Comments askantik has made

  • If you don't like mushrooms, that's fine... but what difference does it make if they have more in common with animals than plants? And the same could be said of yeast. But they are neither... that is why they are in the fungi kingdom.On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 2 days, 22 hours ago 31 Responses
  • Yeah, you're right. It was a completely legitimate and nicely asked question... About as legitimate as if when you said you ride a bicycle to use less oil, I said, "But what about the fossil fuels burned to make your bike and its tires?"On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 4 days, 3 hours ago 31 Responses
  • Yeah, you're right. It was a completely legitimate and nicely asked question... About as legitimate as if when you said you ride a bicycle to use less oil, I said, "But what about the fossil fuels burned to make your bike and its tires?"On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 4 days, 3 hours ago 31 Responses
  • Do you really expect people to be motivated enough to respectfully respond to you when you are a caustic d-bag?On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 6 days, 1 hour ago 31 Responses
  • Mushrooms are delicious, but they don't really have a ton of protein. In one of the big caps, there's only about 3g. However, one doesn't have to have huge amounts of protein... even most vegetarians consume too much protein. So if you have some side dishes, it really doesn't matter. By the way, did I mention that mushrooms are delicious? I highly suggest trying oyster mushrooms.On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 6 days, 20 hours ago 31 Responses
  • I don't think Thanksgiving is a celebration of the genocide of Native Americans. At least, not for me... I can't speak for others. But if you wanna know something that really irks me is that we have a national holiday for Christopher Columbus, the man who thought the natives were stupid the moment he met him (you can read some of his writing on the subject), yet he never even realized he wasn't in the Indies, heh...On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 1 week ago 31 Responses
  • Sorry :D http://theppk.com/recipes/dbrecipes/index.php?RecipeID=112On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 1 week ago 31 Responses
  • I don't think Tom is necessarily saying we need to pull some new agency out of our ass, I just think he's saying we need to recognize that the USDA in their very core have a conflict of interest. I don't see how they will have much of an incentive to properly and responsible oversee an industry if they also think they are supposed to be giving it a boost. As far as I'm concerned, we can stop giving my tax money to "help" gigantic corporations that create jobs, but these jobs are very low-paying, dangerous, high-turnover jobs that ruin the small communities they show up in and exude all sorts of bad stuff into the environment. But at the very least, we need to have a separation of business interests and public interests (public interests being primarily safety).On Why the USDA has no business overseeing conditions on factory farms, and more posted 1 week ago 16 Responses
  • A couple people act like Tom is making a crazy proposal (omg, who will regulate it if not the USDA!?), when I think the main point is that it's fundamentally counter-intuitive and counter-productive to have an agency whose job is to promote these industries and also regulate them. Our government should be promoting intelligent farming (i.e., not CAFOs, not subsidizing a select few crops heavily, etc.), but more importantly, they shouldn't be so caught up in helping the business aspect of these industries that they become unable to responsibly oversee them because they have a vested interest in NOT analyzing their practices.On Why the USDA has no business overseeing conditions on factory farms, and more posted 1 week ago 16 Responses
  • In my opinion, a better-tasting, cheaper, and "greener" protein at Thanksgiving would be homemade seitan. It's quite easy to make and is quite scrumptious if you get a decent recipe. You can even make a big log shape of it and put it in the crock pot with some potatoes and carrots and a mushroom gravy. Sliced, it doesn't look like turkey (it's too dark), but the texture is pretty close and it's never dry. Plus you can flavor it exactly like you want. Try this recipe. I usually leave the lemon zest, tomato paste, and soy sauce out and just use some veggie broth and seasonings of my choice. I'm not sure how much of a difference the nutritional yeast makes for the taste, but it's healthy, so I toss it in. If you want something different, you can always fry, saute, or grill the finished seitan. Highly recommended over any pre-packaged stuff. It takes a little work, but most of the time spent to make it is just the stuff simmering in a pot of water. I'll be making some next week! Along with some vegan green bean casserole (I can't recommend this recipe enough: http://blog.fatfreevegan.com/2006/11/best-vegan-green-bean-casserole.html) and some vegan pecan pie.On A tasting of four meatless "turkeys" for the holiday table posted 1 week ago 31 Responses
  • This is one of the major arguments against animal research aside from ethics-- are they reliable? There are all sorts of things that are harmful to rabbits or mice or rats that aren't harmful to humans and vice versa. I'm unsure why with all the alternatives (there is an entire center at Johns Hopkins University devoted to supporting alternatives to animal testing) that many scientists are still embracing it as the end-all, be-all solution. But then, we do a lot of dumb shit, like put stuff in our shampoo and soap that we have to squirt into animals' eyes or down their throat in an attempt to see if it's safe-- as if enough well-documented, safe ingredients aren't readily available for these products.On While scientists fight over BPA studies, Congress could just act posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 1 Response
  • Something else that is interesting on this topic is The China Study. It was extremely extensive, but I'll let you do the reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study It's available in book form, which I'm sure is a long but interesting read, but I've never sat down with it.On Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp posted 1 month ago 85 Responses
  • MKR, While I don't see how the typos can be helpful in any way, I don't think they completely detract from the entire meaning or base of the argument, as Bush's mess ups did.On Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp posted 1 month ago 85 Responses
  • Again, you have ignored the sources of the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This is getting old.On Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp posted 1 month ago 85 Responses
  • FP... Wow? Perhaps you missed the MIT, FAO, and NY Times material? No crap (that is not the word I wanted to use) there are 2 sides to every story... Which is why I provided multiple sources. Seriously, you asked for sources and I gave plenty... despite the fact that you can use Google just as well as me.On Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp posted 1 month ago 85 Responses
  • Most dairy cows are kept in CAFOS. If the EPA tells you about it (which is a "neutral" source) one can only imagine what you'd dig up if you were really looking. http://www.epa.gov/region7/water/cafo/index.htm This gives the definition of an AFO and a CAFO (see the .PDF). A large CAFO can have 700+ dairy cows. The picture on the front page is a CAFO and I'm pretty certain those are Holsteins (though I'm no expert at cow breeds), but those are dairy cows. And of course they have to be confined-- if they roamed pasture all day, they couldn't take the calves from the mother within 24 hours of birth. Then the male calves get fattened up for a little bit and become veal. It's all about profit, and you can't make quite as much if you have all your cows out grazin' all the time.On Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp posted 1 month ago 85 Responses
  • JohnnyAppleseed, it's not necessary that a farmer be organic to be sued for patent infringement of GMOs. May I suggest "The Future of Food" or these fine links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff Here a man was sued by Monsanto (and imprisoned) for saving his GMO seeds because Monsanto says he is supposed to buy new ones every year. That's another reason why the have modified seeds which make sterile plants (so you can't save seeds). http://www.memphisdailynews.com/editorial/Article.aspx?id=30496 Also these: "The non-profit Center for Food Safety listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement." It goes into briefly with this guy in "The Future of Food," but the full story can be read on his website: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ The entire Wikipedia article on Monsanto (and likewise on Cargill, DuPont) has f---ed up things with decent sources. There are a handful of documentaries (like "The Future of Food" and "Suicide Seeds" and "The World According to Monsanto") which outline such examples. http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/rough/2005/07/seeds_of_suicid.html www.centerforfoodsafety.org http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?currentPage=1 People think that GMOs are just a technology that is being debated. It couldn't be farther from the truth.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 month ago 44 Responses
