyle choice is that really acceptable?
"They fear this man. They know he will see farther than they, and he will bind them with ancient logics." -The stoner guy in The Cabin in the Woods
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:11:56 PM PST
Why is there a moral issue at all? I'm listening -- but, despite many years of paying very close attention, I've never heard an evidence-based argument for any food animal having moral standing, except in the crudest sense, and I've seen a lot of evidence that they don't. (You might make a case for whale, although having even looked at that evidence, I think it's thinner than most advocates believe. Either way, whale is not a part of the US diet.)
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:17:44 PM PST
...saturated animal fats and the adverse effects of that?
by LakeSuperior on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:22:55 PM PST
And not one that's under debate. That's a question about wisdom and self-preservation, not a question about the moral standing of animals.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:25:06 PM PST
are you saying there is no moral or ethical component to decisions about dietary decisions and health affected by consuming animal fats?
The insides of your arteries lodge a protest against your
callous indifference to diminishing arterial radii, hun.
by LakeSuperior on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:33:44 PM PST
The question you're asking is one of self-interest. That's a fine question, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the moral standing of food animals.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:42:41 PM PST
and based on neurological evidence, I'm of the view that the line belongs at vertebrates.
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:33:26 PM PST
I would suggest that the line is someplace where there's significant contribution of prefrontal cortex and thalamocortical communication. After all, a 12 week fetus has a functional spinal cord.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:44:26 PM PST
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:47:12 PM PST
or to killing it? It seems to me that you're concerned about that actual consumption -- I truly don't see a moral issue in that.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:55:24 PM PST
Abortion is not the same issue. A fetus is not an independent organism, but an outgrowth of the mother, and the mother's right to autonomy is supreme. Also, a fetus is not as sentient as even a fish - its brain has no need to be aware of itself or its environment: It's just a biological "construction site."
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:09:48 PM PST
will never be self-aware; the thalamocortical circuits are not there, and neither is the mass of the frontal cortex.
So it's not a facile question at all, but a serious one.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:12:43 PM PST
as in having a concept of self - I mean it feels and perceives its environment, and has emotions. A cow is sentient. A fetus is not.
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:14:24 PM PST
Some animals have a qualitatively different experience of "self" than others. Cows can feel pain, yes, but they cannot anticipate it (as far as I know, they don't even exhibit learned helplessness, something which even dogs exhibit.) That's a significant difference, and it carries moral weight to me.
As a result, I don't buy the core moral argument against eating meat. I can accept the utilitarian ones (it's bad for you to eat meat because of the health consequences) or the humanitarian ones (animal husbandry is wasteful at best, and factory farming goes beyond that to outright cruelty), but I don't believe the moral arguments have much merit.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:20:29 PM PST
in such a way that they could still move around, eat, and respond to stimuli, but could no longer anticipate pain or show cognizance of self in the standard tests, it would be acceptable to shoot them and eat their corpse?
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:41:53 PM PST
Yes. In fact, we do that all the time; see Schaivo, T.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:52:04 PM PST
There's no resemblance between that and cow-level animal sentience. Terri Schiavo could not feed herself.
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:53:28 PM PST
That's a pretty strong claim -- and I don't think I accept it. Yes, a healthy steer is capable of eating or grazing. I don't see that that proves anything about sentience.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:01:10 PM PST
because there is no resemblance between a human in a vegetative state and a healthy cow capable of responding to their environment.
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 10:19:56 PM PST
A fetus responds to its environment, albeit in very basic ways, like "enough oxygen/not enough oxygen". It kicks when the mother drinks something cold; it stops moving when it's ill. Everything perceives its environment in some way. Emotions I don't know about, but then I've never seen evidence of fish having emotions, either.
by evilstorm on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 02:05:21 AM PST
I have. Squids are enormously intelligent creatures, as I found out when one came up to me (when I was snorkeling off Japan) and lampooned by snorkel goggles by positioning himself right in front of my face and then lifting his arms up into the shape of my lens rims while looking right at me and holding that position for well over ten seconds. I wasn't able to ask his/her views on mortality, but it was an astounding experience nonetheless.
by Eikyu Saha on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:09:26 PM PST
Because they suffer, and we have a choice not to participate in that suffering. Justify it all you want, but the moral question is no more complicated than that.
by animal mother on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:42:19 PM PST
And, no, that's not an answer. You're asking about our moral duties, not an animal's moral standing. The original question was "What gives you the right..."; my response is "What evidence is that that I need anything to give me that right?" Saying "They suffer" does not answer that question.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:00:22 PM PST
that non-human animals suffer by your participation in killing them with a strained argument about "moral standing," which as far as I can tell is an intellectual fabrication that serves to justify your preference for eating animals, but has no basis in reality. As I stated previously, justify all you want. And by all means, get creative.
by animal mother on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:59:56 PM PST
to kill and eat plants?
Sounds like a silly question, doesn't it? You probably don't consider plants particularly morally-relevant. They're relevant enough that you probably wouldn't want to cause extinctions of entire species, and there are some individual plants (probably mostly things like old growth trees) that you wouldn't want to kill, but most individual food plants aren't terribly important in a moral sense.
In other words, you don't believe that all living things have equal moral relevance - you view it as a spectrum, and you draw a particular line below which it's permissible to kill things for food.
Meat-eaters just draw that line in a different place.
by kyril on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:27:07 PM PST
For people with no viable alternative options, being carnivorous is ethically acceptable. For those that do, it's not. Living things with vertebrate nervous systems have many of the same perceptual / emotional systems as we do, even if it's less complex - you wouldn't say it's okay to kill a human with brain damage that leaves them in the behavioral state of an animal, would you? Plants don't have these systems.
