Starbucks under terror threat

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: *Laura*
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 01:16 PM

Costa all the way!!
Chocolate twists, hot chocolate and Frescatos! woop woop!
But I don't drink coffee so... I can't compare the COFFEE shops properly.

xLx

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: heric
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:56 PM

Enter a zip code to locate a non-corporate cafe near you:

delocator

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JedMarum
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 10:47 AM

Wyo - I've been thinking about your comment on frustration "why the hell is it not possible to talk about objecting to the shenanigans of giant corporations without being characterized as ANTI-CAPITALIST?"

You have such extreme views on what you label "giant corporations" and you seem to include all mature, establiched professionally managed businesses in that category of evil doers. You say you love "ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS" but imply you hate established professional business - it's like saying you love puppies but hate dogs. Maybe I misunderstand you - but that's what it sounds like to me.

It is simply NOT true that all giant corporations got to be giant by cheating - nor that all giant corporations maintain their edge by cheating. I find myself playing devil's advocate on this issue, because there are many more shades of grey then the balck and white blanket statements that successful capitalist organiztions are evil.

The rules/laws we pass to regulate the way businesses operate in this country must be carefully designed and diligently applied. We have done a pretty good job of this in America, over the years, but must remain focused on it. And I agree with you, that it's a damn shame that we allow foreign nations to export goods to us that are produced without applying the same environmental safe guards on their industry that we apply to our own - and that those safeguards are not "watch dogged" effectively. I do not support trade limits/duties etc - but we should be much more diligent about participating in open trade for goods with nations who do not play by the same rules we do ... and I would apply that notion to environmental issues, but probably not others.

We cannot pretend to know what's best for other countries when it comes to labor and other economic conditions. If in fact there are documented abuses, maybe there ought to be exceptions.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 04 Feb 02 - 02:05 AM

No freetrade coffee here. Safeway has a couple of so-called organic coffees, about $12US a pound, blends unknown. Upscale stores such as The Cooking School specialty outlet have more, but expensive.
We have no standards for "organic" produce; you must put your trust in the label or the vendor and neither may be reliable.
The federal government is studying ways of cracking down on herbal remedies and possibly putting some of the more dangerous ones, such as Ephedra, under prescription only rules.
We don't have fresh or Canadian graded frozen meat in our stores from Latin America. Only "corned beef" or other processed meat tins. I can't speak for the hamburger at McDonalds, etc. We get some frozen lamb from New Zealand, but not the quality of local lamb. Our graded fresh and frozen beef is from Canada or Montana and adjacent states (which ends up with Canada grade marks). Boxed frozen hamburgers? If it has passed Canadian grading it may be sold, but could be from anywhere that isn't being accused of unfair trade practices at the moment.
Our local Co-op chain is not into "organics" to any extent; Safeway has more. At this time of the year, much of our fresh produce is from the US and Latin America (plums, peaches, grapes from Chile, tomatoes from Mexico and California) much citrus from Asia but still mostly the States. Some of the apples and pears are Canadian, but the rest are from the States and Asia. Canadians would be very unhappy without Asian mandarin oranges in winter.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: WyoWoman
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 11:38 PM

Dicho, if what you say is true, why was I able to go to my food co-op this evening and have so many choices of Free Trade, organic, shade-grown, hand-picked coffee for under $8 a lb. that I had trouble making up my mind?

And, yes, there are ridiculous obstacles to getting agricultural goods to market -- for which I can't offer many remedies at this point, since I'm still in a steep learning curve about these issues. However, I think it's idiotic that farmers and ranchers here in Kansas are having trouble staying in business at a time when our supermarkets are flooded with ARgentine and Brazilian beef, and so forth. FOr one thing, if the producers of that meat were being taxed on the environmental costs of their business -- from the devastation of the forests to the transportation costs to take it thousands and thousands of miles from its point of origin, that meat wouldn't be so cheap. Also, in support of choice, I don't know why American consumers can't be told a simple thing like, "This meat came from Argentina," or "This meat came from Onaga, Kansas." Even if it cost more, I'd buy the local food. But I don't even have that choice. And why is that? Because the lobbyists with the most money have purchased the process and gotten the rules passed in their favor, screwing the consumer out of the ability to MAKE fair choices.

