If a foetus isn’t a baby even though it’s fertilised, then what is your issue with eating unfertilised [free range] eggs?
…eh, probably something to do with consent.
because, vegans do not eat any animal products. Regardless of how ‘humane’ the animals are kept. Personally, I think eggs are disgusting. I have never liked the taste and have never been keen on them. I guess it’s hard for most others to understand this.
Not to mention the terrible conditions in which egg laying hens are kept (yes, even if the carton says free range). Free range often means as many hens as possible crammed into a barn; maybe there aren’t any cages, but humane? I think not. Can I support this because I sometimes enjoy eating eggs? No.
Also, taking the entire pro-choice argument and boiling it down to the argument over personhood, or when life begins, or whatever you want to call it, is to show utter disregard for the movement itself. I honestly feel that the argument over personhood and when it begins is a republican/tea party ploy to distract the public from the real issues. Will abortion stop if it is outlawed. Nope, sorry. Does pro-choice mean pro-abortion. Nope again. I’m not advocating for people to have abortions, I am advocating for giving women and girls the resources and education they need to make the right decision for themselves, pre and post conception. This is about keeping abortion safe and legal so that it is available for a woman when she needs it. Cutting off resources to a woman in a time of need and vulnerability is exactly the kind of ridiculous callous behavior that I have come to expect only from the most fundamental conservatives (which is unfortunate, because I try so hard not to be disgusted by them). Better education. More medical resources. Choice for all women. And oh yeah, Go vegan too.
The Washington Post and others this week published articles about the diminishing size of the tea party movement. WaPo bemoaned the tea party’s “outsized” influence in Congress and pointed to a recent New York Times poll that showed 18% “support” nationwide for the Tea Party. But what does that number really mean? For more perspective, let’s look at a Gallup Poll from this week.
from CNS News:
The percentage of Americans who expressly state that they are supporters of the Tea Party movement is currently about as large at 22 percent of the population as the 21 percent who say they are liberals, according to recent but separate Gallup polls.
Meanwhile, at 41 percent of the population, according to Gallup, self-described conservatives outnumber both Tea Party movement supporters and liberals by nearly 2-to-1.
The Gallup poll did indicate fewer people identifying themselves as “supporters” of the Tea Party movement than at this time last year. However, as we have pointed out recently, the number of people identifying themselves as “conservative” is growing. Currently, Gallup shows 41% of Americans describing themselves as “conservative” as opposed to 21% who consider themselves “liberal” or 36% who call themselves “moderate.”
So, what can we draw from this? For starters, the Tea Party as the spontaneous bursts of mass protest that we saw during the healthcare debate is less noticeable than it was a year ago. The Tea Party has instead gotten more organized, worked on electing people to Congress, shifted towards activist training, and in some cases officially registered as lobbying groups. Meanwhile, the media has done an effective job of “Palinizing” the Tea Party. Note all the recent “tea party is a bunch of hostage-taking terrorists” talk from mainstream media and members of Congress. Nobody wants to identify themselves as a terrorist or “teabagger.”
Despite all this, the Tea Party still enjoys support from 22% of the American public, which is larger than the group of people who identify themselves as “liberals.” You won’t see that printed in the Washington Post, but the facts are the facts. Whether the media likes it or not and regardless if it’s known as the “tea party” or something else, conservatism is here to stay.
Bad news. I want to do something but I don’t know how or what.
Anyone who characterizes the deal between the President, Democratic, and Republican leaders as a victory for the American people over partisanship understands neither economics nor politics.
The deal does not raise taxes on America’s wealthy and most fortunate — who are now taking home a larger share of total income and wealth, and whose tax rates are already lower than they have been, in eighty years. Yet it puts the nation’s most important safety nets and public investments on the chopping block.
It also hobbles the capacity of the government to respond to the jobs and growth crisis. Added to the cuts already underway by state and local governments, the deal’s spending cuts increase the odds of a double-dip recession. And the deal strengthens the political hand of the radical right.
Yes, the deal is preferable to the unfolding economic catastrophe of a default on the debt of the U.S. government. The outrage and the shame is it has come to this choice.
More than a year ago, the President could have conditioned his agreement to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond 2010 on Republicans’ agreement not to link a vote on the debt ceiling to the budget deficit. But he did not.
Many months ago, when Republicans first demanded spending cuts and no tax increases as a condition for raising the debt ceiling, the President could have blown their cover. He could have shown the American people why this demand had nothing to do with deficit reduction but everything to do with the GOP’s ideological fixation on shrinking the size of the government — thereby imperiling Medicare, Social Security, education, infrastructure, and everything else Americans depend on. But he did not.
And through it all the President could have explained to Americans that the biggest economic challenge we face is restoring jobs and wages and economic growth, that spending cuts in the next few years will slow the economy even further, and therefore that the Republicans’ demands threaten us all. Again, he did not.
The radical right has now won a huge tactical and strategic victory. Democrats and the White House have proven they have little by way of tactics or strategy.
By putting Medicare and Social Security on the block, they have made it more difficult for Democrats in the upcoming 2012 election cycle to blame Republicans for doing so.
By embracing deficit reduction as their apparent goal – claiming only that they’d seek to do it differently than the GOP – Democrats and the White House now seemingly agree with the GOP that the budget deficit is the biggest obstacle to the nation’s future prosperity.
The budget deficit is not the biggest obstacle to our prosperity. Lack of jobs and growth is. And the largest threat to our democracy is the emergence of a radical right capable of getting most of the ransom it demands.