Pages

▼

Friday, 8 June 2007

Sweet Insanity


"Campaigners" are worried that chocolate makers are indirectly funding wars in Africa and want them to print on their labels where they buy their cocoa so that consumers can make sure they're buying "conflict-free chocolate."

I'm rather glad that I have an aversion to sweets. It saves me from a good deal of silliness. If a government wishes to impose a trade embargo on a country engaged in hostilities, that is perfectly reasonable. If a pressure group wishes to boycott a company to change its purchasing policies, that is their right. But when said pressure group expects a company to participate in a boycott against itself, that is where we part brass rags.
at

2 comments:

  1. AnonymousFriday, 8 June 2007 at 11:04:00 GMT-7

    Because we all know the best way to end a conflict is to boycott a nation's only cash crop, thereby crippling its economy. When people are poor and desperate they _never_ resort to violence. Only rich and prosperous societies do that...

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousFriday, 8 June 2007 at 12:39:00 GMT-7

    Excellent point. One would think that would be the rational deduction; try explaining it to PC-embracing special interest groups.

    ReplyDelete

Rules for submitting comments:

1. No profanity. I maintain the pretense that this is a family-friendly site.

2. Stay on topic. A bit of straying and off-hand commenting is okay, but hijacking the discussion is right out.

3. No ad hominem attacks. Attack the subject, not the other person on the thread and keep the discussion civil.

4. No spamming or commercial endorsements. These get deleted immediately.

Tip: Beware of putting hyperlinks in your comments–especially at the end. For some reason, Blogger interprets these as spam.

Note: Due to the recent spate of anonymous spamming, registration for comments is now required.