And yes, Leprechaun, I do fear that the nihilist punks hijack many of these situations. Apparently that hasn't been the case so far in NYC. I don't really know what the answer is -- I know it was a problem during the Vietnam protests, and in the anti-nuke movement. And they'd never listen, never gave a rat's ass that they were doing more harm than good. Some people just love stirring up trouble. But they do need to be distinguished from people with a legitimate cause and a commitment to social change. I'm glad you agree.

ww

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 09:17 PM

In western Canada, the workingman cafes are in the "industrial parks" (areas of warehouses, discount sales, wholesale offices, small light industries) and some strip business areas but have almost disappeared in the center of town. Also the truck stops on the outskirts or on the highway. Many of them offer good clean food without nonsense and many are immigrant-operated. The MacDonalds, Burger Kings, Jack-in-the-Box etc. have occupied the non-yuppie level in the towns. In this city Starbucks is muffin and coffees level. Do they serve meals where you are, Gareth?
Someone mentioned "Seattle's Best;" their beans are sold in the Safeway's supermarkets here in western Canada, plus a variety of Safeway coffees in the bean. Louisiana coffee is available at a couple of upscale vendors but not in the supermarkets.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Gareth
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 06:31 PM

I do not disagree with any comments made on fair trade, Nestle, or the fact (Lepecorne) that the police can and should find better things to do.

But Starbucks et al are responsible for the yuppification of decent clean working class cafe's.

It's time they were stopped !!!!!!!!

Gareth

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 06:15 PM

WW, there are lots of problems with the "Fairtrade" scheme for coffee (comments apply to Mexico). (This will be long-winded, so don't read unless your interest in the matter is high!
1. The good land, temperate lower mountain slopes above 3000 feet, is not in the hands of the pickers, but owned by well-to-do planters of Mexican citizenship, but may be from Europe or North America.
2. The coffee producer must be large enough to ride out a bad year, spend time cultivating a uniform strain of trees, and provide pest control in uniformity with other growers in the area. It takes up to five years of careful cultivation for decent cherries to develop from nursery-produced young trees of uniform strain. Picking of the ripe cherries is where the heavy labor comes in. One picker can gather enough cherries in a day to produce only 20 pounds of green beans. Cherries not ripe enough are left to be picked a few days later. Each tree produces at most 2 pounds of beans a year so large plantations are required in order to make an income-producing crop (genetic engineering may help here). Pulping and fermentation equipment is expensive. The cleaned beans are dried on large areas of concrete, and must be turned frequently for even drying- one layer only!. Hand inspection of the beans is necessary for the higher grades.
3. The beans must be sold to the buyers (the producr is affected by market conditions here), packed, must meet taste tests, roasted and be blended (unless it is being sold as a high grade pure strain). This is the start of a large additional increase in the cost of the bean to the consumer. The very small producers have no place in the system unless they can cut a deal with a larger producer who has a marketing connection.
The Indios in some areas have been given small fields and may even have a local cooperative, but the land is not suited to coffee that will produce stable income, and is worked for subsistence. The Indios working the coffee plantations are illiterate- 2-3 years of schooling at most and that intermittent. Grassroots political groups are discouraged, with the use of the Army if necessary (see reports from Chiapas, the best coffee area). If the locals protest, more Indios are allowed in from Guatemala. It suits the Mexican agricultural and marketing elite to have a body of Indios that can work for subsistence wages.
Skipping over the progression through increasingly large marketers, then you have the various problems of quotas, protected trade areas, import restrictions, etc., etc. On top of all of this is our wholesaling system, which cannot handle small amounts of a product economically.

Coffee is not produced on the Canadian prairies, of course, but sugar is. Sugar sold in the stores here is from Canadian prairie sugar beets. Restrictions prevent the marketing of imported sugar except for a few special purpose sugars for specific uses. In other words, there is no market here for "Freetrade" sugar. Candy makers and other commercial users may have exemptions, but usually this is in the form of a sugared ingredient- such as bulk chocolate of the various types from the Belgians, Dutch, Nestles, Cadbury, Hershey, etc. which is then processed into candies, etc.
Few people realize the obstacles involved in getting an agricultural product to market.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 05:40 PM

The artificial baby milk rap has been laid at Nestle's door for years. There are a number of competitive brands, all sold in "First World" countries as well. The corollary assumption made here is that people are unable to make their own decisions. It has been shown that antibodies and enzymes in mother's milk are helpful, and it is certainly true that organic calcium compounds are necessary for development, but I doubt that there is medical support for assertions about Nestles and their competitors being responsible for the deaths, which are the result of malnourishment, lack of sanitation, lack of shelter, and consequent wasting and disease.

A baby left with a couple of bottles is not going to get the same amount of nourishment as a baby with it's mother being breast fed or bottle fed. These women feed their babies with bottle milk so that they can go back out to work to get a few more pennies to feed/clothe/sanitise/house and doctor that extra mouth.

LTS

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 04:46 PM

Please Ms Wyo, I know exactly what a rioter is. It's the guy with the T-shirt on his head throwing rocks at me. It's the fellow jumping up and down on that little old lady's car. But it's also the phalanx of not-at-this-moment-actively-throwing-things people who stand in the front of the crowd, screaming obscenities and providing a human wall of protection for the rock-throwers.