  • Well even if your freezer is more energy efficient when empty (or close to), it kind of defeats the purpose to have a freezer if it doesn't have stuff in it!On Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods posted 1 month ago 23 Responses
  • Interesting, thanks. Though Eden is quite a bit more expensive than my local grocer's storebrand organics :(On Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods posted 1 month ago 23 Responses
  • @foodprovider, you wanted to know about cattle and deforestation: ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0262e/a0262e00.pdf http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2006/final/threats/threat_agg.html http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/world/americas/07deforest.html http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/cattle-ranching-biggest-driver http://www.causecast.org/news_items/9088-cattle-industry-drives-brazilian-amazon-deforestation http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/01/cattle-pastures-amazon-deforestation-iceland.phpOn Corn-based meat and ethanol: burning the planet to a crisp posted 1 month ago 85 Responses
  • It's a bit misleading to factor in the freezer efficiency, since 95% of us will have our fridge and freezer running whether it's empty or the freezer is overflowing with frozen food. Right? I mean, your freezer doesn't use less energy when it's empty, does it? Also, is there any way to avoid BPA or know which manufacturers use it in their cans? I'm assuming BPA is still allowed even in organic certification, but you'd think that maybe some organic/natural companies have voluntarily opted out of using BPA. I buy mostly organic canned goods, but I buy the store brand organic because of price (sorry, I can't spend $2.50 on a really nice name brand can of chili beans when I need 3 or 4 cans to make a big batch of chili). As for store brands, there's not a lot of info on them online, as you can imagine. http://www.mothering.com/discussions/showthread.php?t=852625 That thread lists some responses by Thai Kitchen, Whole Foods brand, and Edward and Sons about BPA in their coconut milk. TK and WF said they use BPA and Edward and Sons said they do not, but they use "Epoxy Phenolic Aluminised Sulphur Resistant lacquer" on the inside of their cans. So no Bisphenol-A, but it is "phenolic" (which means made of phenols). I don't know much about organic chemistry at all, so I don't know. It seems like if steel cans are such a problem that they always need some kind of liner, maybe we should switch to glass jars?On Ask Umbra on canned and frozen foods posted 1 month ago 23 Responses
  • You don't know of any monocultures? May I suggest the state of Iowa, for starters? Entire communities exist around hundreds of thousands of acres of nothing but corn (mostly GM) year after year. There are similarly canola and soy and cotton monocultures across America. "Isn't the goal of an organic producer to produce the highest quality product with as little negative impact to their land?" Yes, but when you know relatively nothing about how GMOs will disperse in the environment and affect the local ecosystem and crop diversity, you can't claim it's going to have "little negative impact." It's actually way more likely to require additional pesticides and fertilizer (as already noted), burden already poor farmers, and could potentially reduce (or destroy) age-old crop cultivars. "As far as GMO crops forcing extensive debt on farmers? Get real!" I didn't say GMO farmers are poor. I said they once committed, they have no real chance of going back because of contamination, and for people who are already low on money, supposed increased yields at first may sound appetizing, but then they can become trapped. Monsanto can legally in both the US and Canada (and some other countries) walk onto your property WITHOUT your consent and test your crops. If they find GMO of theirs and you didn't buy it, they can sue you. But it might have come from Farmer John across the road, you say. "Too bad, you have our seed, you pay," Monsanto says. May I suggest "The Future of Food" which touches on this quite a bit.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 month ago 44 Responses
  • Funny that you mention that-- the reason I am opposed to GMOs is because that while they may (MAY, not "do") produce a greater yield in the short term, in the long term they will inevitably lead to soil erosion (due to increased fertilizer and pesticide applications... many GMOs won't even grow with Round-Up, for example), pests will build up resistances, beneficial species (like insects) may be harmed, and GMOs encourage monoculture... which is like a big welcoming banner that says, "DEAR NEW CROP DISEASE, PLEASE COME HERE AND DEVASTATE ME!" Not to mention the additional energy and monetary costs of these pesticides and fertilizers and seeds... which usually can't be saved, because they are designed to be sterile... forcing poor people to buy new seeds every year. How does this help impoverished farmers???? The best thing we can do to increase food security and support the local agroecology is to use polyculture, particularly "companion" species in the way that Native Americans often did with maize, beans, squash, sunflowers, etc. Then you have the problem of places like Mexico where they have dozens and dozens of varieties of maize that will likely be lost (save for, perhaps, seed vaults) when GM becomes widespread. It is already cropping up (no pun intended) in parts of Mexico. Most plants already have cultivars which are suited to certain climates and conditions. We should be utilizing these and encourage additional selective breeding, as have been done for thousands of years. We should also provide education on green manure, cover crops, etc.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 month ago 44 Responses
  • I fail to see how anyone can support GMO. Oh wait, yes I do. They blindly think that more yield for a couple years outweighs everything else and have no idea what agroecology is or what biodiversity means... And have no respect for the fact that people are getting sued left and right by companies like Monsanto. These ag companies already have enough money and lobbying... with Gates behind them I fear for the worst.On Bill Gates reveals support for GMO ag posted 1 month ago 44 Responses
  • Please tell me you were being sarcastic when you said you didn't think the world was 15 million years old. Because it's actually over 4 billion years old. I certainly agree with you that science can be wrong at times and can't explain everything (which is why I don't like people like Richard Dawkins, who espouse science, but claim to "know" that there is nothing beyond the physical realm, but I digress). Nevertheless, science is arguably the world's most powerful tool for gaining real and practical knowledge about existence and the world around us. It can't answer all questions (obviously) and is sometimes wrong, but that doesn't mean you should ignore it altogether... There is a "study" disproving everything, but in most cases it is hardly 50/50. People say that there are studies that show the earth is cooling rather than warming. And that's true. But those studies make up about 1% of all the climatic studies and often times those 1% are funded by people with vested interests in subduing talk of global warming.On Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures posted 1 month ago 33 Responses
  • Thanks for the nice illustrations, David. I don't understand why so many people don't seem to get it. I always hear or read people saying, "Well, soon "they" will figure it out and we'll be okay." As if to say, some scientist somewhere will come up with some miracle technology that will continue to let us (as Branson said), "carry on flying our planes and driving our cars." It just ain't so... It starts at the foundation: lifestyle and philosophy/viewpoint change. Sure, technology will play a role (likely a prominent one), but the BIG HEADLINE THAT NO ONE SHOULD MISS is that we simply can't keep doing business as usual. Period.On Why Branson and SuperFreakonomics are wrong, in pictures posted 1 month, 1 week ago 33 Responses

