Firstly, thanks for the comment Alice. I actually particularly like the writing style of Fast Food Nation – guess that’s just me. However there is no doubt about the superb writing abilities of Klein.

Do you know Wesley Willis? If you do, and you happen to be a bit of a fan, then you and I will get along just fine.

As for Subcomadante – I just can’t spell. And I think you will be greatly rewarded by joining up to the PR Watch list, I think it’s exceptional.

Now for you Jimmy – I guess being a filthy hippy gives you a filthy mouth!!

Jimmy, I’ve a couple of books that I’m happy to show you that tell us that our ancestors were carnivores. Just open any first year archaeology text on the origins of humans. I have a couple at home. Mind you we’re going back a few millennia here – probably up to 100,000 years ago. In fact, this argument helps you a bit. It was when we became omnivores that the human race began to flourish precisely because they diversified their diet. It made us stronger and better. Yes we’re omnivores – of course we are you nob. I never said otherwise.

I also never said that if I stopped eating meat then the meat industry would collapse. What I did say is that if EVERYONE stopped eating meat then the meat industry would collapse. I don’t think you can disagree with this and presumably this is what you ultimately desire and are therefore doing your bit so that you practice what you preach. And good on you for that – just take a shower once in a while.

Yes the meat industry is responsible for deforestation. You wank – that’s what I said. I’m arguing that this is a legitimate reason to not eat meat. Geeze! However, I stand by the fact that as a part of the ecosystem it is fine for humans to eat meat – possibly even necessary. And I don’t give a rats arse about nutrition – that’s why I eat so much meat. Yes we (westerners) eat too much meat, are wasteful of it and should farm differently and cut down fewer trees. I really don’t see how your argument is different to mine.

And dude, if you need to crush a watermelon with your colon, go right ahead. Just as long as I don’t have to watch you lube the mother fucker up and insert it.

There’s something I don’t like or trust about 100%ers (ie Vegans). I think 90-95% is a good level, and I’m not saying I’m a 90%er either. Firstly, it leads to a holier than thou attitude where everyone is just so shit and you end up a bitter and twisted person who has forgotten the true motivation for their convictions and secondly they tend to bounce back the other way and become right wingers like Bolt – or worse, Windschuttle. Not having a go at you personally here Jimmy – unless you want me to.

Now Orland (or should I say baldy). Yes Jello eats meat and a lot of people hate him for it. I love him for it though. I must say I like your point. There is a “nature” (as opposed to nurture) part of my argument. No doubt a contradiction, no doubt I was just starting shit and didn’t even think about it. However, I argue the nurture line when we are talking about humans, not biodiversity. I think it would be fair to say that I am arguing that on a biodiversity level I think that it is important for humans – as a species – to eat meat. Jimmy was obviously dropped on his head as a child and is all screwed up inside so doesn’t eat meat. Make sense? That’s why Hindus don’t eat cow and Jews don’t eat Pig – socialisation (or religion, same diff). Me, I eat most things (ordinarily – except fruit, really just don’t dig on fruit).

Tim, you’re just wonderful and I want you to know that you’re on the highly elite A Team – No Vegans allowed.

So eat less meat, be more sustainable, love your bother and have sex with more people (sorry, different agenda).

So I saw Super Size Me last night. Considering its content was seemingly pretty boring and straight forward it was remarkably entertaining. The sound track was great – I nearly fell off my chair when I heard Wesley Willis’ Rock n Roll McDonalds – keep on that harmony joy bus ride baby. Not to mention Queen’s Big Bottom Girls and the Violent Femmes’ Fat.

So you’d think it would be a case of the guy eats Maccas too much and gets unhealthy but you really are surprised by just how unhealthy he gets. It’s really quite amazing. In a funny way it exposes Maccas as being even more evil because of just how irresponsible they are by even serving the food they do. Of course the point in that they do it because it makes them money – there is, despite their best PR efforts, nothing ethical about Maccas. I’d go so far as to say that even all their “charitable” work is simple part of their marketing scheme and motivated, not by the health of our “little battlers” but by the fact that it’s a high level of exposure to young people – their primary market.

I was surprised that the author of Fast Food Nation, Eric Schlosser, didn’t get a run but if you are interested in this topic this book is excellent. In fact if you’re interested in brand based stuff then it’s a great book.

The addictive nature of the food also struck me as significant. If you eat this sort of food too much you end up craving it. To the point where your mood is dependent on it. I wonder if at times this is something I’ve suffered from? Just wonder, I haven’t eaten McDonalds since I was like 13 or 14 so for over ten years now, but I know there are time (although not so much any more) when I’ve been very flat and just wanted to eat. Maybe this is because it’s just a vice.