I've been to genuinely peaceful protests like you describe, where the participants communicate with the police and act with dignity and class. We still don't show up unless it's to protect whatever is being trashed or thrashed, whether people or property. That protection extends to protesters and even rioters.

But lately, I haven't seen much to call Ghandi-esque among our professional protesters. It looks like the environmental movement has been hijacked by nihilist punks out for a good time. I hear their shrill screams, I read their posters, I listen to their weekly invective and I can't help but doubt their sincerity. The ostensibly rational voices among them are always finding goofball reasons to defend the actions of the berzerkers.

Oregon was the first state to initiate a bottle bill, back before a concern for the environment had become a rallying point for iconoclasts and hate groups. Many years later, Oregon had the opportunity to break ground again with a bill to make recyclable packaging mandatory on most products. Weeks before the election, the environmental jingoists held a rally, the main feature of which was to burn an American flag.

I can't say that was the primary reason for the defeat of the recycling bill, but I believe the attitude of the loud and obnoxious types is a turn-off for those people who might otherwise embrace workable solutions.

Of course, it's no big deal if you piss off a few crusty old people who just aren't bright enough to understand the world as clearly as we enlightened ones. What's a few votes one way or another?

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: WyoWoman
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 01:09 PM

That demonstration sounds like utterly perfunctory devolution to me. And exceedingly lazy journalism.

Just a couple of responses, quickly, on my way from here to there:

leprechaun -- Not all demonstrators or protestors are rioters. You do a disservice to the democratic process to dump them all in the same bin. You also negate the work of people who embrace the example of Ghandi and M.L. King, Jr. in their belief that non-violent political action is an important way to bring attention to unjust and anti-democratic practices. I assume you're in favor of the American form of government, and we might do well to remember that the United States grew out of a protest movement, and that one of the cornerstones of our republic is the right of the people to SAY SO when they think something isn't right. Your obvious bias against people who are exercising their First Amendment right to free speech, and, sometimes, their right to petition their government for a redress of grievances, makes me wonder who you think the police are supposed to be protecting and serving. Just because someone objects to the status quo, and does so in a visible way in a public place, does this make him or her a "rioter" in your estimation and therefore not worthy of consideration or protection?

You also said, "If there's no threat of trashin' things, we're not showin' up." Hmmm. So you're protecting property above people? I thought part of the reason for letting the police know what you were going to do was to make sure people didn't get into it with each other and start bashing each other over their differences of opinion. I thought part of the purpose of the police is to protect processes more than property. Back when I was protesting (an ill-conceived proposed nuclear power plant up the highway from my home), we always let the police and Kerr-McGee corp. know exactly where we were going to be, how long we'd be there, how many of us there would be, etc., not for the purpose of inviting the cops to show up and bop us over the heads, but so there wouldn't be any surprises, and so traffic, crowds, and so forth could be controlled intelligently and in a way that assured that things ran smoothly and we were able to make the point we wanted to make, in a visible, public way, without anyone getting hurt.

But it appears you're saying you'd rather demonstrators just show up, plop themselves down in the middle of things and let everyone else deal with trouble as it arises? Sounds like a recipe for mayhem to me.

And Dicho, you're incorrect in your assumption that all coffee is picked by "peon Indians." That's the point of Fair Trade coffee -- it is entirely possible to have coffee picked by people who are getting a fair shake for the work they're doing. It's not a lot by your standards, but just a few cents per pound makes a huge difference in these economies, and when it's going to the individuals and the co-ops, the people and their families benefit, which feeds the economy MUCH much more than when the profit is all exported and people owe their lives to the company store.

And, just a point of UTTER FREAKING FRUSTRATION ... why the hell is it not possible to talk about objecting to the shenanigans of giant corporations without being characterized as ANTI-CAPITALIST????? I LOVE ENTREPRENEURIAL BUSINESS!!! I love competition and actually free markets. But that's NOT what we have here in the U.S. -- and if you think it is, you've been hornswaggled by those very companies of which you ought to be suspicious. As the ENRON situation ought to be proving to us daily, they purchase the competitive process and buy off the entities that ought to be regulating them so they can do whatever the hell they want to, away from public scrutiny and beyond the boundaries of accountability. THIS IS WRONG and it's unworthy of us.

ww

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 12:04 PM

I would like a demonstration like that.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JedMarum
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 11:43 AM

I saw a demonstration in NYC not too long ago. It was a mild, sunny winter day and first the police came (two or three) and put up a couple of those traffic routing wooden horses to block off part of the parking lane/curb. Then a group of 15 or so folks with signs gathered and chatted a bit among themselves, one or two putting the finishing touches on their posters (it seems the store being picketed was selling real furs or something), then a press crew arrived, a few cameras and gear, a reporter with hand held mic. The protestors got into their positions and began circling and chanting, the cameras switched on, the reporter stood in front of the scene and spoke to one of the cameras ... 5 or 10 minutes passed, cameras rolled, the reporter left, the protestors stopped their march and disappeared, the police took down the barricades and the 30 second story appeared on the evening news. A major protest had apparently taken place in the heart of Manhatten by a large group of angry protestors.

