You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'ethical living' category.
I am hoping to get along to this event, which is in three short months time…
If you fancy getting involved, or just showing your face, check out their site, and get involved. Be the change you want to see…
From sojourners:
“We can’t let little countries screw around with big companies
like this - companies that have made big investments around the
world.”
- a Chevron lobbyist, who asked not to be identified, speaking
about a lawsuit brought on behalf of thousands of indigenous
Ecuadorian peasants over the dumping of billions of gallons of
toxic oil wastes into their region’s rivers and streams. Chevron
is pressuring the Bush administration to eliminate special trade
preferences for Ecuador if its government doesn’t quash the
case.
(Source: Newsweek)
Kyb, its always been a pleasure disagreeing with you, and this has been no exception – but the post is now so long, I’m putting it in as new post, a link to the original is here, see the comments for the start of our discussion.
For the unitiated, my initial assertion was that I Jesus was homeless and skint, Kyb employed his considerable intellect to make certain disagreements, we discussed it, and ended up here:
Kyb’s points are in italics, and my responses to them are in normal text.
They absolutely had the money to pay the temple tax. Peter had no hesitation in answering “Yes he does” to the people who asked if Jesus paid the temple tax. The fish thing is a gigantic joke by Jesus who wants to avoid making his disciple look a fool while at the same time claiming exemption from the tax.
Peter’s response is an impulsive one, a defensive response to his master’s honour – much like the ear cutting off incident.
My take on the fish incident is in part what you describe, a disarming sleight of hand, a piece of physical theatre, which is something else he liked to do.
He did have somewhere to live - with his family, who at one point came to take him home, but chose not to, instead staying with his friends and disciples around the country, many of whom were wealthy.
This is semantics, under this assessment, everybody has somewhere to live, for is there really nobody who would take them in? No, Jesus says: “foxes have holes… etc (Matt 8: 20) which has long been understood to mean that Jesus was entirely dependant upon God and the charity of others for a place to sleep. Even the Pope in 1997 said about this passage: “The Lord wished to show his total openness to his Heavenly Father, whose will he was determined to carry out without letting himself be hindered by the possession of worldly goods: for there is always a danger that earthly realities will take the place of God in the human heart.”
In fact, I don’t believe that he forced his mother into poverty because of his mission, I think part of why he probably started his mission so relatively late is because before that he was assuring her and his own financial independence (since Joseph seemed to be no longer in the picture).
Jesus didn’t start his ministry late, it would be normal for a levitical priest/ rabbi to collect his disciples at the age of 30.
I can’t believe that the same guy who preached against the teachers of the laws use of Corban to avoid providing for their parents would neglect his own duties to his family and younger siblings.
There is not necessarily a question of leaving his family in poverty, as you point out they had a home, his brothers were probably of working age, Joseph may still have been around, and when he was crucified, he commended his mother to his disciple’s care. Anyway, you might say he had a greater responsibility…?
Of course the soldiers only had his clothes to divide up - none of his property was in Jerusalem, and when they arrested him, they took only him, leaving his camp full of disciples and the communal belongings behind.
I don’t know why you think the guy who said ‘dont store up for yourself treasures on earth’ had property, or where you think he would have kept it. Did nomadic rabbis have lock up garages?
His disciples picked wild food to eat as they were walking through a field, as anyone would. They also had no problem going into town to buy food while he met the woman at the well, or renting an upper room. Even after he died, they were able to remain in the city, eat, living without having to revert back to their old jobs.
Ok, I’ll give you this, I do think they probably had some money now and then, but not a lot. I doubt they would have had to buy a lot of food or hire a room, I think there would have been a culture of hospitality in the 1st century Palestine just as there is now. This ties in with the common misconception that Joseph and Mary would have had to go to a ‘hotel’ in Bethlehem, a hotel? What do people think? That Premier Inn had a Bethlehem branch? The natural thing would have been (since they were going to the town of their ancestors) that they would stay with relatives, but somehow we’ve misconstrued the word used into the idea they went to stay with mr innkeeper. Nice for nativity plays, just doesn’t make much sense. If we consider this wider question in the light of what we know about the culture of the place and time, these holy men wouldn’t have been likely to pay for such hospitality.
Luke 9:14 ” They answered, “We have only five loaves of bread and two fish—unless we go and buy food for all this crowd.” 14(About five thousand men were there.)
That may have been sarcasm, but strongly suggests to me that they had at least eight months wages in the kitty (which Philip tells us wouldn’t quite be enough).
I don’t know what the protocol would have been for this kind of situation, or who would have been regarded the host, and who the guests, but there is an implicit assumption on your part that the disciples would have bought the food with their own funds, which is not necessarily correct. The parable here may be more to do with people co-operating than we think. I don’t want to take away from the supernatural ability of Jesus, but I am minded to think that maybe it was the simple act of sharing which provided the answer here…
As a Rabbi, he would have been responsible for his disciples, I don’t think he would have taken that responsibility on if he didn’t know he could look after them.
Don’t you think he knew God would be able to provide for them? In Matthew 6, he tells other people to expect that God can provide for their needs, so why wouldn’t he expect God to provide for his?
I’m not sure why you think Judas only took the 30 pieces of silver with him on desertion. In fact, according to Matthew, he tried to return the money when he realised what he’d done. It wouldn’t have made sense to try to return the 30 pieces plus the contents of the kitty. I suspect that he didn’t expect them to actually execute Jesus, otherwise he wouldn’t have been so remorseful, and that he almost certainly left the kitty with the other disciples when he went to commit suicide.
Yeah maybe I’m wide of the mark on this one, but I don’t see any evidence of Judas being left with any money, or the disciples having a polite chat with Judas in the aftermath… “I say Judas, you really have done it now, you’d better sling your hook old chap, and don’t even think of taking the dosh you blighter.” I see the suicide as a final act of someone who knew he had blown it completely, filled with remorse and desperation, who threw the coins back at the priests, who wouldn’t accept them back as they were blood money, and went and hung himself, unable to return to his friends or former life. Unless your take is that Judas’ betrayal was an attempt to precipitate a revolution, which I accept as a possibility, another large possibility is that it was motivated by money.
