Blog posts

One of the hot topics in Higher Education at the moment is plagiarism, with Universities struggling to develop appropriate educational and disciplinary responses to a rapidly increasing number of cases. The reasons for this increase are many: from changes in research styles resulting from increased internet use; to less awareness of British approaches to plagiarism; to increased financial and other pressures on students. It is also a tricky area to deal with given that many other cultures have a very different approach to western academia when it comes to copying and referencing. ...

This article (linked to by Nate) reminded me of a train of thought I’d intended to blog, but forgot about while Kari visited. Salon recently ran an article about American Apparel, a clothing manufacturer in Los Angeles who have made waves by ensuring all their employees are paid a living wage and looking for ethically sound suppliers. Paragraphs such as: At American Apparel’s corporate and manufacturing headquarters, Charney appears to have done the unthinkable: He’s made working in a garment factory hip, not just for his young creative and corporate staff, but for the Latino shop workers as well. Fingers fly as teams of sewers are paid by the piece (a modern-day version of the old sweatshop payment system), but shop workers also partake of such trendy on-site services as yoga and massage and wear the T-shirts they make to work. The company offers counseling for co-workers who get involved romantically and then break up again, nobody cares if you smoke a joint, and seven or eight times a year working class joins management in one big beer and pizza party. It’s like one of those multicultural Benetton ads, except, well – it’s an American Apparel ad and it’s real. ...

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”