Amazing!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 09:08 AM

The artificial baby milk rap has been laid at Nestle's door for years. There are a number of competitive brands, all sold in "First World" countries as well. The corollary assumption made here is that people are unable to make their own decisions.
It has been shown that antibodies and enzymes in mother's milk are helpful, and it is certainly true that organic calcium compounds are necessary for development, but I doubt that there is medical support for assertions about Nestles and their competitors being responsible for the deaths, which are the result of malnourishment, lack of sanitation, lack of shelter, and consequent wasting and disease.
Considerable social modification is also necessary before the type of producer-consumer interaction envisioned by the so-called "fairtrade" people can become a reality. In many of the third world countries, religious and social distinctions and practices would need to be modified and this will take generations. Complete reorganization of the production system is unlikely for a long time to come.
Finally, medical research has so far found little fault with the genetically modified products that have reached the market or with growth hormones in cattle production. Efforts by some European countries are aimed more at trade restriction than at any perceived danger to the consumer. Genetic modification in crops and livestock has been going on for two thousand years and more, through deliberate selection as well as through mutations. Gene modification is in its infancy, but it is a technological breakthrough that cannot be stopped. True, consistent and continued testing is necessary, but the method will continue to make great strides in this new century.
Here in Alberta, the G8 meetings will be held this year. We are not looking forward to the influx of demonstrators with their disparate agendas. They will be kept well away from the conference site, but environmental and physical damage is expected.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JudeL
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 05:16 AM

Dicho: you didn't bother looking at the site did you? It's Nestle's aggressive marketing techniques in regard to promoting artificial baby milk in third world countries (rather than their production methods) that is responsible for the deaths of one and half million infants every year, and by taking money that these families cannot afford it also reduces the survival rate of the rest of the family. Jude (who loves her chocolate but avoids buying nestle products)

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 03:57 AM

It was indeed a rare moment of candor, because the usual saw is that "we were just having a peaceful protest, exercising our rights as citizens, when the police showed up in force and offended us by their very presence, thereby forcing us to riot, the jack-booted thugs."

If there's no threat of trashing things, we ain't showin' up. The line personnel would rather get their reports finished and go home, and the brass would rather not have to spend the money on overtime.

Perhaps it's the basic message that fails to generate enough interest absent the violence and the police response. Perhaps capitalism isn't as inherently evil as some would like us all to believe. Perhaps the ill-defined alternative looks worse to most people; otherwise they could be convinced without the specious martyrdom of pepper-sprayed rioters or the erzatz self-sacrifice of sport utility arsonists.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: GUEST,BigDaddy
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 12:45 AM

Wyo Woman speaks truth.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: GUEST,time for bed
Date: 03 Feb 02 - 12:18 AM

Personally I do agree with the views of anti-capitalist protests, and that you do need police at a demo to make people sit up and take notice, up to a point. This doesn't mean you have to trash things. (By the way leprechaun, I don't think that was 'a rare moment of candor' saying that you need the police at a protest - everybody knows that, it's common knowledge, and whoever you spoke to probably presumed you knew it too)
What I don't agree with is using violence to make a point. It's not big and it's not clever, and it hurts (not just physically) those who do not deserve to be hurt. Anyone who has been at any anti-capitalist protest will most likely tell you the violence was initiated by a small anarchist group, and this is not about anti-capitalism; it's explicitly about causing trouble. There are many many people out there who agree with the aims but not with the means, and yet most of the time these voices don't get heard because the media are too busy concentrating on the acts of the evil anti-capitalists, tarring all with the same brush. It's understandable (I know which makes the better headline) but deeply unfair and deeply biased.
And it justifies people in bringing out every stereotype they can think of to criticise anyone who dares suggest another way of living, becuase after all these people are all just terrorists, aren't they? (medical marijuana ground by soy-bean/hemp coffee-grinder anyone? sandal-wearing muesli-eating Guardian readers? dreadlocked commie hippies who don't wash?) So we can say (and do) what we like to them, if they're terrorists?

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 09:18 PM

Dicho, you're probably right about adjusting to the tastes of the area. Starbucks has plenty of competition here in Seattle, too. Notably "Seattle's Best Coffee" and "Tully's."