Women were prepared to give their entire dowry to Jesus in costly shows of affection. Tax collectors and very wealthy men left their professions to do whatever he said. He was invited to parties all over the place. I think there would have been many gifts to his kitty - to the extent that it would be worthy stealing from, and thinking that there was enough there that you’d get away with it too.
The specific incident you mention is notable because of many reasons, for one thing, the disciples said: “This could have been sold, and the money given to the poor.” They didn’t say, ‘could have been used to expand our ministry/ buy you a donkey/ meet the day to day running costs’.
Historians tell us that at the time there was a huge remove between rich and poor, with the majority (95%) of people living on the edge of destitution, subsistence farming, living in poverty and oppression. There was a tiny, massively wealthy elite. Unless Jesus was (as much the church appears to believe) the ambassador of the middle class, which would have been totally unlike other rabbis of the time, who were itinerant and dependant upon charity. Then he must have been poor or rich, I choose to look at the evidence and conclude he was not rich. (For instance in his response to the rich young man.)
I can only find one verse in the bible where Jesus says “Blessed are the poor”, and I think the comparison between Luke 6:20 and Matthew 5:3 raises doubts about whether he was meaning that financially or not.
I am not saying that blessed are the poor means only the poor materially, it is widely held to be the ‘poor in spirit’ which in turn refers to those totally dependant upon God. Yes many poor people would fall into this category, and few rich people.
Personally I don’t think that God wants to spend his time providing for people to whom he has given the intelligence and strength to provide both for themselves and to fulfil their obligation to provide for others.
You think God is restricted by time?
And you think its necessary for you and I to strive to provide for others? Lets be clear, there is plenty of money maybe even just inside the church as it is at the moment, to feed the world. If we were to live as Jesus did, only taking for each of us what we need, and to give freely to one another as each of us has need, there would be no poverty in the world. This is a distraction, which serves to enslave most of us to the producer/consumer lifestyle. Very few people do what you suggest and earn money, taking only what they need and giving the rest away, we need more people to live with less, not more to earn more.
Rather, I prefer the example of Paul, who when it was necessary (and sometimes even when he could have claimed support didn’t) worked hard for his living so as not to be a burden to those he was ministering to.
I tend to look at Paul, who said he was able to be happy in any situation, riches or poverty, and see someone who ministered naturally within his context. He worked in the marketplace, and ministered there, modeling a different way of life. He wasn’t simply working as a way to fund his ministry – it was part of his ministry.
True generosity, said Ghandi, is not to be found in giving, but in only taking what you really need. Riches are not a blessing, the rich find it very difficult to enter the kingdom, even in Jesus time that was true, it remains so now.
Lets not forget the old Sunday school song about Peter and John who were asked for alms by the lame man: “Silver and Gold have I none, but such as I have do I give to thee…”
I was impressed by the way that George Monbiot, freelance writer and documentary maker, took Channel 4 to task earlier this week.
Following on from the ruling regarding the Channel 4 ‘documentary’ on climate change, George let rip with both barrels, pointing out the broadcaster’s bias against certain viewpoints, and even comically offering a documentary idea of his own, positing the idea that the moon is made of cheese. Lol.
George is unlikely to get work from Channel 4 again, because he continues to put his mouth where his principles are - good for him.
And he offers a likely answer to the question of why C4 dislike environmentalists…
“So why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? I am not sure, but it seems to me that much of its programming - whether it concerns property, celebrities or contestants seeking fame and money - is aspirational. Environmentalism is counter-aspirational. It suggests that the carefree world Channel 4 has created, the celebration of the self, cannot be sustained.”
A very insightful and reasoned piece of criticism, which is nothing less than I would expect. All his writing is worth a read, whether you agree with him or not (I often don’t). Also for any activists looking at a career in the media, his career advice page is well worth a read.
Stick it to the man George!
“He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”
How true.
I read the other day a very honest account from Saffia Minney, the founder of People Tree, of the difficulties she has had establishing the People Tree brand in the UK.
This is interesting, I had long had questions about People Tree, I couldnt believe they were making the amount of profit their profile suggested, and I suspected the deep pockets of Ms Minney and her banker husband were being explored with regularity.
Talking to people in Eco fashion over the last few years, I have heard many complaints about People Tree, and their percieved success, despite the fact that the quality wasnt considered particularly good by those who spoke to me. Having never properly examined any people tree produce myself, I cant comment on that.
I have however seen other firms go out of business over the last few years, shops and clothing producers. These were the people who had gone for it, stuck their necks out and taken the risks, but without any seriously big money or marketing nowse behind them.
I have watched with interest as Howies have apparently turned an economic corner, on their way to being a stable brand along side the likes of Fat Face, with high street shops in fashionable places. But Howies of course owe that in part to their relatively new owners Timberland. When I first came across Howies, I think they would have run a mile from Timberland, (maybe I’m wrong) but now they seem happy to be part of the American giant’s family.
All this is interesting and sobering for me, as I continue to explore establishing my own clothing business. It makes me glad I didnt rush into it, and even more so now as I seem to have found a business partner who has the same heart as me, and all the logistical arrangements already in place to make a great business. But if People Tree cant make the books balance yet in the UK (it took them eight years in Japan, still counting here) how long will it take us to do so?
And yet there is something right about it all, until we get to the point where cheap exploitative clothing is no longer the standard we measure everything else by, and we no longer think that good quality clothing made in proper conditions by fairly treated, well supported producers is ‘unaffordable’ then there is a lot of very worthwhile, even necessary work to do.
Hats off to Saffia Minney, hats off too to the people who tried to breakthrough, but didnt have the cash behind them to fall back on. You guys are heroes, and one day you will be shown to be right. You can be proud of what you have tried to do, and you will have something good to tell your grandchildren one day.
I do believe still that we should all consume less clothing by the way, and where possible make our own, buy second hand and so on, but I do recognise that new clothes do need to be made, and if we’re going to make them, it needs to be done properly, no more undercover slavery.
Previous posts on this sort of subject…
Ethical fashion - oh the difficulties; The terrible truth about ethical business
I’m going to run the Llanelli 10K on Sunday 22nd of June, well, I say run…
I’m going to try and run the Llanelli 10K, and if you want to encourage me to do so, please would you consider sponsoring me?