  • Sorry to be crude, but this is motherf****ing brilliant.  After all the blind praise of this man (especially people pointing to the Penn & Tenller "Bullsh!t" episide (ugh, Penn and Teller, really?), it is a relief that someone actually understands the true nature of this all.


    Borlaug may have helped people in the short term, but he disadvantaged greater numbers of people down the road, as explained by Tom. 

    On Thoughts on the legacy of Norman Borlaug posted 2 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

  • Yes, male chicks are usually killed by hatcheries.  There's no need for them.  It's very similar to how male calves birthed by dairy cows are usually sold as veal.  So in essence, there's also veal in every glass of milk.

    It really surprises me how many people ask this same question, so don't feel bad.  Umbra wrote, "Hens, like women, produce eggs whether or not there is a chance of fertilization."  Additionally, women are not letting babies die everytime they ovulate.

    On Ask Umbra on sex ... chicken sex, that is posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 14 Responses

  • Ok, all this talk about flying less is good... but point me to a place that offers a ship that will take members of the public to Europe or Asia.  Or point me to a committee that's planning a Trans-Atlantic (or Trans-Pacific) roadway.  Not only because of family and friends abroad, but because the world is a nice place that I'd like to see. 


    Some alternatives would be nice.

    On Ask Umbra on flying less posted 3 months, 1 week ago 17 Responses

  • Sorry, no matter how you look at it, taking grains and crops to feed to animals that humans could be eating directly is inefficient.  And there isn't enough grass in America for the amount of cows we want to eat to all be grass-fed.  Period.

    On Debunking the meat/climate change myth posted 3 months, 2 weeks ago 92 Responses

  • Um...

    Not trying to be an ass or anything, merely pointing out facts, but T. Boone Pickens has had an ad on TV since back in June.  You guys did know that, right?  This isn't his first one...On T. Boone Pickens airs his first television ad posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

  • A choice

    It's still more effective to eat no meat than it is to eat kangaroo meat.  Plus, I'd say for many people it's probably easier to abstain from meat altogether than to replace beef with kangaroo.  I mean, that's just my guess.On Aussies should fight climate change by eating kangaroo, says study posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

  • thank you, javaearth

    I agree with your comment wholeheartedly.  I don't understand the desire for meat.  We don't need it-- so why eat it?  It is cruel to take a sentient creature's life when you don't need to.  That's that.  No arguments or theories or anything like that.  Besides, I eat a much broader variety of foods since I've become a vegetarian/vegan than I ever did before.  I am a (very) amateur chef and I never feel like my meals need meat to be complete.  

    I commend the writer for trying to be more informed, but I will never understand why some feel compelled to eat meat.  We don't need it, it's usually unhealthy, it's usually bad for the environment, and a living, breathing animal has to die.  Rather than win-win, it seems more like a lose-lose to me.  But then again, I ate meat for a long time.  I've been one of those very same people, so I've no right to judge anyone.  Oh, what a difference in viewpoint I have nowadays :)On If you're going to eat meat, you can't shy away from the whole beast posted 1 year, 4 months ago 41 Responses

  • The only real point for veganism

    Is that it unnecessarily causes pain and suffering.  Seeking the way to non-violence can only be achieved by directly seeing the problem.  I don't believe in telling people that becoming vegan or vegetarian is better for their health or the environment or anything like that...  Sure, those things are usually true, but those are the reasons people make it into a short-term diet rather than a lifestyle.  