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:37:35 PM PST
which serve much the same purpose.
by kyril on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:54:10 PM PST
I have a comprehensive biology textbook on my shelf that weighs more than my computer describing every facet of plant biology that a non-professional could possibly understand, and there's nothing remotely analogous to the vertebrate nervous system among plants. But, of course, I would defer to any biologist who says otherwise since I'm a layman.
But even ignoring that for the moment, once again, humans have to eat to live and be healthy. So it's acceptable for people who have no viable alternatives to eat meat; and it's acceptable for me to eat plants, since that is the morally best option (not to mention ecologically best option).
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:21:42 PM PST
You don't have to consume any living thing to survive. You could eat the excretions, they create -- say milk or honey or syrup. You could "farm" bacteria like E. coli to produce amino acids and other compounds. If you really wanted to do it you could eat food that required nothing, not plant nor animal, would die. Face it, we kill plants because it's convenient. But technology is probably going to save our bacon (and quite literally). We're going to have to start growing food outside of the traditional sense. In sci-fi there are concepts of things called "cornucopic vats". Basically you pump in raw materials, C - H - O - N and energy (and some trace elements) and out comes food. It'll be like tofu only with less flavor. With billions of mouths to feed and global warming playing havoc on the food chain it's going to be dining from vats or starving in less than a century. Then nobody will be a carnivore or even a herbivore. Well all be tofuvores.
To me progress is not so much a goal as it is a process and I believe it will not follow a straight course. Remember, the drops of water that form the river may not take the shortest path but they will still reach the ocean.
by ontheleftcoast on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 12:54:46 AM PST
to eating plants and their products. Viable alternative - i.e., one that doesn't take more energy away from me in the execution of a complex program than it provides in nutrition. I fully believe science will some day construct food molecule by molecule, and not require the death of anything more advanced than rocks, but that day is not yet here.
by Troubadour on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 01:01:01 AM PST
I might, depending on the previously expressed wishes of the person in question. There's the question -- I suggest that you're ignoring the ability to foresee consequences, and even to recognize "self" that all food animals lack -- that ability is limited to some chimpanzees, dolphins, some whales, and, of course, humans.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:08:10 PM PST
If someone expresses a wish that someone should kill them if they ever leave their church, that doesn't mean it should be done if that event happens. Vegetative states are one thing - in that case, the closest thing to sentient will is their past expressions - but animal states are just will devoid of logic, and logic is not a requirement for rights (otherwise little children wouldn't have any).
by Troubadour on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 11:26:20 PM PST
That's what I'll be having tomorrow. No turkeys involved (and it's delicious).
I left my heart in NAZ.
by Scott in NAZ on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:16:07 PM PST
That, you could make a case for or against.
However, you cannot make a case for the factory farm...
An eye for an eye and the whole world will be blind.
by rini6 on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:30:55 PM PST
William Roberts M.D., editor of a journal for cardiologists, said something along these lines:
First we kill the animals to eat them, and then they kill us.
by True North on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:31:18 PM PST
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so.-Richard Dawkins
by NJS on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:51:48 PM PST
The entire animal world on one gigantic eating frenzy to stay alive. It's nature, and it's built-in. And animals feel no sympathy for the eaten. Even less so when you move down the chain. Can you imagine insect empathy? I don't think so.
Jane Goddall, someone I admire greatly, thought the chimpanzee a superior animal till she saw them warring on other chimp tribes and actually killing chimp babies. She was actually disgusted and disappointed in them for awhile.
But as my mother used to say, "they don't know any better."
by Wildthumb on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:17:01 PM PST
Honestly, to the extent that this is a moral question, the moral burden is one we, and we alone, bear. They may not know better; the question is "should we?" That's not an easy question.
by demimondian on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:29:29 PM PST
fucking LOVE your arrogance.
This is why people like you blow potential allies like me away.
You are fucking clueless, aren't you? I'll bet you're a joy to be around with your holier-than-thou bullshit.
by Wildthumb on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 09:38:52 PM PST
you needed to know how to draw.
by MikePhoenix on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:59:27 PM PST
Made me smile and YES we are animals
I at times kill my own meat, I feel no guilt, turkeys, chickens, cows, etc. are not people, neither are fish. Come on guys it's a cartoon it's designed to make you think,
The rule of law is what stands between all of us and the arbitrary exercise of power by the state.
by babatunde on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 08:59:27 PM PST
with the killing cones stuffed with bleeding turkeys behind her. Hilarious.
by qofdisks on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 12:40:26 AM PST
Hey urbanites. Turkeys are not grown in cages nor are they given growth hormones. Apparently even people who write cartoon satire don't have a clue how farms operate.
They either need to educate themselves or stop commenting. That's the choice. This ignorance does give farmers like me a laugh though. It is quite funny.
by kman2 on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 05:19:43 AM PST
The morality of eating animals is complicated given human history contrasted with the progression of our ethics. Bending the arc towards food sources that are environmentally friendly, healthy, and which reduce suffering is a good thing. This cartoon is part of that conversation. If the arrogance of the argument bothers you then it says more about you then it does about them. An arrogant argument that the earth is 6000 years old does not make me angry. An arrogant argument that slavery is morally wrong strengthens not weakens it.
by spokanian on Thu Nov 22, 2012 at 08:29:27 AM PST
by you on soon
Or you may make changes below and Preview again, or Cancel this comment.
Donate to support Daily Kos.
© Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified
“Kos” and “Daily Kos” are registered trademarks of Kos Media, LLC