The funds will all go towards the Organic cotton project I have been working on in Cambodia. There is still a long way to go with this project, and a lot of funds needed, so any contributions will be welcome!
Anyway, to be honest, I reckon you’ve got a fair chance of keeping your money 
Please email me if you want to sponsor me, much obliged!
Those kind people at Zondervan sent me a copy of Jesus for President to review, so here goes…
I regard this as one of the best, most challenging and thought provoking books around at the moment. Despite it’s American target audience (we don’t have a president here – yet) this makes great reading for any reader, as its themes are universal.
This is unlikely to look like any book you have ever read before, it’s got nearly as much in common with a graphic novel as it has with a standard text book. The best comparison I can give, and it is quite inappropriate really given the anti consumerist approach of the authors, is with a Howies clothing catalogue. It has that same earthy, lived in, thoughtful, artistic and engaging feel, but thankfully without the pictures of models wearing expensive clothes.
Put simply, this has got to be one of the most beautifully designed books on the market – working with the writing, the design emphasises the creative, radical spirit of the text, and the provocative joy of the authors. Quite rightly the designers, Holly and Ryan Sharp, are credited at the end of the book along with the writers. The colour is full throughout the book, with design elements interacting with the text throughout, which adds immensely to the value of the content. If you liked the look of ‘Irresistible Revolution’ then this is a quantum leap forward, like as if the publishers suddenly realised what this thing was all about…
In some ways it reminds me of an illuminated manuscript, from back in the day of monkishness, when religious texts were coloured and illustrated by devoted scholars. This fits with the fact that the authors are part of the new monastic movement – and perhaps this could be seen as the contemporary equivalent.
But aside from a fantastic design job – what does the latest offering from our dreadlocked brother actually contain? Well first point to make, there are very clearly two voices audible in this book. Claiborne and Haw have coinciding views, but different emphases, or perhaps just different experiences, which while bringing occasional difficulties to the academic niceties of the text, actually helps lend weight to this book. Actually – if you count the design, then add in one or two more voices as well.
Written throughout in easily digestible chunks, the book begins as a dissection of a theme of radical God politics which the authors show running through the bible. It sidetracks through stories of friends, writings of early Christians and reflections on current affairs.
It’s a book of stories, parables, and prophecy, it is not supposed to be a tome, or a text book, or a prize winning essay – this is a work of love, an object of discussion, a catalyst (for want of a less clichéd term) for renewed engagement with the themes, and an encouragement to live a different way.
Rather than taking an easy option, such as a single standpoint, of a Christian anarchy for example, or an anti war vote, Claiborne and Haw manage to turn the whole idea around, arguing for a radical Christian engagement with politics and society in a way that is at once submissive and subversive. American voters wanting to know who the writers say they should vote for, will find themselves left with the same choices, but hopefully looking at them through new, or perhaps ancient lenses. I suspect also that this will help many bring a new creativity to their decision making.
Pacifism and anti (or non) consumerism are key themes, but they each form only part of the overall principal argument, which is to see God’s people as a people set apart by God, called to live another way, and to follow only one leader. It critiques the philosophy that one can serve God, and walk in the way of the world.
This clarion call to a subversive and renewed people of God is a creative and stimulating read – it’s not without its problems, one cant help thinking that if Claiborne authors another book, he will have come close to being part of the system which he so clearly wants to work against, but at the same time, I like many others would be happy to read anything he writes. One might also question how the authors can happily work with others such as Jim Wallis who argue for a more conventional approach to politics… clearly McLaren is not the only one with a generous orthodoxy these days.
Some readers may find biblical references to apocryphal books troubling or confusing, I don’t, in fact I like it. Some factual discrepancies may exist within the text, (numbers of dead in Iraq, or etc) but these are minor when looked at in context, and can be put down to the issue of dual authorship.
It’s a beautiful, peaceful, challenging, affirming, prophetic, subversive and creative book, well worth reading, sharing, mulling over… likely to become a classic.
Links:
I’m in Grimsby now, having eventually got up here last night after a thoroughly enjoyable, if slightly tiring wonder around the UK. In edited highlights - the trip consisted of a cup of tea with Wes Sutton, leader of the Oasis Trust ‘church.co.uk‘ network, at the Oasis base in Waterloo. I was really impressed by what the network is doing in Waterloo, and excited to hear their plans for other projects, some alreadty on the go. Later that evening I returned to the same building, to hear Shane Claiborne speak about his experiences living as an Ordinary Radical. I found out about that event by signing up to a Chrisitan Anarchists mailing list, even though I’m not really an Anarchist. (Shhhh! Don’t tell!)
That night (Wednesday) was spent with Kyber and Mrs Netikos, at their flat in South London. Conversations ranged from virtual reality, to killlng sheep with bolt guns, to archery. And places in between.
Next day, I got to spend some quality time with a friend who wants to expand his clothing company to include a fully ethical range. He’s already working as hard as he can to ensure his suppliers meet the hghest standards of looking after their workforce, and is trying to integrate organic and fairly traded materials into his supply chain. Seems like I’ll be able to help him, which is great.
A bit of a rush over to Euston station then, where I was able to grab a few minutes with Dan Radice of Cokoon. It was good to find out what he’s up to, and to consider what possibilities there are for the future.
Off on to Northampton then, to spend some time with Julie, who is planning to join World Horizons in the summer. I also got a chance to meet Julie’s church, which is an interesting ecumenical fellowship in the heart of the town, very engaged with their community, and offering a whole load of services, from a shoppers coffee shop, to counselling rooms, and various other things throughout their five separate congregations.
On Friday I headed to Shrewsbury via Birmingham - Shrewsbury is home to Ian Matthews and his family. Ian is now working for Zondervan in the UK, but I remember him from our first meeting over ten years ago, when he came to work on a late and unlamented Christian magazine that I worked on at that time. Ian became a friend then, and has remained so, despite not having seen him for a long time.