    I am looking at visiting Bhutan and one site about the country said this: "Buddhism has been the predominant religion since the 7th century and has inculcated deeply the value that all forms of sentinent life, not just human life, are precious and sacred.  Given such a prevailing ethos which respects the natural environment, it is not surprising that the Bhutanese have lived in harmony with nature and that the nation has its environment still pristine and intact today."

    Just something to think about.  

    Now, no one has even said anything about this, but I feel compelled to say it anyhow-- that gets me in trouble a lot.  However, please know that I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone, but rather I'm trying to explain why I'm vegan in an intelligent matter so that no one thinks that all vegans are insane PETA people who throw paint on your fur coat or ALF people who burn down buildings :).  So the final thing is: for anyone who thinks that locally-raised meat is 'humane,' I'm not trying to be an overbearing ass or anything, but please remember that the word humane means to be treated as a human.  Raising something for the sole purpose of slaughter (when we don't need it to survive), no matter how good of a life it lived, is not treating it like a human.  Of course, that doesn't mean you can't do it, but I just get a little miffed when I see ads online for "humanely raised" beef.  What is humane about killing something when we don't have to?

    You can flame me, but just remember I never asked you to watch "Meet Your Meat."  :POn The all-powerful talk-show host ends her vegan cleanse posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

  • The last thing we need is more oil

    Why do we want to drill for oil in the ocean or in the ANWR when it is just putting off the inevitable?  We are going to HAVE to find other energy sources.  Besides our society being unsustainable, oil is running out.  It may not run out for 20 or 50 years, or it may run out tomorrow.  Regardless, there is no excuse for starting now.  We don't need oil, we're just lazy and cheap bastards.  At least that is my opinion :)

    Oh, and another one of my opinions is that I love hate John McCain.On Backing up McCain, Bush calls for ending offshore drilling moratorium posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

  • Hmm.

    I fear that you didn't read my entire comment.  Else you would've seen my disclaimer at the end.  

    Either way, I can make my argument, just as you can make yours.  Everyone will not become a vegetarian, much less a vegan, but that does not stop me from trying to make an intelligent case for it.  I became one, and so have many others, after years of eating meat, wearing leather, etc...  It's not impossible for people to change of their own accord.  

    And it's not about "converting" someone... it's about being passionate about what you feel is right to your very deepest core.  I do not like people who try to push their beliefs on others-- I tried to make that clear in my comment.  All I ask is that you respect my beliefs and I will respect yours.  But two people can still respect each other while disagreeing and having a rational, intelligent argument about something.  If they couldn't, then we wouldn't be where we are today.On Food Network star Alton Brown adds a pinch of sustainability to the pot posted 1 year, 5 months ago 27 Responses

  • Uh...

    If it doesn't affect farming, forestry, or golf courses... what exactly DOES it affect...?On Ontario enacts province-wide pesticide ban; fine print upsets greens posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

  • Meh...

    I don't really agree with his statement about it being better to work for better treatment of animals that to stop eating them.  That may be the case for him, considering his viewpoint on the subject, but I do not feel the same way.

    As for sustainability, even if all animals areraised by small farmers, meat and dairy products will always (yep, always) be less efficient than eating plant foods.  It's called the food chain... and the higher up you go, the less efficient it is, even in nature, where it's about as sustainable as it gets.  

    Furthermore, and most importantly (to me), I personally don't care if all animals get world-class treatment and live in condominiums with butlers until the ripe age of 50-- the fact remains that they are raised, unnecessarily, for the sole purpose of slaughter.  It doesn't matter how "sustainable" or "organic" or "humane" you make it, that's how it is.  Fundamentally, it clashes with my personal philosophy.  If he is okay with it, then that is fine.  

    And he can say what he thinks doesn't make sense, but I feel that it doesn't make sense to eat animals when it's unnecessary (especially for Westerners), in most cases less healthy, always less energy efficient, and lowers the general food supply rather than raising it.  I do not see the point in taking a life when I do not need to.  It provides me with little (or no) comfort to know that the animal's life was good up until the its death.

    Anyway, I feel deeply that everyone is welcome to have their point of view.  But I also feel deeply that I should be able to express mine.  I hope I do not come across as an asshole, because I certainly don't mean to.  I just strive to create an intelligent argument for compassion towards animals that is far from any of the extreme, stupid shit that PETA and it's allies do.  Thanks!
    On Food Network star Alton Brown adds a pinch of sustainability to the pot posted 1 year, 5 months ago 27 Responses

  • An interesting subject...

    Never understood why turning food into fuel always created so much more controversy than turning a lot of food into a little food (also known as meat).  Using food that could be fed directly to people and using it to create something highly resource-intensive and inefficient to create a product that we can live without.  In fact, I'd venture out on a limb and say it's even easier to live without meat than it would be to live without fuel for our vehicles...  

    A moral issue on several fronts, as are most issues we face today.  That's what makes them such hurdles.On USDA defends America's fuel supply posted 1 year, 6 months ago 5 Responses

  • Having strong convictions makes you unpopular


    We The People are regularly given the opportunity to elect people with strong convictions but such people are drummed out of the primaries because having strong convictions makes you unpopular.
    -BlackBear

    Exactly.  Remember poor old Kucinich?  You know, the guy with the 30 year-old "trophy" wife and the dumpy face?  What a shit-faced liberal.  Oh wait, he had plans for a REAL single-payer healthcare system?  Oh wait, he actually HAD environmental plans (Works Green Administration)???  A cabinet-level Department of Peace!!  

    Man, he actually had plans to make the United States great instead of just playing the game and getting his pockets lined by special interests.  That's too bad, because that's not what Presidents are for in this country.  We need and want someone who will continue to play the game while making no real progress for our country!

