Although I am a reader, I had never heard of Richard Flanagan until I saw him on TV a month or so ago. I can’t remember what the programme was about – such was the impact it had on me – but the man came over as a very strange fellow who seemed to be at odds with everyone, including himself. Perhaps he is a big name in the backwaters of Tasmania; or with the “literati” and “intellectual elite”, of whom there are probably three in Tasmania.

The media does have “unhealthy preoccupation with celebrity”, as the author states. The most recent being last night’s news and current affairs on a woman who was, apparently, a runner of some sort who died of breast cancer. Poor woman. But there are thousands if not millions of women dying of the same disease who never get a mention.

Someone who is supposed to be a ‘celebrity’ breaks wind, and we all have to know about it.

And, the masses love it. They live their lives through these other people, because their lives are, they believe, so humdrum and unexciting.

Mark Poynter’s credentials are impressive; but he will have to get used to the idea that celebrity emptiness will win every time.

To me, the worst aspect of the pulp-mill debate is the uses to which it's products will be put.

I'm tired of hearing the old chestnuts of "progress", employment, wealth generation, value adding (there's a particularly slimy misnomer) and "saving" the poor old Tasmanian economy (whatever the fundamentalists deem that to be).

The fact is that the vast bulk of the paper products will be briefly used once, shredded and thrown into the rubbish.

I don't care how sweetly the plant runs, nor how proud you are of it's ability to digest whole forests and swallow torrents of water. The whole idea is an abomination from the get-go.

It is no more nor less than a fancy way of turning trees into unnecessary landfill.... and we are all going to do something about that, whether politicians, industrialists and financiers like it or not.... celebrity notwithstanding.

Meanwhile much/most/all of the "expert" opinion that promotes all of these grand schemes is produced by public "relations" companies who business is the manufacture of "spin".

That is lies, lies, and more lies.

Always remember the golden rule, that money rules, and then follow the money trail.

Trouble-makers!

If it wasnt for the trouble-makers or those that said no, or we have had enough, we would long ago have had a fascist corporate state.

And white racist America too where brown skinned strange fruit would still be found on trees in the south. And certainly not a mixed race brown skinned President elect.

And the "communist USSR, and apartheid South Africa. And even British ruled North America. And of course the "divine right" of kings.

Which is also the primary reason that Obama was elected. The people have quite rightly had enough of the corporate lie machine.

In fact some argue that we already have such a corporate fascist state, especialy in the USA. And I would agree with them.

It is obvious that governments have very little say about what goes on and what does or does not happen.

All summed up in the title of a title of a book by David Korten:

When Corporations Rule the World.

Which is EXACTLY the way things are.

Big money and vested power interests rule OK.

All held in place (trance) by 24/7 wall to wall corporate propaganda/spin.

Would the author be so against celebrity activism if one had been espousing the virtues of logging old growth forests and the pulp mill.

Celebrity is irrelevant really, there will always be celebrities talking up some cause whether it is Flanagan and forests or Charlton Heston's gun totin' mentality.

Give people some credit to make up there own minds. I would think celebrity involvement only reinforces the mindsets of the true believers.

Logic dictates that there are limits to growth. Is it illogical to suggest that continuous unrestrained growth is unsustainable and forestry within that scenario is no exception.

The gunn's pulp mill has been fraught with illegal and unethical shenanigans from politicians and interested parties from the very beginning. Facts, logic and expertise have been ignored by gunns and politicians but big money talks regardless of the potential negative consequences to both the environment and with it the people of Tasmania.

I don't see why loggers always whine and whine and bitch about the potential for the loss of their jobs.

Workers from all other parts of society have no job guarantees and regularly get laid off/fired. In many cases they have to uproot their home often to travel to find work, to different states. Farmers might go broke and have to sell their properties.

Why do loggers think they are so special and have such a huge sense of entitlement?

I should firstly point out that my article was originally posted on the ABC Unleashed website on 24/11 and has since then had 430 comments. Probably the majority of these come from an opposing viewpoint (often very vehemently), although there was no shortage of supporting comments also.

A particular feature was that about 4 or 5 of those most aggrieved by the article posted 20 - 30 comments each, including one who posted 60 - 70 comments. Most of these simply just went off on a tangent and did not really address the article. Of the 5 comments on this site thus far, I would categorise 3 in that way already, with a fourth comment being partially like that.

In many ways those responses simply prove the point of the article that so many people with no actual knowledge of the topic have very, very strong opinions developed by exposure to a range of uninformed opinions, of which celebrity activists are a significant source.

The ABC Unleashed experience was that when challenged to provide evidence, or directed to government statistics and reports that show they are wrong, these angry respondents just went on spouting their 'indisputable truths' without skipping a beat. They simply had no interest in changing their views no matter how factually wrong they are.

One of the first five comments has said that celebrity views don't really matter as they only reinforce the mindset of the true believers. There is some truth in that, but the true believers (dark greens) are thought to make up only about 15% of the population, whilst about 50% tend to lean to the green view but are open to consider alternate views (light greens).

If they are making up their minds about a whole host of issues on the basis of celebrity activism in preference to government statistics and facts that are rarely aired in the media, than I would contend that our society has a problem.