It was fascinating to see how he and I, through very different paths and in relationship with very different people, have arrived at a very similar place theologically and philosophically (although he’s a left wing libertarian, and I’m not) - it was as surprising as it was encouraging. We both share the same desire to find a way of living in community as families that really works well - I think we agreed that the ideal scenario would be for a group of families to form an open cooperative, the co-op would then own the property, and the families would pay rent to it. Given that it nullifies the effects that personal ownership of property have, and allows for a vaiety of people to live in community in a wholesome way, it seems like the best option. Now, if we could find some other families in Grimsby who were up for that…
A reunion with Kelly and the kids (hooray) meant a short journey to Walsall where we spent the night, and after dispatching the kids to their Grandparents, we went off to the New Monasticism conference in Coventry - which was excellent. I shall blog further details of that soon.
A last laid back drive along the A46 took us all the way to Grimbo - and tea.
Some very talented and ambitious friends of mine are setting up a large scale organic cotton project in China. One day soon perhaps, I’ll be able to help them by marketing their enterprise in the UK and Europe, but right now I’m worried.
How can I take to the ethical marketplace, a Chinese project? The current backlash against the olympic torch, the promotion of the free tibet movement, the Zimbabwe debarcle, and general fears of China’s growing political and economic might, have swung the niche ethical consumers well and truly away from China.
Howies have had flack in the past for making their jeans there - they seem to have survived. But with big brands keeping a wary eye on their ethical products for signs of a dying off of demand… how can I convince the buyers that this excellent chinese project will actually be worth them becoming involved in?
I’ll post any progress…
Could it be true that the expansion, or indeed explosion of mobile phone use is killing off bees?
The honey bee, bumble bee and other pollinators are vital to human survival, an apocryphal quote sometimes attributed to Einstein claims that humans would have four years of life left if the bees died out.
But for the last few years, the bees have been dying out, as the condition known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) takes its toll on the hives and colonies that support our native bee population.
As yet we dont know why CCD, which leaves abandoned hives in a Marie Celeste type condition, takes place - various explanations have been proffered from insectisides (I wrote about this for Organic life a couple of years ago), to fungi, and also to mobile phone masts.
Some suggest that the fact that bees navigate using magnetic particles in their bodies, may mean it is possible that radiation could interfere with this navigation process.
Some dramatic evidence - albeit limited - of the effect that DECT radiation (the type given off by masts and portable phone base stations) is available here in a document which gives the results of a study carried out by german academics.
The report chronicles an experiment with four bee hives, in which two were exposed directly to a DECT base station, which emits a similar kind of radiation as a mobile phone mast.
In each case, bees were selected from the hive, and released 800 metres away - in the case of the unexposed behives, lots of bees quickly returned to their hive.
But in stark contrast, in the hives which had been fully exposed, none or only a few bees returned and much more slowly.
Not only this, but in the exposed beehives, there was significantly less honey comb constructed, and that was of a lower weight or density than in the unexposed hive.
Given this evidence, is it time we reconsidered our massively widespread use of mobile phones? Or at least called for a in depth examination of the potential effects?
I am really looking forward to going to the ‘New habits for a new era?‘ New Monastics conference on May the 3rd. I had the schedule emailed through a few days ago, and it looks great.
The day kicks off with worship followed by introductory sessions to Anabaptism and the Northumbria community,
After lunch there is a choice of sessions: including - Chip off the old block? (Brother Samuel, Ian Mobsby), Street-level monks? (John & Deanna Hayes, Ru & Ben Brown), Ebb and flow (Pete & Catherine Askew),Home-made habits? (Karen Stallard, Sally Nash), and Into Great Silence (for those who have heard the other stuff already.)
Other good stuff follows, but I’m already struggling to decide which bits to go to.
Looking at the quality of folks participating, this shapes up to be a really good conference.
I personally am really inspired by the potential of this growing movement to make a significant impact on society. When Antony became the first hermit monk, back in the first couple of centuries AD, he did it as much to get away from the complacency and compromise of the church, as he did to get away from society.
I think we are seeing a similar discontentment with shallow living arising again in the church, and the growth of interest in new monasticism is an indicator of that. But what we need to be sure of, is that we ourselves dont fall into the same trap, and become just another stale Christian gimmick.
See you there?
I am hoping to be in London on April 30th, if I am, I shall be going to hear Shane Claiborne speak at the church.co.uk Waterloo. Its a free session - question and answer based I think, I doubt I’ll be the only one there….
Wednesday 30 April 2008
Church.co.uk, 1a Kennington
Road, London, SE1 7QP
7:30pm
Free
It’s worth noting there is a free download of a talk Shane gave at ‘The New Conspirators’ recently available here, along with a load of other good stuff, which is available for very little. h/t Mark Berry.
The increasing awareness of the fact that people around the world are starving, and its partly our fault, is leading more and more of us to recognise that we need to change our eating habits.
Most of the publicity at the moment is going towards the demonisation of bio fuels, which we already know are in danger of being described as a crime against humanity.
That is good, we have to acknowledge that switching from petroleum to bio fuels isnt enough, we must cut our consumption instead.
But we also can no longer ignore the issue of meat. My opinions on the future of meat eating are already clear, and I feel there is a growing ground swell of opinion which is supporting this view. George Monbiot writes today about the need to cut our meat consumption - he tried veganism for 18 months apparently, and turned grey… I’ve never been a vegan, but I’ve been a vegetarian for many years now, and am full of health!
Monbiot advocates what I call the ‘meat as treat’ solution: “The only reasonable answer to the question of how much meat we should eat is as little as possible. Let’s reserve it - as most societies have done until recently - for special occasions.”
Amen brother.
Meat production is hugely damaging to the environment, and continuing to over consume it is just not a viable option. It is not true to say that all cattle are grazed on grass land and so they arent harming grain stocks, which is an excuse I have heard some give. Apart from the methane emissions alone, which are huge, cattle account for a vast amount of grain and water consumption per kilo of beef.
Even for those who can write of environmental concerns as less important than human concerns, this has got to be a big issue - all over the world people are starving and food riots are happening. We need urgent action on this, if you eat meat, please consider your posistion. If you are a Christian and you eat meat, then that’s doubly true.
Versus 
I see Converse All Stars are plugging their anti establishment credentials, well they’ve got some right to do so. Chuck Taylor High Tops have been worn by the great and good for many a long year. I’ve owned quite a few pairs in my time too, from classic black and whites to camoflague pattern boots, they’ve always served me well.
