Catmoves’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thank you, Ann Cooper and Kate Adamick. I'm well aware that big farming and food supplying are gigantic businesses here. So big, that I am reminded that we can live without gasoline if we have to, but the same cannot be said about food. For my part. I'm getting sick and tired of hearing about profits for the shareholders, when I know that statement isn't the driving force. I'd describe it as more of a "how much can I put in my pocket?" syndrome.On A parable on the National School Lunch Program posted 4 days, 2 hours ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Grey is right. We fought a horrible war against our mother country for the right of Citizens to control the country they live, not some authoritative ruler or tsar to make decisions for us. Many bills were scanned more ridgedly when they were philibustered against. And the people got the chance to tell their representatives what they wanted. It should frighten every single American when someone wants to take that right from us.On One reason Congress might consider scrapping the filibuster posted 4 days, 2 hours ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I don't think I could agree with you less. Taking a shot at Bill McKibben is not going to do a single thing to get BO to focus on the issue. Using a balky Congress to defend The One? Oh, shame on you. Here's some points: 1. B. Obama in the leader of the Democrat Party. 2. Both houses of the Congress are controlled by Democrat votes. 3. The leader of the party needs, then, to lead the party. 4. Having basically ignored this issue during the "honeymoon" period, our leader has failed his chance to be really effective where climate change is concerned. 5. He seems even less interested now. You also state: "He (Bill McKibben) says Obama is 'not particularly focused' on climate (while linking to coverage of an Obama speech dedicated to climate)." May I point out that one more speech from B. Obama is no longer likely to interest the American public? I've seen it written in more than one place. The public is giving him his due as an orator, but the grade is F as far as being able to get action from a recalcitrant Congress. Making excuses is not really anything like making progress, now is it?On Is Bill McKibben right to be angry with Obama? posted 4 days, 2 hours ago 35 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I agree that the Federal elected officials are our target in order to get action that will help protect the American consumer. And I can't think of anyone in a better position to "put the heat on" than Tom Philpott. How about it? Will you start the loyal opposition?On Why the USDA has no business overseeing conditions on factory farms, and more posted 4 days, 2 hours ago 15 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  The "group of researchers" may constitute Michelle and her kids for all we know. (I wonder why she is even mentioned here? Someone making brownie points?) And although I have recognized that college sophomores and white rats score virtually identically on maze tests, I have no intention of relying on the rats to predict, nor explain any rational human behaviour. This kind of article, purporting to be "scientifically" based should be relegated to the Sunday newspaper fillers. I will point out that at one time tobacco was simply a mild drug that anyone should be able to avoid using continually. The manufacturers killed that off by adding chemicals to keep users hooked. (Oh, yeah, our government came to the "rescue" by spending billions of our dollars when all that would have been needed was to prevent that from happening.) Now, the same sort of thing has happened to our foods. The conglomerate food processors have given us smaller and thinner shelled eggs (your grandmother would have looked at one of graded "large" eggs and sniffed. And she would have been correct to say "that's a small egg". But that downsizing isn't all. Now the giant "farmers" are giving us irradiated foods and hybrids that carry only a part of the nutrition we really need to sustain ourselves. So we eat more, the clothing manufacturers are happy (at least those in China) the "government" and "special interest" groups are avoiding the logical step of testing this garbage we are being sold as nutritious and we grow obese. Want something to think about? Diabetes was, a few years ago, an affliction that was minimally taking its toll. Today, there is a subculture of millions of people suffering and dying because of its sudden growth. Sugar seems to have taken the upper hand in this, but as it reacts in different ways depending on with what it is mixed we can't say it is the cause of diabetes. There are no known studies underway about this problem. For those interested in a bit more chemistry, the food you give your dogs and cats from those cans and bags is primarily chemically manufactured. As we are aware, cats and dogs are carnivores. (They are not herbivores nor omnivores.) That title alone tells us that their bodies are designed (and function best) when they have meat to eat. Giving them chemically altered vegetables and fruits is not what Mom Nature planned for them. Think about what we are doing to our defenseless pets.On Scientists claim junk food is as addictive as heroin posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 18 Responses