Strangely enough, much of Seattle's population tends to vibrate slightly, making them look a bit blurred--and nobody ever blinks! Wonder why. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: RichM
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 09:16 PM

Starbucks: overpriced coffee, and overpriced-and often STALE-pastries.... The big chains still can't get the idea that good fresh food and drink will sell, and make them a profit.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 09:07 PM

Our Starbucks (Alberta) have everything out in the open, and are very clean. That is one complaint that can't be leveled at them here. Don Firth, the coffees offered by them for immediate consumption are picked to match the average tastes of the area where they are sold. Seattle is somewhat coffee-mad and I'm sure the level of taste is higher. The best coffee here is served in better restaurants and can be had during the day from those that stay open in off-meal hours. Starbucks has competition here from a chain called Second Cup and other franchises as well as all the other restaurants, bagel shops, pubs, etc. etc. They are a long way from dominating the market.
Nestlé's is a major food conglomerate, on the level of General Foods, etc. except that they are into more high end items as well. They control some excellent wineries with products that range from cheap to $100/bottle or so. Granted, some of their raw products are obtained with third-world labor, but ALL coffee (Hawai'ian excepted?) is picked by peon Indian (or equivalent) labor so if you don't like that, don't drink coffee (or tea, etc.). Skip all chocolate, tropical fruits, coconut products, etc. etc. as well. In fact, don't buy anything from a third-world country; just let the natives starve.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 08:15 PM

I heard that the fellow who started Starbucks was a Moby Dick fan and he liked the name of the Pequod's first mate, Starbuck, hence the name. Note the mermaid logo.

For those who complain that Starbucks' coffee is weak, your local shop must not be making it right. In Seattle, a cup of Starbucks coffee will keep you wired for three days and take the enamel off your teeth.

I agree with artbrooks about the visibility thing. Small businessman makes good. People like that--in principle. But he makes good so good that he becomes BEEEG businessman. People don't like that. Moral: don't be too successful or your friends will all start to hate you.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 08:13 PM

Nestle have been doing that since 1970 something when it all came out in the open..... they have done nothing about their policies, prefering profit over people. I try very hard not to buy Nestle products, but they are sneaky, they buy out smaller companies, put their product into it and keep the old name for sales, thus you think you're getting a fair deal product from a reputable company, when in fact you are just getting generic products manufactured or produced with the aid of slavery and active oppression of human beings.

LTS

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JudeL
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 08:06 PM

If you want to get hot under the collar at some of the unscupulous things perpetrated by multinational try this site:
http://www.babymilkaction.org/pages/boycott.html Nestle is the company that make nescafe coffee and have repeatedly put profit above lives. Jude

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 07:58 PM

If you want to shut down Starbucks, just do a documentary on how filthy their kitchens are... there was one on TV Thursday night here in the UK pin pointing Burger King, and on Friday, McDonalds was empty at lunchtime... even the begger who sits outside bumming burgers had moved over to the sandwich shop down the road...... The main story was how the employees spat in the burgers.... ever wondered how they make the froth on the top of that stuff???

LTS

Enjoy your beverages now!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Gareth
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 07:56 PM

I travel from South Wales to Kent very frequently. Once upon a time the was a Sainsbury's Coffee shop at Bracknell rougly half way. A good cheap fryup, and coffee, and a Cigarette before hiting the road to hell (M25).

Sorry - Now a Starbucks franchise. It's cheaper to have my coffee on the Motorway.

Starbucks ? The perfect place (after a warning) to detonate a pound or so of Semtex !!

Gareth

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: artbrooks
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 07:50 PM

I've posted this before, so I apologize if the story is repetitious: when I lived in Seattle (1974-1979), Starbucks was a little coffee shop on Marion Street off of 1st Avenue that only sold whole bean coffee...and the shop was full of coffee bags and smelled wonderful. I think it was owned by a guy named Starbuck, but I have no idea if he's still associated with the company. He/they found a market nitch and have been fabulously successful in exploiting it.

Our local Starbucks (which I visit rarely...I also find their coffee weak and prefer a local shop) sells Fair Trade coffee, both in the bean and brewed, and has posters on the walls advertising it. The availability of soy milk is also prominently noted.

It seems to me that the folks protesting Starbucks are picking on them because of their visibility rather than anything else. I certainly don't see anybody picketing our local Albertsons because they sell Folgers and Maxwell House, but I would be astounded to find out that those brands don't sell 100 times as much coffee as Starbucks does.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 07:14 PM

In a rare moment of candor, one of our local radicals told my partner they need to have the police arrive at their protests, or else nobody pays attention to them. We have repeatedly responded to protests because somebody among the group of protesters "leaks" the fact that they plan to do something violent. On most occasions when our response was limited or non-existent, the protests did turn violent. Not just Starbucks, but Taco Bell, various Banks, a car dealership, a local furniture store, a Nike Store, and little old ladies in cars have been terrorized by our little anarchist hate group.

