Posts by Caleb D'Anvers
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And it's catching. The modern New Zealand and Australian approach to coffee and cafes is feted in London, where there is a miserable lookalike Starbucks on every second corner.
This is true, but bizarre to see in action. It's even making its way to my out-of-the-way, Daily Mail infested corner of North Bucks. Doing the shopping late one night at the bleak mall on the edge of the estate I was living on last year, I spied a big friendly poster on the window of the local Costa's. "Coming Soon: The Flat White." Complete with picture of an NZ-style flat white, with silver fern froth decoration. It was the most surreal thing.
Of course, the British still don't really get coffee, particularly the fact that a barista needs actual, you know, coffee-making skills as well as a machine. The Costa flat white not only looks like a good colour photocopy of a New Zealand flat white, it also tastes like what I imagine that would be like. There are strong hints of ... er, nothing, with undertones of ... um ... nothing much. But at least they're having a go.
Oddly enough, the best coffee in this particular windswept-concrete wasteland can be had at the local branch of GBK. It still cracks me up that there actually is a local branch of GBK, but they appear to train their local baristas and source decent beans. So, I can get beetroot in my burgers and something that tastes a little like a Wellington cup of coffee. Maybe.
-
The US has an awful history of political violence - I read last year an incredible 1400 page history of NYC up to 1898 (the union of the boroughs) which simply turned my mind in places with the blood ....
Oooh, Gotham! That's a fantastic read. And, yeah: some of the rioting and general massacre that took place as recently as the late 19th century is just staggering.
-
In a way, that's kind of a relief. Because the idea of Palin knowing enough about history to understand what a blood libel actually is is actually terrifying.
-
Wow. Blood libel, huh? Er, if you say so, Sarah.
-
Come come, there's no need to bring up that book by Henry Rider Haggard.
But that's where you're wrong, my friend! It's always time to bring up that book by Henry Rider Haggard. And yes, I do have posters of Ayesha up on my wall.
-
I love how Key "could not comment [on that] because he is in Hawaii." Says it all, really.
-
And this one, on the collapse of the Chinese foreign student market in 2005, is fascinating. We'd been led to believe that this was a result of currency issues and negative stories in the Chinese media, but the cable makes it clear that the latter were to some degree orchestrated by the Chinese embassy in Wellington:
The decrease also reflects an effort by the Chinese
government to reduce the number of Chinese who study
overseas. The government's primary aim has been to prevent a
drain in foreign exchange. The Chinese Embassy's education
consul in Wellington also has been working actively to reduce
the numbers of Chinese students in New Zealand, according to
Robert Stevens (protect), chief executive of Education New
Zealand. The consul -- who has openly admitted he does not
like living in New Zealand -- has sent messages back to
Beijing portraying the country as inhospitable to Chinese
students, its teachers as incompetent and its people as
racist, Stevens said. -
I thought this one was really interesting: the Embassy's behind-the-scenes response to Trevor Mallard's claims of US involvement in National's 2005 election campaign:
an apparently worried Labour has made the decision to play the
anti-American card: senior Labour officials have begun to
imply that a vote for National would mean a vote against an
independent NZ foreign policy, and a vote for a U.S.-run NZ
government.While the Americans predictably dismiss the claims as "baseless" "diatribes," the cable's account of the backroom pressure they put on Labour is revealing, to say the least. They concentrated on Goff, recognizing his emotional and familial ties to the US, and attempted to get him to distance the party from Mallard's claims:
The Charge told Goff that the Embassy would have
appreciated a head's up that Mallard would be making these
remarks. Goff said that as was well known, he (Goff) has
very favorable feelings towards the United States and close
family connections there. (Goff's sister is an Amcit and has
two sons serving in the U.S. military (one of who is in Iraq)
with a third on his way to West Point.) But, he went on, the
Government believes that these issues do resonate with the
New Zealand public and it would therefore be foolish not to
pursue them. There will be more campaigning on issues
related to U.S. policy in the weeks ahead, he cautioned. The
Charge said that was Labour's call to make, but if further
false claims were made the Embassy would respond. Goff
agreed that it was in the Embassy's right to do so, and
endorsed the idea of our making a press statement refuting
Mallard's claims.While the Embassy is at pains to insist that they were in no way influencing the election, they make it clear that they did not see a Labour victory contributing to "US interests," and considered altering the timing of an official visit to register their disapproval:
if Labour wins, its campaign may impact our
ability or desire to build bridges. Ambassador Swindells,
who is on travel but has been kept abreast of the latest
flap, also strongly recommends that Washington reconsider
whether or not late August is a good time for Agriculture
Secretary Johanns to visit New Zealand. Ordinarily such a visit would be a positive message of support for bilateral
ties. However, we question whether a Cabinet-level visit
just weeks before the elections might not be seen as
interference in domestic politics or be used to undermine
broader U.S. interests.Meanwhile, they made a series of behind-the-scenes approaches to
"MFAT and other key decision makers in government, the private
sector, and the media about ways we can improve the bilateral
relationship after the elections," whatever that means. All of which would tend to undermine somewhat their claim to Olympian detachment from the election and its outcome. -
I think there would be more chance of having a centre-left government if the Green Party started grabbing votes off National, rather than just off Labour. If the Greens shift to the centre, say they'll work with anyone as long as they get a number of key wins and this new party emerges "left of Labour" with its votes partly coming from the Greens (who hopefully pick up a whole pile more environmentally conscious centrists) and partly from Labour, things could be interesting.
But what happens if this party to left of Labour does much worse than predicted, and, chastened, amalgamates with the Greens? And then who do we turn to when the Greens start wearing yellow ties, speaking Spanish, and waving around little orange booklets? It could happen.
-
Shorter National: "We're not responsible for anything we do in Government. We're borrowing 256 million a week, but that's someone else's fault. Workers are unhappy, but that's just a nasty Left Wing plot! Classrooms are overloaded, but that's all a local issue. Nothing to do with us, apparently. But please, vote for us again!"
Because, presumably their inability to handle the levers of the state in a competent way when they're given them is ... someone else's fault. And they're probably relaxed about it.