    /end sarcasm

    BlackBear is exactly right.  If you are too honest, too up-front, and too likeable, then people are afraid of you.  This is fueled by the media stamping you as foolish and totally on the  fringe.

    Anyhow, Obama is all right.  This answer was actually pretty good.  I'd like to see how Hillary or McCain would've responded.  Obama is far from a true American hero like Kucinich (some people laugh when I say that, but go back and look at the voting record and how Kucinich has lived his life-- look at what his wife has done and get over the fact that she's young and hot!).  

    I've never heard of this clean-up problem, and if, like the questioner said, Washington tries to cover it up, then  it's only reasonable that Obama wouldn't know about it.  Let us hope that Obama actually lives up to this hype.  I don't buy it, I just think he's charismatic and witty.  But if he is elected and actually does something... well, I'll be proud.  

    I think all three (yes, we have more than three, but I mean reasonable) choices we have now are less favorable than people like Kucinich, in my opinion.  

    Your opinion may differ, of course.  It is my secret prayer that Obama has a revelation and puts Kucinich somewhere in his cabinet.  It's a stretch, I know...On In Oregon, Dem candidate admits ignorance on biggest environmental story in PNW posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

  • Get a clue, eh?


    Anyone who thinks the government is capable of running a universal health care system lacks true intelligence. Get a clue people.
    --KevinMichael

    So Kevin, you're insulting my intelligence?  Are you also insulting the intelligence of the dozens of other countries who have REAL, working, universal healthcare?  Are you insulting the 30+ countries that have higher life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates than the United States?  Here's a couple of those countries.  You might have heard of them:


    • Australia
    • Belgium
    • Canada
    • Denmark
    • Finland
    • France
    • Germany
    • Iceland
    • Italy
    • Japan
    • Luxembourg
    • the Netherlands
    • New Zealand
    • Norway
    • Sweden
    • South Korea
    • the UK

    Now, you might say that these countries all have fewer people than us, so a universal program is easier.  Not true.  Compare their GDP to theirs, and you'll see it doesn't matter.  The GDP/population ratio is way higher in the United States than even the runner-up which is Japan.  

    Please don't make blanket statements.  You can argue wait times, etc. in your response and, in addition to these claims not being factual evidence (they are always anecdotal), but I only responded to your first impudent spouting off.  Do not proceed to tell me to "get a clue" when you do not have one yourself.

    Thank you.On In Oregon, Dem candidate admits ignorance on biggest environmental story in PNW posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

  • Cody

    Why is it any more immoral to divert food to ethanol production than it is to divert food to animals which are so energy intensive?  I can spout statistics or whatever, but I can assure you that we'd have a much easier time with food prices and helping those in need of food if we didn't eat so much meat.  

    Ok, I can't resist a couple statistics (with sources):

    Over 60% of all grains grown in the United States are fed to animals.  How many people could that amount grain feed?  (Prof. V. Smil, 'Rationalizing Animal Food Production,' in Feeding the World: A Challenge for the 21st Century, MIT Press, London, 2000.)  

    The European Parliament stated: "Europe can feed its people but not its animals."  (European Parliament, Europe's Deficit in Compound Feedingstuffs and Agenda 2000, Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development Series, Working Document, AGRI-110, 1999. Cited in J. Turner, Factory Farming and the Environment, CIWF, 1999)

    Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing U.S. meat production by just 10 percent would free enough grain to feed 60 million people.  (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0109-10.htm)On Worldwide resistance to GMOs dwindle as food bills rise posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

  • David said it right

    "If I were a GM shareholder, that's the crock of shit I'd be worried about."

    Owned.

    Anyhow, ethanol is a bad idea.  Even cellulosic ethanol, which by some scientists is hailed as an actually valid pursuit, doesn't seem so great.  We need to be concentrating on wind and solar.  

    The more steps involved in the harvesting of energy, the worse the process is.  Taking energy (almost) directly from the source of all energy (the sun) is a much smarter idea, in my opinion.  

    Additionally, we need to rely less on electricity, automobiles, etc. altogether.  No amount of alternative fuels or energies will ever be able to keep up with the exorbitant usage of energy by the average American.  Even if it was all solar, there's be a zillion square miles of solar panels if we all continue to use as much energy as we currently do.On GM's Lutz can think whatever he wants, but the record shows his actions hurt the climate fight posted 1 year, 9 months ago 10 Responses

  • No surprise

    Yet another reason that I stand firm in my veganism.On The beef recall shows yet again that the USDA doesn't protect schoolchildren posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

  • I don't care if Cynthia McKinney is pissed...

    But I sure as hell am!  I'm sick of these bastards acknowledging that Kucinich is right on pretty much every issue, then they don't support him!  (Michael Moore and Ralph Nader).

    Both of them have publicly stated that Kucinich is right on the issues, but they won't support him.  Moore made up some BS about how Kucinich has given up.  HELLO!  Kucinich continued campaigning in 2004 after EVERYONE but Kerry quit.  This man is NOT a quitter.  Underdog, yes.  Quitter, no.

    And if there was on person on the face of the planet who I thought would endorse an underdog, it'd be Ralph Nader!  He said a while back that if Kucinich got the Democratic nomination, he wouldn't even think about running for the Green Party.  Now he's backing John Edwards.  WTF?!!!

    I'm voting for Kucinich.  I'm NOT voting for the lesser of evils and I'm not going to be swayed by what some jerks say when they don't even support the people they agree with.  

    Kucinich CAN win!  

    www.kucinichcantwin.com
    www.myspace.com/ecoawareOn Darth Nader endorses Edwards instead of Green Party candidate posted 1 year, 10 months ago 38 Responses

  • Whoops...

    That would be "Which one of the 3 candidates at the forum is the one..."On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • Hmmm...

    No mention of his Works Green Administration?  I don't know what was said at the forum, but Dennis actually seems like a real man who wants to lead the country, while the others (including Senator Clinton and Former Senator Edwards) seem as if they are just fulfilling an agenda.