But Cons arent the anti establishment buy they may once have been. Now owned by Nike, (you cant get much more establishment than them) they’re part of the system which has involved sweat shop labour and exploitation. (In all fairness, in recent years Nike have cleaned up their act, but they remain a massive multinational, with all that involves.)
Just because The Clash and Kurt Cobain sported them, isnt sufficient reason to buy shoes which are produced by such a major multinational. Especially not when a really good alternative is on offer…
I got my first pair of No Sweat sneakers for my birthday last year, and I’ve just bought another pair (this time I got them off ebay, and they have hemp not cotton uppers).
No Sweats are great boots, in my experience they take the same amount of punishment as Cons, they look practically identical, and come with a clean conscience!!
Dont get me wrong, Cons are great boots, but ethics dictate that where another better option is available (get your no sweats here, or keep an eye on ebay for a bargain) true rebels need to leave Nike behind, and go for 100% Union Made No Sweats.
Hey No Sweat, how about a free pair of boots for such a big plug? ;P
Yup, read it here first… he’s given up.
No comment, because apprently ‘the internal pilgrimage continues…’ hmmmm.
I have this real fear that should Barack Obama win the American election, the whole situation in Cuba could come crashing down. Essentially I am saying that the blockade of Cuba, has been one of the key factors in preserving the country from the ravages of capitalist exploitation.
I know that this doesnt make sense in terms of my feelings about the blockade generally, basically I oppose it, I think its an act of war on America’s part.
But what it has done is stabilise and bolster a number of things in Cuba, one of them being a growing environmentalist way of life, including widespread organic gardening and etc.
Should Obama win (of which more in a later post) I think he will possibly make moves to remove the blockade. If that happens, there is likely to be an economic explosion in Cuba, from increased tourism and export revenues, which could seriously threaten the eco system there.
Some people ask how Cuba became green, the answer is beguilingly simple.
Following the collapse of the old Soviet bloc at the end of the eighties, Cuba’s economy was thrown into crisis. Their markets and cash evaporated as one time communist allies became capitalists. Everything went, including supplies of agricultural chemicals.
Most people assumed that Cuba too would cave in, the Americans certainly did, tightening their blockade in the hope of squeezing them a bit more.
But instead something remarkable took place, and Cuba, instead of collapsing, underwent a different sort of transformation.
Responding to the lack of agri chemicals and shortage of imports, they began to grow food organically, and implemented one of the most progressive organic agriculture policies the world has ever seen.
The whole nation worked together to adopt a more sustainable way of life, now urban gardening, renewable energy, and permaculture practises are widespread. International support has boosted Cuba’s ability to survive and even thrive despite the blockade.
Could all that be about to change? I really hope not. As much as I despise the blockade, and all that it means, I recognise too that it has helped preserve Cuba from capitalism, and find alternative ways of living, which are the kinds of things the ‘developed’ western world, are now beginning to take seriously decades later.
I am becoming more and more convinced that one of the most significant problems in our society is money.
The story goes that Jesus told his disciples, ‘its easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.’
There’s a lot about that which makes sense to me. I honestly think that one of the pronciple reasons we arent a fairer, more just society is that we are too obsessed with getting and keeping money.
This follows on from my previous post, which groaned about the way our society is totally based upon the need for a growing economy, and the fact that the government exists in no small part to look after the interests of big business, as they are inexstricable from the needs of society as a whole.
My view on this is that we are too rich in our society. We have too much. If we had less, we would still be able to make do. But instead we have a lot, and we tie ourselves in to needing more. To get the nicer house, in the better area, we must work a bit harder, in a better paying job.
As we give ourselves over to work, we abandon the needs of others, who come a poor second to us when it comes to doling out the loot. It was love others AS yourselves, remember?
As we separate, living increasingly isolated lives, out of community with one another, leaving old people alone in their houses until its time for them to go into a home, as more and more single people make home by themselves, as marriages break up and divorcees become single parents, we all find ways of getting what we need to make our lives better.
But in doing so, we are participating in an unjust system, we are bringing war on people many miles away (war over oil, over gold, over collapsing brain drain economies), and we bring misery.
The kingdom of God, we are told, is justice, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. Our rich lifestyles bring the opposite. It really is harder for us to enter the kingdom of God, than for us or a camel to pass through the eye of a needle.
Until we can collectively turn our backs on this way of living, we can never exepect to see the Kingdom of God on earth.
The maverick Scientist James Lovelock, who has consistently been the outspoken forerunner of climate change science was interviewed in the guardian at the weekend.
I’ve only just got round to reading it, and as is to be expected from the original science malcontent, it makes rather grim reading for those of us who are keen to make an impact on the world.
Lovelock’s view is that we have gone long past the tipping point in terms of climate change. There is no point in making the kind of consumer lifestyle changes that are promoted - switching to renewable electricity and so on.
His view is that in the next few decades there will be dramatic climate changes which change the face of the world, desertising parts of Europe, flooding parts of London, so on and so forth. There are also suggestions of a flood of immigrants coming here as climate refugees, and the notion that we may need to synthesise food… The latter I recongise is already with us, the first smacks of the fears of an old man.
Rather than advise us to cut our emissions or change our lifestyles, he says: “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”
At the same time as finding these claims deplorable, I am also aware of the massive scale of change that is needed if we really are to change the world. It simply isnt enough for middle class people to recycle, and to buy freerange eggs. Either the majority of society needs to change their lifestyles completely, or else I fear Lovelock’s predictions are likely to come true.
Over the coming years wars really will be fought over food and water, nuclear power will have to be our main source of energy - with all of its risks. People will die on a massive scale and only those wealthy enough to protect themselves will survive.
The trouble is that I dont see many people really being willing to make the necessary changes in their lives. Why? Because we’re bound into a system that is so reliant on a growing economy, that it is impossible for us to opt out.
Our very governmental systems have evolved to promote the interests of those companies which bring in the wealth, we’re busy storing up treasures on earth.
There needs to be some effort put into fiding ways we can live outside of this structure, because unless there is a way, not enough people will make the shift, and then we’ll all suffer. More importantly the first ones to go will be those who deserve it least.