So then we get to the topic that a few of you have been waiting for – vegetarianism. If we weren’t suppose to eat meat – then why does it taste so damn good!!!!

Currently I am undergoing an experiment. No meat for a month. It’s something I’ve considered doing for a little while now and I’ve finally had the motivation to do it.

The accusation has been made against me that my meat eating in the flaw in my politics. I am otherwise a highly ethical man motivated by goodness for the world but I kill small fluffy animals because they taste good. Well guilty – sort of.

If you think that humans were never meant to eat meat and use some bullshit argument about how or teeth are or some thing you can just fuck off. Not interested in talking to you. In fact – kill your self. It’s not true, it’s bullshit. Meat is good for you and if we weren’t suppose to eat it then we just wouldn’t. We never would have. But we do because we’re suppose to. There is also a whole bunch of archaeological evidence to show that our decedents were in fact once carnivores. End of story.

In addition humans are a highly important part of the ecosystem and it is important that we continue to eat meat. Can you imagine what would happen if we just stopped? We’d be swimming in cow shit for the next hundred years. Yes there are a whole bunch of things about artificial insemination and so forth that apparently if we stopped would solve all the problems in the world. I am sceptical about this but it does bring me to the more interesting part of the non-meat eating argument.

Socially, environmentally and arguably economically or farming practices are unsustainable. Fast Food Nation gives a good account of this – the problem is that it’s American and things are a fair bit different here. For example in America it is no surprise to anyone that Mad Cow Disease has broken out because they feed cows to cows. Apparently there is a related disease that can break out if humans engage in cannibalism.

Perhaps a more relevant example is the one offered by Vandana Shiva in her article Mad cows and sacred cows. Overlooking the mad cow part of her argument she explains how in India cows are sacred for a range of reasons but, the ecological and economic reasons are the same. They fully utilise the cow, this means that they are use as fertiliser (or their poo is), as a source of milk, leather and a range of other things. Today’s agricultural practices use cattle for one purpose alone. That purpose will depend on the cow – either meat, leather, milk and so on.

I feel I’m arguing my point badly but I hope you get what I mean. Live stock in western countries is used for a single purpose. This is wasteful and ecologically unsustainable – the long term effects of which are environmentally unsustainable. Agricultural practices need to be diversified to save farmers and the environment – “good” farmers realise this. Why not run cattle on grounds you’re going to plant crops on so they fertilise the earth naturally – not with chemicals?

In addition to this, increasingly our meat comes from property run by big agribusiness. Small farmers can’t compete with these companies which simply have the resources and technology to saturate the market and have no concerns other than their short term profits. Genetic Engineering is now being used on cattle so that they divert more of their energy to producing milk. Small farmers can’t afford this technology and I am certainly concerned about the effects of genetic modification.

Small farmers also have a long term interest in their property and so take care of the land a lot better. Agribusiness is not so concerned with these things.

So, for political reasons I probably shouldn’t eat meat. I oppose the way most of the meat I eat ends up on my plate. But not all of it.

One of the most ridiculous things in Victoria at the moment is that it is illegal to kill a kangaroo for human consumption. We should be farming and eating kangaroo. It’s also probably my favourite meat!!!

So on the 15th of July I’m really looking forward to a steak or sausage (probably both) – but I have written several letters about the FTA with America which will fuck small farmers and the environment in the arse.

Organic food also probably deserve comment here but that can wait.

What a wonderful world we live in. The human spirit truly is the most wonderful thing in the world. Unsurprisingly few things move me as much as protest and I was as surprised as you when Merlin emerged from the Big Brother house with as sign that said “Free Th Refugees” (the “e” had fallen off).

Yep, it pissed a lot of people off. Yep, it divided household. No, the Howard government isn’t about to change it’s policies. But bless him because protest is central to the democratic process. Bless him because a lot of people around the country were reminded that there are decent people who care out there. Solidarity is also a really important thing.

I don’t want to go into a diatribe about the disgusting way we are treating our refugees – it’s all been said before. What I love is that it fucked with people. The reality TV show lost control. It actually became reality for a moment. Everyone is praising the way Grettle (the 43 year old going on 16) handled the situation. What the world needs at the moment is not only democracy and solidarity but people to just fuck with the system for the sake of it. Pranks. I’ve been listening to Jello Biafra’s “I blow minds for a living”. And he is quite actively encouraging of pranks. They don’t have to be political, just make people step outside of their daily lives and think.

I was surprised to see that Merlin’s little protest turned up on my daily DisInfo newsletter as it’s an American organisation. However, I’m pretty sure the writer is an Australian. So you’ve sent ripples across the world Merlin. I hate reality TV, but I love your antics.