    Which one of the 3 candidates at the forum is the doesn't take funding from corporations, lobbyists, etc?  It ain't Hillary, and it ain't John.  On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

  • To the fool tony13cutr:

    Nature?  Nature?  NATURE?

    Please point me to where in the school books it says that domesticated cats are native to the USA.  Or any country.  Then we can talk about "nature."On Umbra on cats and birds posted 2 years ago 72 Responses

  • Bah.

    3 things wrong with this: 1) I bet you $50 Bill wrote this.  2) These plans aren't what we need.  3) I'm biased, but there's also truth in this: her (and everyone else's) plans can't hold a candle to Dennis' plans, including but not limited to his Works Green Administration.  

    Besides that, Hillary can only issue statements like these.  She can't actually say anything when prompted or when on TV during a debate.  This is sound proof that someone else shat this out, probably at her $1M birthday party.On The full text of Clinton's plan posted 2 years ago 18 Responses

  • Oh and...

    I forgot to mention, I meant Dennis, of course.  As if you haven't figured out who I support by now :)On Barack Obama unveils agriculture plan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • Still not good enough for me

    He still doesn't mention genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) or industrialized hemp, so why even bother making an agriculture plan?

    Guess who does mention those two things...  

    Check out this video if you don't mind the word BSOn Barack Obama unveils agriculture plan posted 2 years, 1 month ago 5 Responses

  • How can ANYONE...

    Really think that Ron Paul gets it right on this one?  As a supporter of Dennis Kucinich, I'm often told that Ron Paul is a similar anti-war candidate.  Ron Paul is not like Dennis in any way.

    It's obvious that Ron Paul is full of a big load of you-know-what as far as green issues.  And for the record, Ron Paul is anti-war.  Dennis is pro-peace.  There's a difference.  

    Honestly, some of the stuff Paul says in this interview sounds like Bush.

    NOBODY BUT DENNIS IN 2008!On An interview with Ron Paul about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 1 month ago 55 Responses

  • So effectively...

    Friends of the Earth Action is settling on the best "top tier" candidate rather than the best overall candidate.  It's quite obvious to anyone with a brain that Dennis Kucinich has the strongest environmental policies.  Whether or not you agree with his stance on other issues, you have to know that he stands stronger than any other candidate on green issues.

    The fact that organizations like this one are embracing candidates that are the "lesser of the top tier evils" is pathetic.  Maybe if we embraced who we really thought should win, we'd end up with a President who actually did something.  I'm not necessarily criticizing them for not endorsing Dennis, because everyone has their own opinion, but it's just like how certain unions are endorsing John Edwards when it is TOTALLY obvious that Dennis Kucinich was by far the most moving speaker at the event at Soldier Field.  No one else got a standing ovation and, as Dennis said, no other candidate is a card-carrying union member.

    Why are people settling on something that is less than the best when the best IS an option?  Maybe if instead of settling on someone who is sub-par, if we supported who we thought should REALLY win (no matter who that person is), then there'd be more than just the "top tier" candidates.  I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich up until the primaries are over and if he doesn't win the nomination, I'll support him when he hopefully runs as an Independent.  I do not feel that the "top tier" candidates selected by the mass media are the best choices to be the top-ranking official in the most powerful nation of the entire world.  Do you?

    Watch some videos of Dennis Kucinich at the official DK YouTube channel, visit his official website, and finally, check out his interview right here on Grist.  I think if you do some research, you'll see that Dennis is in fact full of honesty, integrity, and courage and that he is truly a great alternative to selecting the "lesser of evils" from the media-chosen top tier candidates.

    On The environmental endorsements start rolling in posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

  • So effectively...

    Friends of the Earth Action is settling on the best "top tier" candidate rather than the best overall candidate.  It's quite obvious to anyone with a brain that Dennis Kucinich has the strongest environmental policies.  Whether or not you agree with his stance on other issues, you have to know that he stands stronger than any other candidate on green issues.

    The fact that organizations like this one are embracing candidates that are the "lesser of the top tier evils" is pathetic.  Maybe if we embraced who we really thought should win, we'd end up with a President who actually did something.  I'm not necessarily criticizing them for not endorsing Dennis, because everyone has their own opinion, but it's just like how certain unions are endorsing John Edwards when it is TOTALLY obvious that Dennis Kucinich was by far the most moving speaker at the event at Soldier Field.  No one else got a standing ovation and, as Dennis said, no other candidate is a card-carrying union member.

    Why are people settling on something that is less than the best when the best IS an option?  Maybe if instead of settling on someone who is sub-par, if we supported who we thought should REALLY win (no matter who that person is), then there'd be more than just the "top tier" candidates.  I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich up until the primaries are over and if he doesn't win the nomination, I'll support him when he hopefully runs as an Independent.  I do not feel that the "top tier" candidates selected by the mass media are the best choices to be the top-ranking official in the most powerful nation of the entire world.  Do you?

    Watch some videos of Dennis Kucinich at the official DK YouTube channel, visit his official website, and finally, check out his interview right here on Grist.  I think if you do some research, you'll see that Dennis is in fact full of honesty, integrity, and courage and that he is truly a great alternative to selecting the "lesser of evils" from the media-chosen top tier candidates.On Two enviro groups endorse their faves for U.S. president in '08 posted 2 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • We have no right to kill them...

    Mice were here long before we were.  They didn't ask us to come and build our behemoth structures in their native lands, yet we did it any way.  When we don't close all the gaps in our homes, they advance inside, just like they would in any other territory.  They're looking for food and warmth.  

    It's our responsibility to keep them out, not their responsibility to stay out-- therefore, we shouldn't kill them.  They are only doing what comes naturally.  And if killing little mice comes naturally to you, maybe something's wrong with you.