The UN has admitted what looks like defeat in the battle to keep global malnutrition at bay. Essentially the organisation has said that it just does not have the funds to feed the many starving people who require its help.
The reason? Commodity prices, which are sky-rocketing. People who were just outside of the hunger gap, are now unable to afford the basic foodstuffs they need.
“We will have a problem in coming months,” said Josette Sheeran, the head of the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP). “We will have a significant gap if commodity prices remain this high, and we will need an extra half billion dollars just to meet existing assessed needs.”
“This is the new face of hunger,” Sheeran said. “There is food on shelves but people are priced out of the market. There is vulnerability in urban areas we have not seen before. There are food riots in countries where we have not seen them before.”
WFP officials say the extraordinary increases in the global price of basic foods were caused by a “perfect storm” of factors: a rise in demand for animal feed from increasingly prosperous populations in India and China, the use of more land and agricultural produce for biofuels, and climate change. (The Guardian)
Two of the big villains in all this - are meat and bio fuels. So its a stark reminder that simply switching to bio fuel for our cars, (or airlines) is no magic trick to save the world.
Its also a spur for those of us who claim that we must all eat less meat. The fact that to produce a kilo of beef requires many kilos of grain doesnt need a great deal of explanation, and it simply requires us all to cut back our meat consumption.
The upshot of all this is that the UN’s World Food Programme may well have to cut back food aid now, this in an era when we’re putting grain into our cars…
“the World Bank reports that the US has used 20 per cent of its maize production for biofuels and the European Union 68 per cent of its vegetable oil production. This change in usage has boosted prices, reduced the supply of these crops available for food and encouraged the substitution of other agricultural land from food to biofuel production.” The Financial Times.
Sobering.
Our freeconomist friend Saoirse, he of the pilgrimage to India fame, managed to cross the English channel… twice.
After making it over to France, Saoirse and companions realised that actually they dont speak french, nobody knows who they are or what they are doing, and the French dont get it.
I really feel sorry for Saoirse, I have mixed feelings about his pilgrimage, I admire the freeconomy principle, and thus I have a lot of time for the notion of raising awareness for it, but there are elements of his plan, which I feel are either too naive at best, or at worst ignorant and patronising.
In this instance, I am not sure which is the case, perhaps lets err on the side of naivete. But to cross to France, and once there to realise actually not many people speak English, and they all think you’re a freeloading backpacker…? Yeah, that’s a problem.
So Saoirse and his friends, after some soul searching, gave up. And bought tickets to come home. Oh dear. Once back in Blighty though, our man has a change of heart, buoyed by the encouragement of his friends, he confesses his sins, and renews his vows, he will continue his pilgrimage, but first he will walk around the UK…. oh and learn French.
Assuming Saoirse stays true to his plans, and in a year or so heads back over to the continent, I am hoping that he will have taken the trouble to consider wide cross cultural communication issues, not everyone speaks English or French. Some borders are not crossable legally without a purchased visa too, something else to overcome.
As much as I support his principles, and agree with the basis on which he wants to do this pilgrimage, I fear this is not going to work. The reality is that in some ways the French are right, he is just another freeloading backpacker. He is depending upon gifts from well wishers rather than trading skills and so on for his dinner. Moreover the food he eats is produced as part of the global economy - it is not so easy to opt out of the system. That’s why it is ‘the system’.
There are many who make prophetic statements, and I hope there always will. But this one has a number of problems which I fear will not do the philosphy of freeconomics much good.
If you want to read what the man himself has to say, go here.
One thing I’m unclear about though, and it would be good to get someone elses take on this, is he saying he did get a free ride over the channel to France? Or did his friend’s mum pay for it? I found that part a little confusing.
There’s a good feature in the guardian about Saoirse, the guy walking to India from the UK as an ambassador for the freeconomy philosophy. The following quote from the interview sums up what I like in his mission:
“Look, if I’ve got £100 in the bank and somebody in India dies because they needed some money, then, in a way, the responsibility of that person’s death is on me. That’s very hardcore, I know, but I’ve got more than I need and that person needed it. And if you know that, then you’ve either got to do something about it, or you have to wake up every morning and look at yourself in the mirror.”
Noticed any random trees popping up in the middle of previously paved areas? You could be witness to the actions of guerilla tree planters…. yeah I know, the concept has the air of silliness about it, and perhaps a whiff of futility, but the FOE initiative is aimed at highlighting the issue of illegal deforestation, and the widespread use of illegally logged timber.
So for a number of reasons, not least the anarchic part of my brain, I like this concept, and I happily encourage civil disobedience in such a good cause!
I’m following the progress of the freeconomy guy Saoirse, who is attempting a walk to India, using no cash, and looking for the kindness of strangers, and a barter economy, to get him all that he needs on his journey.
He says: “My name is Saoirse and I am walking from Bristol in the UK to Porbandar in India without any form of money because I want my life to be my message. We live in a media packed world, where politicians and corporations market the talk, but don’t walk the walk. So one day I decided to, literally, walk the walk.”
So far he seems to have got as far as Portsmouth, and his site reports that he has been well supported by fellow freeconomy types. His first big challenge will be getting across the channel, and then I suspect his road will become somewhat more difficult, as fewer people will have heard of him, or understand what he is doing. On the other hand perhaps he will find that the kindness of strangers increases as he goes east, as this Guardian blog suggests… as an addendum to that, the writer of that blog talks mistily about the Cambodian buddhist monks who stand and beg, never asking, coughing, or etc.
The writer seems to ignore the fact that most people give to the monks not out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather out of superstition, and/or a hope that it will benefit them in a tangible spiritual way.
Anyway, his blog should chronicle most of his journey, apart perhaps from the wilderness parts…
I like the freeconomy concept, I’m sadly convinced though that we’re too far the other way for this to work in this current age, but we could certainly take some steps towards it.
I have been wanting to get hold of the book ‘The Early Christians in their own words’ for a while, since hearing about it in something Shane Claiborne wrote. Today I found that the book, along with many others is available as a free pdf download from Plough Books.