They have a weekly TV show on the Public Access cable channel, subsidized by the government. They maintain that if they don't get caught hurting anybody except police officers and rich people, then their "direct action" doesn't count as violence. You see, it all stems from a sincere political belief, yeah that's the ticket, yeah, and a desire to save the world from the evils of corporate greed, you know.

That logic would excuse somebody else using a sincere political belief to rationalize bombing abortion clinics, or head shops, or alternative newspapers, or tattoo and piercing parlors, or vegetarian restaurants or needle exchange programs.

From the flag-burning capital of western hemisphere.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: WyoWoman
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 02:27 PM

I'd match donut-eating reporters against donut-eating cops any day. I once thought of a book plot in which a terrorist organization wanted to wipe out the media and the police force in the same day, so cadres of radicals bearing poisoned pastries descended on every newsroom and cop shop in the country. From my experience in newrooms, the media would bite the dust first.

And, I don't think our choices are simply anarchy or slavery to the multinationals. I also don't think the people throwing heavy objects through the glass at Starbucks represent any but a tiny sliver of the protest movement right now. I also think there are agents provocateur who are out there specifically for the purpose of providing the media some sexy coverage that makes all the people who object to the abuses of the corporate system look like foaming-at-the-mouth, violent radicals. Personally, I don't have trouble with business large or small, if human rights, environmental initelligence and economic justice are built into the system. What enrages me is a system in which the corporations visit various injustices and environmental horrors on us and operate as de facto government all over the world, but have absolutely no accountability to the "governed," and came into their roles of overlord by utterly un-democratic means.

Now WHY are people who are agitating for grassroots democracy so frequently characterized as "radical" or "violent" or "anti-American" or just as fools? What's THAT agenda all about? Could it be a way to marginalize people who are trying to exercise their rights as sovereign citizens, in such a way that they can't calll those companies to account? I certainly think so.

Could it also be a result of reporters and editors -- PARTICULARLY televion media -- who are either too over-worked, too busy, too shallow or too arrogant to educate themselves on what the actual issues are, so they just accept the ever-so-smooth party line and dismiss the concerns of the great unwashed as being just too outside the "mainstream" to even investigate? I certainly think that as well.

But what's at stake? Is it just a cup or two of coffee? A pair of running shoes? Or is it a choice between a life that's manageable and real and over which we and the other actual people on the planet have some say, versus a world in which we are insignificant cogs in machinery that is so shrouded in "spin" and outright deception that we can't even see where to throw in a wrench, and an environment that is so unloved and degraded that none of us will have a fighting chance at health or the pursuit of happiness? I think there are some true divergences in vision happening here and that we are smart to inform ourselves and attend to them.

I don't want to fight anyone, I don't want to make anyone get tear-gassed or pepper-sprayed or arrested--and I don't want to create a situation in which hard-working good-guy cops are forced to do the gassing or arresting. So my preference and commitment are that change take place courtesy of our greatest weapons: our buying power and our willingness to stand for something other than our own comfort. We have choices and we're fools not to use them. One of these days, we won't.

But violence begets violence, and lord knows, we've all seen enough of that.

For some ideas and examples of iniatives that actually CAN work--and information on why this matters, read Frances Moore-Lappe's new book "Hope's Edge: The Next Diet for a Small Planet," and Lester Brown's "Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth."

This isn't easy work. I'm trying to change the way I eat, the way I dress, the way I buy and get myself to work and on and on and on -- and it's just a bear to try and get off of auto-pilot and into consciousness about the choices I make. Some days,I'm successful, some days I just go buy the goddamned fast food, eat in my car and drive on. But if enough of us keep looking hard enough at what we do, how we do and where our money goes, we can make substantial difference in the world we see in a few years.

Sorry for the soapbox, but as you can see, these issues are near and dear to my heart.

ww

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 10:59 AM

Doughnuts and coffee are for cops working after midnight. The donut shops are the only place open, and the coffee is necessary to keep you awake until quitting time. Back when I didn't have enough seniority to keep from working graveyard shift, I ate a few Dunkin' Donuts. I quit eating 'em when they discontinued the whole wheat donuts. Old hippie habits die hard.

Ranger Steve is right. Most of the cops these days are trying to stay healthy. Some agencies offer incentive pay for a certain level of physical fitness.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JedMarum
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 10:52 AM

I must admit, I actually like the Starbucks coffee - although I only order their Esspresso ... sometimes I get an oversized, overpriced sweet thing or other ... but I'm with you on preferring the Mon n' Pop coffee places, Ranger Steve - especially if they serve Esspresso.