    Just about every wild animal can cause disease.  This should be obvious.  As for "quick and humane," death is not humane.  Humane means to treat something (say, an animal) as you would a human.  You'd never catch a human in an electrocution trap.  Likewise, "local happy animal-loving farm-raised" meat is not humaen.  Death is death.  Killing, by definition, cannot be humane.  On Umbra on live trapping posted 2 years, 1 month ago 28 Responses

  • amc89 had it right...

    Quoting amc89:

    "Though I find all meat pretty repulsive, "luncheon meat in pouches" certainly stands out. The more packaged and processed the meat is, the easier it is for people to forget that it came from a real animal that had to be killed, and I think that may be partly it's appeal for some people."

    Well said!  On More than half of U.S. families bought packaged meat last year. Gross posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • I know this isn't right for me to do, but...

    My rude and crude and mean side is coming out.

    I bet that dumbass b** ain't ever even ridden a bicycle.  She's just like most of the highly-paid, lowly-thinking people in Washington.  What a disservice to mankind.On U.S. Transportation Secretary blames bikes for decay of roads and bridges posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

  • Well...

    I agree with most of the article...  thought I confide that Matt Prescott hit it right on the head.On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

  • Nice.

    Great article.  I'd further suggest that one of the best things you can do is vote for Dennis Kucinich.  Seriously.

    From Dennis' website:


    As President, I will lead the way in protecting our oceans, rivers and rural environments. I will also lead in fighting for clean, affordable and accessible drinking water. I have worked hand-in-hand with the environmental movement on many battles, from thwarting a nuclear waste dump to boosting organics to demanding labels on genetically-engineered products. A clean environment, a sustainable economy, and an intact ozone layer are not luxuries, but necessities for our planet's future.

    .....

    The United States under a Kucinich presidency would reverse the unsustainable actions in the following areas:

    1. Energy consumption
    2. Military spending
    3. Economic and tax policy
    4. Environmental policy
    5. Land and water use

    .....

    Fighting corporate powers that do not operate in the public interest has been a focus of his public life from the beginning. Nearly 40-years ago he helped draft the first air pollution law as a member of Cleveland City Council.

    More recently, Dennis attended the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, advocating a plan with Mikhail Gorbachev for a Global Green Deal that would enable the introduction of $50 billion of new solar projects around the world. It will be a major initiative to use our country's leadership in sustainable energy production to provide jobs to Americans, to reduce energy use here at home, and to partner with developing nations to provide their people with inexpensive, local renewable-energy technologies.

    This is at the heart of his proposed Works Green Administration (WGA) which would couple a new WPA program to the EPA and NASA in restoring America's infrastructure and providing sustainable energy at the same time. No longer will the Environmental Protection Agency be known as Every Polluter's Ally.
    On Voluntary actions didn't get us civil rights, and they won't fix the climate posted 2 years, 2 months ago 61 Responses

  • Hmm...

    Someone said, "One of them [Obama or Clinton] is likely to become president.  We need to educate them somehow."

    The only thing I want to educate Obama, Clinton, or Edwards on is that they aren't the best candidates.  I don't agree with the media.  I want to educate them and tell them that I ain't votin' for them, and neither should you.On Why Edwards' 'ban' on coal plants does little good against climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 42 Responses

  • Yay!!

    Yet another reason NOT to vote for Edwards and TO vote for Dennis Kucinich!On Why Edwards' 'ban' on coal plants does little good against climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 42 Responses

  • Edit*

    That would be AT* not making them not AND.  Sorry :)On Survey reveals truth about environmental fibs posted 2 years, 3 months ago 8 Responses

  • While I agree with most of what Jones said...

    This part bothered me:

    "based on the fact that you obtained your spiritual enlightenment (or whatever) earlier than they did, or you had the benefit of better eco-mentoring."

    That's ridiculous.  I know it's true for other people, but it isn't right.  I didn't receive any "eco-mentoring."  I live in the deep southern US and I'd say I probably don't know 10 people in a 100-mile radius who I feel genuinely care about the environment and related issues.

    For me, it wasn't from someone else's example (not directly), it was more of reading the facts and the situation and being like, uh, what the hell?  We've gotta change this.  It's not like environmentalism is anything profound or revolutionary.  Environmentalism is simply giving a s*** about the Earth.  What's so hard about that?!  If you care, you won't have to worry about your choices.  Your choices will align themselves to your viewpoint automatically; it's not like anyone has to consciously think about every single choice they make-- it's pretty obvious once you are aware of what you used to do.  Sometimes I look back and think, "How did I ever NOT recycle?"  

    The same is true with my veganism.  I don't mean preach or anything like that, simply as an example.  People often ask why I deprive myself or why I make such "radical" changes.  These descriptions are subjective (not objective) because to me, I am not sacrificing any thing, I am just making the right decision.  I don't ever just think, "Man, I want a steak!  Why am I in denial about loving meat?"  

    Similarly, I never sit around and go, "Dadgum, I wish I had a gigantic SUV to drive around with no passengers!"  

    This is long-winded and probably a little back-and-forth, but my point is that once you realize what's going on, the choices are 1) obvious and 2) not just easy to make, but you'd be appalled and NOT making them. On Survey reveals truth about environmental fibs posted 2 years, 3 months ago 8 Responses

  • We need a President who cares...

    And then we'll get an Interior Secretary who cares.

    ********
    Dennis Kucinich 2008On Interior Secretary Kempthorne gets award for record refusal to protect endangered species posted 2 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

  • And for us vegan people...

    We aren't gonna be left out!  Check out this lovely blog:

    http://veganicecream.blogspot.com/

    PS I've tried making ice cream with silken tofu.  They always claim to be good, but mine always turned out disgusting.  That's why I'm glad I found the Vegan Ice Cream Paradise blog.  The base is soy creamer (Silk coffee creamer) and any non-dairy milk.  They're easy to make.