Plough is the publishing arm of the Bruderhof community, a radical Christian community aligned with Annabaptists and Bretheren types. Bruderhof community members have all their possesions in common, have no individual bank accounts, no salaries and so on. A radical way to live.
Some time ago, 2005 I think their online presence was removed, although Plough books have more recently posted all their books up for free download again. They are a fascinating bunch, well worth getting stuck into a couple of titles. I’m particularly looking forward to reading ‘The Early Christians’ and ‘Why we live in community’.
Well done Bruderhof for following through on your beliefs, and giving stuff away!
yeah I use a pc, yeah it doesnt look as cool as your apple, yeah I couldnt give two wotsits, put this in your pipe and smoke it you style over substance white plastic toxic tyrants.
Apple could do with getting somewhat greener,
so if you are an apple user, stop being so smug.
It doesnt make you intrisically ‘cooler’ than the rest of us, no matter what you think.
It doesnt mean you’re anti establishment, no matter what what you think.
It doesnt mean that you’re much cleverer than us becuase you can use a mouse with one button, no matter what you think.
It does mean you’re party to Apple’s bizarre policy of using dangerous materials and un fixable technology.
So there.
Thanks Greenpeace for helping me out with this rant.
I picked this up on treehugger the other day - a way to hack the planet… in a kind of lavatorial sense, essentially vandalising your friends toilets, so that they use less water… unless they’ve got a composting bog of course.
In lots of cultures, bread is revered. In our culture we tend to spoil it by pumping it full of fat and chemicals… mmm. So here, dear reader, is my tried and tested to destruction, recipe for hand made bread, which is not only delicious, but also nourishing and great to slice, freeze and whatever else you can think of. Most importantly, it doesnt need fat!! Give your breadmaker away, stop buying supermarket loaves, and get hand baking baby…
Bread recipe - makes four good loaves, or three loaves and about a dozen bagels.
3 Tbs Yeast (I use the Allinson stuff, which you get in little orange tins)
3 Tsp sugar, or honey
2 pints tepid water (you may need a little more or slightly less depending upon your flour)
2 kg’s strong flour (I use half wholemeal, half white for a healthy, tasty, good slicing loaf)
1 1/2 Oz salt (worth trying slightly less, or slightly more, depending upon your taste.)
Bit of extra flour for dusting, kneading etc.
1) Dissolve the yeast and sugar/honey in 1 pint of warm water.
2) Put all the flour in a big bowl, if it is a mixture, or you’re putting oats in, make sure its well mixed. Mix in your salt too. Make a well in the centre. When your yeast mixture has risen so there’s a good inch or two of foam, mix it into your flour. I use a plastic spoon for this stage - give it a good mix. It can be quite hard work. When its all soaked up, add in your second pint of warm water, bit by bit, mixing it in.
I find that a very easy flour to use is Dove’s Farm organic flour, I use half wholemeal and half strong white. Allinsons also make pretty decent bread flour - its easy to get organic flours from supermarkets. When you’re confident - you can get specialist flours from small mills by mail order, or from small shops.
3) Turn the dough out onto a lightly floured surface and get kneading. If you do this right, it becomes a kind of meditiative activity, quite soothing and cathartic at the same time. Pressing down with the heel of your hands, squashing and folding your dough over and over again, a good kneed will take at least 10 minutes. This is when the gluten gets developed - and is vital to the end result. if your dough is too sticky, and is making a mess on your hands or the work top, dust it with flour, and rub it off.
4) Get the dough into a big ball, and put it back into the bowl. Leave it in a warm, place, away from draughts - I like a sunny windowsill, or above a warmish radiator. Cover the bowl with a dampish tea towel. You need to leave this for its FIRST PROVE which will take up to about an hour. During this time, the dough will rise, and you can expect it to double in size if its been made properly. If its a very warm place - the prove will be quicker - so keep an eye on it.
5) After the dough has proved, knead it again. This is the stage when you can add other ingredients or shape it (see below). Give it a good kneading - another ten minutes or so, maybe slightly less - the key is to knock all the air out. Then divide it up - you can just chop it into four pieces, then knead it into oblong shapes. Place the dough into greased loaf tins (if you are making standard loaves) or onto a greased baking sheet, if you are making bagels, rolls, or fancy shaped loaves. This should then be left for the SECOND PROVE during which time you must be careful not to knock the loaves. Leave it to prove for maybe another 40 mins - 1 hour.
6) Preheat your oven to 200 C. Gently transfer your loaves to the oven. If you’ve got a fan oven, you could get them all in ok. If it’s an old fashioned oven, cook two a time - in the centre of the oven. A good oven will cook the loaves well in 20 minutes, if your oven is older, you may need longer.
Look at the top of your loaf - if it looks nicely brown, take the loaf out. Remove it from the tin, and look at the bottom. If the bottom is pale, it may need more cooking. Bakers will tell you to tap the bottom, and if it sounds hollow - then its ready. Personally I cant tell if it sounds hollow, so I say that if its pale, put the loaf back in, out of its tin, upside down. Leave it for 5 to 10 more minutes, check it after five, after 10, I think it should definitely be ok.
7) Take the loaf out, and place it on a rack to cool. If you want a real soft crust, then wrap the loaf up in a tea towel as it cools. When it is cool, you can slice it up. You can either freeze your loaves whole, or presliced - either works. Use good quality polythene bags to freeze your loaves in.
This bread is really good stuff - the problem you will have is wanting to eat the stuff all the time.
To make multigrain bread, you need to add your extra seeds after the first prove. When you knead your proved dough, just add in the seeds you want to have in your bread, just keep chucking them in until you like the look of your dough. If you want to do something multigrain without it tasting to seedy - use sunflower seeds. They are very inoffensive - make sure you’ve got sunflower kernels though, and not seeds with shells on!
To make bread using oats, you can simply substitute oats for about 1/3 of your flour. It will make the dough a bit drier though, so you may need to use more water. I know it seems a bit odd, but the oats will simply blend right into your dough, and feel just like normal bread. Use porridge oats. They are good for you!!
To make bread which will get your kids interested, try plaiting three cylinders of dough together, or making a round, coil shape. Then simply bake on a flat baking sheet rather than in a loaf tin. You can also make bread rolls in interesting shapes - my daughter used to love heart shaped bread rolls.