And I don't know any cops who eat donuts either, but they all do on TV, so it must be true!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: InOBU
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 10:43 AM

Hi Ranger Steve! Forgive the humor. I must say, it has been cold and miserable here in New York, and it must be terrible duty. I spent many years doing schooner deliveries during the winter, on the North Atlantic sometimes, and I know what standing still in the cold and wet is... I gave one of the fellows a CD of my band to cheer him up in the cold. A fellow from Dublin! It is getting rare to find someone from over on the job these days, eh? Well, stay well and warm... and hope you get the duty guarding Micky Dees, at least the coffee is better!!!! By the way, we (now ex-) marineers DO go for coffee and doughnuts! We'd die in Maine in the days, without Duncan Doughnuts!
All the best,
Larry
PS Good to hear about the change of diet! Old traditions and resultant styriotypes die hard... as per the name copper and peeler, eh?

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: RangerSteve
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 06:17 AM

For you folks who think us cops enjoy everything we do, I have to point out that if I was directed to guard a Starbucks, I'd do it, since it's my job, but I wouldn't like it. I believe that Starbucks started when someone burnt a huge batch of beans and salvaged them by coming to the conclusion that if they marketed the coffee to Yuppies at an inflated price, the yuppies would buy it so they could brag about how much they had to pay for it. It worked. That stuff is foul. No cop that I know would drink that muck. Starbucks has a habit of putting up their stores wherever they find a successful Mom & Pop coffee place, usually putting them out of business. If I need gourmet coffee, I'll stick with the locally owned places. Personally, I'd rather have good old Hills Bros. coffee brewed at home anytime.

Oh, yeah, I don't know any cop who eats donuts. I think we're trying to be healthy these days, and hopefully, that stereotype will die out soon.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 01:00 AM

Gosh all Gee Jumpin' Jehosephat, Daddy Warbucks! Without those peons out there pickin', I won't get my morning coffee. Gotta get rid of Jed and all those other reds who want to upset the coffee pot.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 02 Feb 02 - 12:22 AM

You go Jed! But in the Anarchist vision of a macro-economy, nobody will get to drink coffee unless they grow their own beans, in a community garden plot of course. Oh I suppose it would be alright to drink coffee as long as you transport it from the coffee growing regions on foot, in a hemp backpack, as long as you obtain the beans by barter, (trade them some of your medical marijuana) because money will be abolished. You can't bring them here by truck, because the internal combustion engine will be outlawed, and you can't even transport them by horse or mule, because it will be against the law to oppress and enslave horses and mules.

Save some of that medical marijuana to barter for a solar coffee heater, constructed entirely of soybeans and hemp, because electricity will be outlawed. That means you'll have to grind the beans with your own teeth, unless you have a hand-cranked coffee grinder, also constructed of soybeans and hemp.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JedMarum
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 10:34 PM

... well I hope the anarchists thrash the living sh*t out of all the NYC Starbucks (why even the name reveals their nasty hateful profiteering intentions) and bring these scum sucking capitalist pigs to their knees. Then we can all get a decent cup of coffee for a change ... and one that was not brewed with the sweat of the oppressed.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 06:18 PM

You can improve on Starbucks by adding a spoonful of instant,but nothing beats your own blend of beans, ground just before use. Most centers now have a good variety of beans. Tastes vary widely. In New Orleans it's dark roast with chicory. The French like burnt roast and further ruin it with milk. Many Europeans prefer Espresso in its various forms.
In Canada, the attack by Second Cup on Starbucks has ended in STALEmate .

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 02:36 PM

There is nothing like a good cup of coffee, and Starbucks has nothing like a good cup of coffee--No one ever beats Peet's!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 02:34 PM

There is nothing like a good cup of coffee, and Starbucks has nothing like a good cup of coffee--No one ever beats Peet's!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 01:20 PM

Thank you, Amergin, for reminding us that there are real people who work at Starbucks.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Amergin
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 02:48 AM

well I am glad to know the triple grande white chocolate mochas are being kept safe and secure...

on a serious note, there was this poor woman who was opening up one of the area Starbucks shops who got kidnapped and raped....it appears they got the bastard though...

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: leprechaun
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 02:38 AM

That's not the way I would do it if I were the New York cops. I would have a few of the Starbucks visibly guarded and several others guarded so they look like nobody's around. Then when the speciously conscientious rioters arrive to terrorize the employees an overwhelming force of cops on bicycles would swoop on them from out of nowhere and cart every one of their nihilist asses off to jail.

