Collected posts from the various blogs I’ve contributed to since 2002.
It’s been on the cards for a while, but news of Jane Griffiths’ deselection was finally confirmed this weekend. I could add some barbed comments to the BBC story. But deselection speaks for itself.
There was a very interesting piece on Minnesota Public Radio’s The Splendid Table on February 7th exploring the growing debate about fair trade coffee in the US. Guest Kevin Knox, a buyer for Starbucks and Alegro Coffees, talked about the demand for quality beans which fair trade in the USA has yet to meet. The argument reminded me very clearly of the debate around fair trade coffee in the UK over the past decade. When first introduced, fair trade coffees were pretty much undrinkable, but over the past few years they’ve developed to the point where 5065 can be marketed alongside other quality instants. But it is that word ‘instant’ which is one of the key issues to focus on. The US coffee market doesn’t want to know about instant coffee and while CafeDirect may be producing high quality instants in the UK, that same quality isn’t seen on a wide scale in fair trade beans in the US. ...
At points he told us the truth: “free societies are societies that don’t develop weapons of mass terror and don’t blackmail the world.” At points he stated the obvious: “the leaders from Iraq, there is no question in my mind that people that I have seen at least are thrilled with the activities we’ve taken.” And throughout he dodged the issues. Perhaps someone needs to tattoo the definition of the word ‘quote’ on Bush’s hand? ...
I can’t say I’ve ever had much respect for any Murdoch publication or news network. News Corporation is just far too sinister a name. But today has, perhaps, been the day in which I’ve most reviled the corporation and its powerbase. It might well have been this utter mangling of the Hutton report (transcribed here) which set it off [thanks Joff and Martin, for those links]. Or I guess it could have been this rather less incendiary, rather more revealing piece in the Washington Post. ...
I’m not sure there are words for this. Why had we not heard they were there?
We probably should have known better than to rely on Nick Brown. It has been clear all along that there’s more than convictions driving his position, but I think we all believe he’d stand firm. His publicly stated reasons for voting with the government tonight are clearly nonsense (the measures he say swayed him were introduced last week) and the halls of westminster were filled with talk of what sort of Blair-Gordon-Nick deal had driven these changes. ...
It’s always nice to know that your local parliamentary representative respects you. That they will take your serious questions seriously, and explain to you why they’re taking the stands they’re taking. I guess that’s why I was somewhat taken aback to receive an email from Jane Griffiths MP (Reading East) this morning containing just two words (aside from quoted material): What nonsense She was responding to an email I had sent asking what I considered a perfectly legitimate question about manifestos. I had asked whether they were supposed to tell us what legislation a government would bring in during the parliamentary session to which they applied. I may have made a passing comment that if the line she and Blair are taking [“the manifesto only applies to things which take effect during this parliament” (I paraphrase)] is the case then they could write whatever they liked in their manifesto and introduce entirely contrary legislation with some sort of time-delay. ...
“Today started out just like any other day I can remember lately, I was thrown out the window”
I’ve been following the Kilroy-debacle fairly reluctantly. The debate on Question Time last night piqued my interest a little, but seemed entirely based on a belief that the BBC had some sort of obligation to give the man airtime. I wonder if the same amount of fuss will be made in the US about CBS’ refusal to show MoveOn’s anti-Bush ad? Sadly, I fear not. For those who haven’t been following, MoveOn ran a contest to produce a 30 second advertisement about the failings of the Bush junta regime. The intention was to show the winner during that climax of US corporate sporting excess, the Superbowl. Not so now, it would appear. ...
In the absence of a viable opposition, and in the face of an incredibly unpopular policy, surely it’s no surprise that labour rebels would try and persuade other people to support their rebellion. Isn’t that what politicians do?