To make bagels, use the recipe above, but after the first prove, cut the dough into rounds (like making scones). Then turn the rounds into balls, and stick your finger through the middle of the ball, making a doughnut shape.
Stretch it out until it looks like a bagel. Leave your dough bagels to prove for a second time. Once they’ve had a good prove, bring a pan of water to a rolling boil. Boil your dough bagels for about three minutes, turning them in the pan, so they get cooked on both sides. I do about two at a time in a normal pan.
Put them back on your baking tray and once they’ve all been boiled, cook them at about 200 for 15 minutes, or until they look a good colour.
To make cinamon and raisin bagels, after the first prove, add some cinamon, raisins, and a smidgeon of sugar to your dough. I have never made a full batch of cinamon and raisin, so I am not sure what amount you’d want for a full batch of dough. Best to experiment with a small batch, and multiply upwards afterwards.
If you want to do multiseed - add whatever seeds you like at that stage (after 1st prove) too. (I like pumpkin, sunflower and poppy seeds… mmm.)
Happy baking!
I think its fair to say that I’m not your classic royalist. What with being something of a republican and all… yeah that means something different in America, I know.
But I was fairly impressed by bonnie prince Charlie’s appearance at the alternative energy summit in Abu Dhabi - where he was beamed holographically! That’s pure star wars!!
I’m all for holographic monarchs, much better than real ones. It is not clear to me from this article whether Charlie (the young Chevalier) was speaking live, or it was a recording (I imagine it was the latter) - but its a jolly good way to avoid the air travel.
Interesting also to note his comments: “Scientists are now saying that the problem of climate change is now so grave and so urgent that we have less than 10 years to slow, stop and reverse greenhouse gas emissions. Common actions are needed in every country to protect the common inheritance that has been given to us by our creator…”
Cant disagree on that score Charlie boy - round one to you.
I am not a real student of Australian politics, and I suspect most people who read this stuff arent either.
But one thing (or rather one person) made me particularly interested in the outcome of the recent Aussie poll - and that was baldie old Pete Garrett.
I’m on record as being a fan of Midnight Oil, who I rate not just because of their guitar riffs and catchy lyrics, but because of the passionate social comment that lay behind much of their output. A few years ago when the Oils split up, Pete donned a suit and tie, and went into politics.
Now he’s the Australian minister for the environment. I reckon that can only be good news for the land down under. On the other hand of course, power has a funny habit of changing people, and my sincere hope is that Pete will stay true to his beliefs and principles.
I tried to get hold of him to interview him once, couldnt get through boo-hoo. I did see the Oils in concert though, and I thought they were excellent, even though Pete was wearing a jumper… not very rock and roll.
So I’m expecting a lot from the guy who said: “it belongs to them, lets give it back” and “don’t turn back the ships of freedom” amongst a myriad of other progressive, and environmental statements.
Come on Pete, I’m rooting for you.
According to some new research the best way to eat, or the greenest at any rate, is to incorporate a small amount of meat into your diet - not to be an out and out veggie.
The treehugger article I just read says: “The recommended ‘dose’ for a sustainable small foodprint is to eat only about 2 oz cooked meat or eggs a day. A single serving of meat is often estimated to be about 3 oz, or the size of a deck of cards. (insert quick math calculation here) This, leaves you with eating about 2 servings of meat every 3 days.”
It adds the caveat: “Naturally, your specific foodprint depends on where you live, and the availability of such resources as soil, water, and sunlight. But, this work points out the benefit of having a diverse system of agriculture that takes advantage of your local area’s resources, tradition, and taste.”
So I think this backs up those who go for the ‘meat as treat’ diets, and also supports the suggestion that a diet that is not too heavily meat based is better than one which includes meat based meals every day.
My personal preference is to stick with vegetarianism, and I am concerned that this allows wriggle room for determined meat eaters, who like nothing better than scarfing a nasty bit of beef that’s been flown all the way from a brazilian rainforest… Welsh lamb is pretty good though (so I’m told).
Here are some simple steps to living more ethically - I’ve tried to make these applicable to most people, regardless of their income.
1) Slow down. The number one enemy to a more ethical life is haste - it is the reason we use disposable consumables, drive everywhere, spend less time with our children, and alienate ourselves from our environment.
Find two ways to slow down, and do something which takes more time than you usually allow. Life has a nasty way of speeding things up without you realising it, so maybe once a month stop and look at your life, what can you slow down? Has anything speeded up? Make positive changes and these WILL influence the rest of your life.
2) Make more things. We have largely become alienated from our surroundings, and because of that we spend less time considering what we are consuming and producing. If you buy ready made food, then try and cook more meals. If you have some outside space, grow something in the ground or a pot. If there is a birthday coming up, make a present and/or a card.
3) Buy less. Our society is on the whole far too heavily based on consumption, we are always being encouraged to buy more and more. This single act puts a greater and greater strain on the world’s resources, many things we use arent replenishable - we’ll run out!
We’ve used up masses of oil, chopped down huge amounts of trees, dug up acres and acres of land, pumped chemicals into the rivers and seas… for one week each month buy nothing but food.
4) Support charities. There are many charities out there, doing specialist work with people who desperately need help. They rely on donations from the rest of us, choose a charity and support it monthly.
5) Get involved. The downside of supporting a charity means we can be lulled into thinking we’re ‘doing our bit’ - not true! We need to make sure that we’re part of an active solution -that means getting involved, probably through volunteering. There’s so many things you can do, visit old people in residential homes, help with a youth club, pick litter off a beach, or perhaps volunteer to go overseas and help with a project that affects very poor people… there’s masses of opportunity, and not all of them cost much.
6) Read things you disagree with. A sure way to make progress in your thinking is by challenging it. If you tend to be a political person, then read something you dont agree with on a regular basis - for lefties it could be the Mail on Sunday, for right wingers it might be the Guardian. If you’re not a political person, then try reading an article here and there which is political - to get a flavour of what others are saying.
Reading and listening to stuff that you disagree with means that you ensure you’re not just re-enforcing your own opinions all the time. I find it also gets me cross, and getting cross is one step towards action!
7) Eat less meat. Meat is one