Peter Garrett deserves a mention on this page as well I feel. He’s joined the Labour Party. Garrett’s entry to politics was first mentioned when Midnight Oil dissolved. Why did he choose the ALP and not the Greens? That’s pretty obvious. He thought he could make a difference in parliament and he probably wouldn’t get a set with the Greens. Really the Greens are more of a Community Group with a parliamentary wing. Garrett has also always been reasonably conservative. This is why he was head of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Not having a go at the ACF but they aren’t as radical as other environment groups.

However I think PG will be in for a bit of a shock. The ALP are pretty big party line. The ALP support US troops at Pine Gap, and Uranium mining in Australia (albeit in a limited form). Garrett has been quite actively opposed to both of these things in the past and will have to support them now. But hopefully he’ll be able to pull his weight and get sustainable energy up and running in Australia – however I fear the ALP is too bound by mining industry money.

However it now means that the Environment has officially been declared an election issue. This means that even the Howard government has all of a sudden pumped a whole bunch of money into environmental issues. This is a good thing even if the money is being spent in a some what misguided way.

And now some brief answers to Terry’s questions. 1) again, I feel there is a power in not defining a community but it is essentially a group of people that come together over a common issue or interest. That can be a sporting group or that you live in a certain area.

2) This is the first time I’ve heard (or read) the term Glocalisation. My basic understanding is that it’s a mix of the global and local. Yes, this is an approach I use. Certainly a key dualism to dissolve is the Local/Global dived. This needs to be looked at in terms of a bigger picture. Ie some groups in the cacophony are dealing with global issues (Trade, climate change, nuclear weapons) while others are dealing with the local (a particular community, a particular national park) and many groups dealing with things in between. The actors are the hubs and spokes that make the cacophony. However at all levels of debate there is an acute awareness that all things are interconnected and that the local is global. Not sure if that answers your question or if I’m getting at the right thing here.

3) yes there are probably tensions but it’s late and I can’t think of a good example. I’m not quite sure what you mean by “the similarity of the right and left in certain areas of debate such as out-sourcing of production” I would have thought that the left generally opposed the out-sourcing of production. Maybe a good example is animal rights activists who continue to (by and large) be separate from the environment movement because of there compulsive attention to the fate of a single animal rather than the whole environment. Like Rabbit hunting is generally good for the Australian environment but the vegan wankers can’t bring themselves to kill a feral animal despite the devastation that that animal will have to an entire ecosystem.

4) The beauty of the revolution is that there are so many charismatic leaders and the majority of them neither you or I have heard of. I think Bono and Klein make these issues accessible and they reach a wider audience because of their celebrity status. Lets face it, we live in a material world so if it’s cool for Bono, it’s cool for you too. This can only strengthen the movement and make people sit up and listen a little more than they would ordinarily. However a good example of how this can go wrong was our dear Natasha Scott Despoia’s (probably spelt wrong) donning the Hejab in solidarity with her Muslim sisters. This turned out to be a great insult. So it’s important for these celebrities to do a little research. Does this get back to Merlin? Perhaps. Fortunately he kept his message simple.

5) only for those with ipods

So I went to the Communities in Control conference on Monday and Tuesday this week and was amazed. It was a very exciting event. So I thought I’d share some reflections with you all.

For me there were probably three key speakers. Shelly Martin, Philip Adams, Richard Eckersley and Clive Hamilton. There were also many other note worthies.

The idea of the communities in control conference is that if a community (not necessarily geographically defined) is in control of it’s own destiny and has high levels of participation then there is a marked decline in negative indicators (heart disease, incarceration, crime, suicide etc).

This was Shelly Martin’s message. Really Shelly is just a beautiful person. She works at the University of California Berkley’s Centre for Community Wellness which researches the idea of communities in control. Basically Shelly just told a series of stories about how, with appropriate support and involvement the overall wellness of individuals and communities in improved.

Clive Hamilton was by far the most controversial of the speakers. An edited extract of his speech can be found Here. He reported on the fact that Community Groups who engage in advocacy particularly against the government are increasingly censored or silenced by government – particularly the Howard federal government. No doubt Clive was defiant and belligerent in his delivery. I loved it. I love that sort of thing. But some argued that he could have stated the same points in a much more passive manner and not alienated as many people. Certainly not everyone there was a lefty or disliked the Howard government (although it would be fair to say that the majority felt this way and had indeed been silenced). Some in the audience made their opposition to what Clive said known. But perhaps this was just Clive practicing what he preaches – debate is essential for democracy.