    I recently made coconut ice cream (using coconut milk... mmm, fat!) and then added shredded coconut, chocolate chips, almond pieces, and used half chocolate soy milk.  It was awesome-- like Almond Joy ice cream!On How to stick it to the ice-cream Man posted 2 years, 3 months ago 22 Responses

  • A miraculous comeback

    I'm the Sea Biscuit of this campaign" -Dennis Kucinich

    Vote for SEABISCUIT in 2008!<On An interview with Dennis Kucinich about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 34 Responses

  • Don't think I was being a jerk

    If anyone finds my comment abrasive, I apologize, but I won't revoke it or reword it.  I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings or offend anyone, but the truth is the truth.  If you find the truth offensive, uh, it ain't my problem.

    I read someone's opinion (this article, the comments...) and left my own.  I'm sorry that it's rude to tell people they have no compassion if they kill animals for food when it is totally unnecessary.  In my mind (and the minds of many others), this is only common sense.On Umbra on sustainable meat posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • In response to Meg moreso than the article

    Meg, why would it be better to buy some "sustainably-raised meat?"  Meat is meat.  Meat is dead animals, and I don't eat dead animals.  There is no kind way to slaughter an innocent creature.  Even if they are allowed to truly run free for years and years and enjoy a nice life, they are still raised for one purpose and one purpose only: slaughter for our insatiable appetite for flesh.  Disgusting and I won't support it.  Buying organic or "sustainable" meat instead of not eating it at all is just someone looking for a cop-out, in my opinion, unless they are doing it solely for the environment...  Even if you ignore the debate about whether environmentalists must not eat meat (some say it's a contradiction), I don't see how you can have compassion for the planet but not the creatures that live on it.  For the record, "humane" animal raising is BS.

    Humane means to be treated like a human, and we don't slaughter and/or eat human beings.  On Umbra on sustainable meat posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • Er...

    Ok, I don't like Clinton for environmental issues OR non-environmental issues.  I'll say that up front.  

    Additionally, let me say that venus1kjs says: "I don't know if saying that Al Gore is her environmental hero is just good PR or she actually believes it, but that alone says something positive about her views on the environment.  I mean if we can't vote for him, she seems most likely to do the hard work and get things done for our planet."

    Um, no.  If she says Al Gore is her environmental hero, that most likely means she doesn't know any other environmental activists.  I'm not downing Mr. Gore, but the former sentence is the truth.  Anyone who thinks Clinton's dedication to the environment is the best of the candidates is foolish.  I gotta put it like it is.

    If you give a crap about the environment, please vote for Kucinich.  I've read every interview that's been posted on here so far and I've done lots of research on all the candidates and I still maintain that the big 3 (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards) are carbon copies (CARBON!! pun intended!!) of one another.  Please consider Kucinich if you haven't already.  I can't make you vote for him but I can annoy the crap out of you so that maybe you won't be brainwashed into thinking that there are only 3 Democratic candidates.On An interview with Hillary Clinton about her presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

  • amc89 is right-- it happened to me

    My girlfriend was a vegetarian when we first started dating over 2 years ago.  Not too long after, I became a vegetarian, too, without any prodding on her part.  I learned from her actions rather than her having to criticize me.  

    A year later, we both decided to go vegan, and here we are now :)On From Vegans to Vengeance posted 2 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

  • randino and 2wheelsgood

    randino and 2wheelsgood made some good points.  On An interview with Dennis Kucinich about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 34 Responses

  • Hmmm...

    This guy doesn't seem too focused to me.  That's about all I can say.On An interview with Chris Dodd about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

  • Oh, and...

    By the way, just for the record: Dennis doesn't accept donations from labor organizations (unions) or corporations.  Guess what.  Obama, Clinton, and Edwards do.  Let's show the country that you don't need millions of dollars to get elected-- it should no longer be about money.  Man(and woman)power.On An interview with Dennis Kucinich about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 34 Responses

  • Furthermore...

    Another thing I feel that should be pointed out is Kucinich's modelling after predecessors like FDR and JFK.  In one of his videos, he speaks of organizing people around "green" issues in the same sense that JFK got everyone united about the mission to the moon.  I feel that it's good news to see him following in the footsteps of previous charismatic leaders.On An interview with Dennis Kucinich about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 34 Responses

  • Good article and interview

    I'm a straight male, but I'd do Kucinich.

    Seriously, the guy seems great.  Watch some videos of him speaking about both environmental and non-environmental issues.  Of course, we never really know how they'll act when elected, but he seems like he'd do the best, in my opinion.  At the very least, I think he's by far the best speaker of any candidate-- one who seems like he really cares what talks about (unlike, um, all the others, but especially Hillary).On A look at Dennis Kucinich's environmental platform and record posted 2 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

  • jubyfouts is right...


    We have to stop saying "he can't win."  I will vote for the candidate who deserves it.  If you don't, you should be ashamed.  Don't vote for someone you don't think is the best just because you feel that Kucinich isn't as "electable."  Let me just say now that that's BS.  Vote for the one who should win-- if everyone does that then he DOES have a chance of winning.  

    For more information about Kucinich's environmental stance and plans, read the latest blog on my environmental awareness project: http://www.myspace.com/ecoawareOn An interview with Dennis Kucinich about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 34 Responses

  • Waiting for the interview with Kucinich

    It's pretty stereotypical (and lame) that he said Al Gore is his environmental hero.  I get the impression that the 3 main guys (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) are only "caring" about the environment because they feel it will draw some votes.

    Even though I like Kucinich more, the fact that he is a vegan tips the scale even more.  Wait for the interview with Kucinich before you make your decision on who to vote for :)On An interview with John Edwards about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses