Conscience in a cup - the coffee trade · Thursday March 15, 2007 by colin newell
One of the things I brought up on my CBC interview recently was just how volatile the coffee trade is. I am going to try and spend more time on this issue as it is a message that is not getting out enough.
Fact: Coffee changes hands 100-125 times on its journey from the farmers field to the cup –
That is an indicator of how many middle-men there are – this number is shrinking thanks, in part, to
internet auctions.
Now take all the coffee that is grown annually —
and multiply that quantity by ten and that is
the volume that trades on the commodity indexes
in New York and London. This is a totally staggering reality that impacts on the farmers and their families.
Back to the trade indexes for a moment: The coffee prices rise and fall faster than a theme-park roller-coaster.
And with these wild fluctuations, comes hardship for the
12 million farmers and families that rely on the meager
income that the coffee produces.
Is there hope? Yes: fair-trade, internet auctions, the cafe-culture phenomenon in the West that is paying more attention to the ethical issues and so on.
How can the average consumer help? Look at the label.
Is your coffee fairly traded? Is your coffee organic? Is your coffee labelled and branded by a gigantic trans-national like Folgers, Nescafe and the like. Read your label carefully.
Yes, you might be able to buy your 2-pound bins of ground Folgers at the Wal-Mart for $9 – but ask yourself this:
Who is really paying the ultimate price in human suffering when we screw farmers and their families out of a decent living?
Think about your coffee and how you can make a difference.
Another day older and closer to... · Monday March 5, 2007 by colin newell
Ok. Do not really want to harp on this too much. But this animation pretty much sums it up.
Recent reports suggest that the Bush administration is considering using nuclear weapons against Iran. The very fact that nuclear weapon use is being discussed as an option—against a state that does not have nuclear weapons and does not represent a direct or imminent threat to the United States—illustrates the extent to which the Bush administration has changed U.S. nuclear weapons policy.
The last time a nuclear weapon was used against another nation was… well heck. You know the answer. It was the U.S. against Japan – and some analysts point out that the war was pretty much won by the U.S. – you know, it just seemed like a good idea at the time to let this thing off over a civilian target just to see what would happen.
Anyway – the past is gone. Back in 2007 for a moment.
Check out this marvelous animation on the folly of bunker busting technology.
Another day older and still radioactive · Monday February 26, 2007 by colin newell
According to The London Sunday Times, Israel is planning to use nuclear bunker busters to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The report says that Israeli airforce squadrons at Hatzerim and Tel Nof Airbase are training to use low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”.
Some of Iran’s facilities have been built underground (read: Underneath hospitals and schools) and would thus be difficult to hit using conventional weapons. No kidding!
Targets would include the uranium enrichment facilities of Natanz, a site near Isfahan where gas for the enrichment process have been stored underground, and a heavy water reactor in Arak.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished.” said a source. The tactical nuclear weapons would only be used if conventional weapons were “ruled out” and if the United States “declined to intervene”, the article continues, based on “senior” military sources.
Ok. Everyone shout with me: “God help us all!”
The instantaneous human casulties would be in the order of tens of thousands. Within days, the body count could be in the hundreds of thousands. Prevailing winds would carry fall-out hundreds, if not thousands of miles into Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Kazkhstan, Turkey and beyond.
Military analysts say that disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Iran to halt enrichment (which Iran says is for peaceful purposes), prod the United States into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack, according to the report.
soften up World opinion huh? I am going to need a lot more softening than this. Nukes have not been used against civilians since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs of WWII – and there are still survivors suffering from those original attacks.
If I were a space alien (and I clearly am not a space alien…) I would be asking: If the following countries have nukes, then why can’t… you get the picture…
The Global Nuke Club
United States
Russia
China
France
Israel
United Kingdom
India
Pakistan
Is it because the above countries are all benign, harmless, peace loving and generally little or no threat to their neighbors?
Somehow, I do not think that this is the real issue.
You decide.
Still don’t think we are on the eve of destruction? Read here
Comment [2]
Canada - sane and more free... · Saturday February 24, 2007 by colin newell
The top court in Canada has ruled against the constitutionality of security certificates. article
Basically, the certificates allowed the Federal government of Canada to detain, without charge, non-citizens of Canada pretty much… forever.
Not only that, the detainees have no access to their accusors, legal representation, the evidence or… well… anything.
Nice. No. Not nice.
It’s not Canadian to treat people this way – Canadians or not.
We don’t do it. When we see 15-century style laws like this, we challenge them.
This kind of nonsense might fly in 21st century America but it doesn’t here.
And the last time I checked, we were a separate country.
Meantime, the U.S.A, which has gone totally insane in their economy-draining quest to find the perfect spook is slowly introducing a new form of X-Ray technology to gaze beneath the clothing of its law abiding citizens. link
In our daily (monday-friday) coffee roundtable at my place of employ, we have some pretty lively debate.
One misguided drinking companion (a loudly acknowledged ultra-rightwing christian neo-con) said: “If ya got nothing to hide… ya won’t mind showing us what ya got…”
My feeling is: A steady erosion of personal freedoms in the name of protecting us from some imaginary threat is bad for society.
That is my opinion and I welcome your comments.