It struck me that these notions of communities in control echoed the global protest movement and it’s need for what Richard Eckersley called ‘deep democracy’. I think we could have easily referred to this as a cacophonous democracy. Richard pointed out how good this is for your health. So I wonder if someone (lets say Naomi Klien) stood up and started talking about the global protest movement if the audience would feel alienated or if they would oppose the ideas. The audience was mostly concerned with domestic issues but then again so is the global protest movement. I’d love to see Naomi at the next conference. There is a great synergy there that I think is overlooked. Then again, maybe it isn’t.

The other thing that was missing was the Environment. I think Richard Eckersley was the only person to say that this was also necessary for a healthy society. And on a deeper level too. By that I mean that and engagement with the environment, not just clean water for health reasons. I think that conferences like this one are symptomatic of the continuing division between “social” movements and “environmental” movements. In one sense you don’t want the enviros separated out but on the other hand you don’t want them over looked which I feel they were.

So well done to all those involved. An exceptional and very exciting event. What is most encouraging is that there were 1500 attendees and over 500 were turned away. They came from all over Australia to hear about communities in control. The movement is in motion, the revolution is now.

I thought I should draw your attention to this:

Celebrate Capitalism

It’s really odd and I’m waiting to get the joke. I first came across them at the rally against the deforestation of old growth forests in Tasmania on Sunday (6/6/04 – at least 15,000 people, great effort).

Anyway, I’ve exciting new things to write about but now is not the time. Perhaps tonight is though.

Well thank you all for your kind thoughts. Tim, love your work. Roland, do an Arts Degree – it’s the only thing which will keep you happy. Terry, there is life outside of Deluze but I really think I should get round to reading him soon (considering your obsession).

I have a new comments feature (I hope) which is currently co-existing with the old one. Please use the new one as I’m trying to phase the other, more limiting, one out.

Also, you will note that I have added everyone’s blog to my list of stuff.

Now not much insight has really been shed on my delemma. Tim, I think you captured things best by pointing out that ‘Why the environment movement must lead the revolution’ sounds just plain cool. ‘The environment movement should contribute to society’ sounds totally weak. Also, it misses the importance I wish to put on the environment movement.

Val Plumwood, in her book Environmental Culture she goes into the “cultural” (in the broadest sense of the word) revolution that is needed to save us all and the environment. I think that this, coupled with cacophonous democracy is the secret to the good life and is central to the revolution. It is therefore the environment movement that will (presumably) be best equip to encapsulate this and therefore lead the revolution. So it’s not so much the environment movement but the cultural revolution that is important. Follow?

So maybe the topic should be ‘Why the revolution needs the environment movement’ or ‘The revolution needs the environment movement’ or ‘Environmental ideas are the key to the revolution’.

Any other suggestions?

It’s the environmental idea that will lead the revolution. Maybe it should be ‘Why environmental ideas will lead the revolution’.

I just wanted to make a post to see if the new comments feature was working.

Roland, screw you!! This is my blog and I won’t let you lampoon it because you are belligerent and just want a fight.

Tim, great to have you on board – you’ve done me proud. A small note though (because it’s my blog and I decide the debates/fights). Money is not the answer and is often used as a ‘lip service’ to say “look at us, we’re helping those darkies, I mean Aboriginals, I mean Aborigines because we’re giving them money”. No doubt money needs to be spent, and yes probably a lot more than is being spent, but Noel Pearson has been pointing out of late the problems in indigenous communities with welfare dependence and it’s link to substance abuse. Of course this is a difficult thing to say because you get racists like Terry saying “Look whity, you don’t know what it is like – look at me, I’m black” (that didn’t quite come out right). Anyway, my point being that money needs to be spent very carefully and in full consultation with indigenous communities – in fact, give the money to the communities and let them work out a better way of spending it. I think that land actually is money in a much more meaningful way because it is a means to make money which can be empowering.

So anyway, I finished the first chapter of my thesis on the weekend. Woooo Hoooo. This is very exciting for me – copies are available to interested parties in draft form. Had a meeting with my supervisor (hi Julie) who seems fairly happy with it. However she raised a point that has been bothering me for a couple of hours though.

If the environment movement is to ‘lead’ the revolution isn’t this contradictory to the movement it is supposed to be leading? The movement is a decentralised one with nodes of power and no real leaders – or at least so many leaders that power is still very decentralised and the movement as a whole doesn’t have any leaders – then how can you have some thing, a part of the movement, leading it?

I have two options, substantiate my claim or change the title of my topic a little. I have a feeling that I haven’t contradicted my self but I don’t know how to explain myself or adjust my argument without compromising my points to accommodate this.

A little help?