I trust the anti-globalization rioters are acting in the same spirit of good faith as smokers of medical marijuana.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Melani
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 01:12 AM

I know I've been sufficiently terroized by Starbuck's coffee that I never drink the stuff. In the Bay Area, Peets, a small locally-owned chain, is where to get coffee. Or Cafe Trieste.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 01:04 AM

Starbucks does have a few good coffees that they sell in the bag, but the stuff that comes out of their machines is only fair grade. People have been sold by Juan Valdez but run-of-the-mill Colombian coffees are second-rate beans. Colombian is a big seller for Starbucks, so more profit. Central Europeans are the biggest customers for top grades; they are willing to pay more. I spent a week at a coffee plantation in Chiapas, Mexico (temperate mountain climate, ideal rainfall, good soil), that produced fine coffee. For the best, the owner received up to $6 per pound of beans. You can imagine what that came to after roasting, packaging and marketing. Prices are lower now.
The peons there (many cross the border from Guatemala to pick in the western mountain areas of Chiapas) get beans and tortillas and very little money for their labor. Many are young. I had a hard time keeping my mouth shut about conditions. The owner was a former Canadian, but fit right into the time-honored patron-peon scheme of things.
Th United States (Hawai'i) produces small amounts of good coffee from the big island; winy and mild. When buying, check the label carefully; much so-called Kona coffee is blended with beans grown elsewhere.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: GUEST,BigDaddy
Date: 01 Feb 02 - 12:19 AM

Thank you, Wyo Woman. I was hoping someone would bring attention to all that. Bless ya!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: WyoWoman
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 10:28 PM

Well, I don't know if the Starbucks were actually a target for this particular gathering of the world economic poobahs, but there are some fairly good reasons for wanting to draw the world's attention to issues related to those steaming cups of coffee we all love.

The protests against Starbucks are an effort to get the coffee chain, the world's largest, to 1.) Promote fairly traded coffee, where the grower is guaranteed a minimum price; 2.) Use dairy products that do not contain bovine growth hormone and 3.) Refuse to use food created from genetically modified organisms.

Coffee has become the battleground because it typifies the exploitation of local cultures and agricultural workers to satisfy the luxury tastes of the industrialized world.

Fair Trade connects producers and consumers in an equitable, sustainable and meaningful way. Its principles include fair wages through the elimination of middlemen, cooperative workplaces run by small businesses and farmers, consumer education to raise awareness of the importance of being a caring consumer, and environmental sustainability to help farmers manage the local resources in a responsible manner.

Starbucks is the target for the protests because they are a high-visibility international corporation and because they have promoted themselves as being socially responsible, which many of the protest organizations characterize as a cynical attempt to "green-wash" a corporation that exploits peasant workers and farmers, and that accepts agricultural methods that destroy the environment and the local economies.

Starbucks did add Fair Trade coffee as a pre-emptive move in anticipation of the protests against it during the WTO in 1999, but it hasn't promoted the Fair Trade coffee at all and many believe it just slapped the coffee on its shelves to deflect criticism. The company also says that none of its European stores use genetically modified ingredients, and that in the United States the company offers an organic-milk alternative to ordinary milk.

Proving once again that consumers have a big responsibility to educate themselves and to request these products so the companies know we give a shit and that we notice who offers options and who doesn't.

Here's some more information: Coffee info

ww

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: InOBU
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:32 PM

Just reported on the news... in spite of cops in front of every NY Starbucks... they missed one... and it got vandalised! Will wonders never cease. Cheers all... Larry

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 08:47 PM

I had a coffee from a Starbucks once, in the St. Louis airport while I was waiting for a ride to my home that was not to come for over three hours. The coffee was very hot and not as good as the free stuff at work (made by one Tom Geer, strong enough to be called....Geer Oil) and this weak tasteless stuff cost me almost two pounds (about $2.75). There was a lot of it, though and I didn't discover its lack of taste until it began to cool down. I'm not complaining, though. I knew it to be a trendy rip-off. EVERYTHING in airports is eithewr a trendy rip-off or sometimes just a rip-off with no descernable trend. I have since stopped travelling by air (no it wasn't 9/11/01 that did it) and travel at a more leisurly pace, taking two lane black tops (blue highways) or backpacking trails and bike ways. Ahhhh.

It has been one of THOSE days in the marketing department!

CB

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: DonMeixner
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 07:16 PM

Wasn't it a Starbuck's who made the rescue crews pay for the bottled water they were using as the WTC was being searched for the living right after the collapse.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Bert
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 06:51 PM

The world's worst coffee. Let the bloody terrorists have the whole bleedin' lot for all I care.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 06:25 PM

Good thing too. There's one under my office. If that gets targetted, we all GO HOME!! (sorry, slipped into Civil Servant mode there.....).

Besides, how they can charge so much for a few burnt beans ground up and steeped in hot water, with a bit of cow juice in on top, I really don't know.

On the other corner under my building is Sainsburys... does this double my chances of paying extortionate rates for a cup of joe?

LTS

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 12:14 PM

Mmmmm, love those little hot cinnamon pastilles in Starbucks in the tiny little brown tin.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: A Wandering Minstrel
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 11:50 AM

Hi Larry,

I bet they're not guarding Tweeks?

:)

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 11:31 AM

KimC, as you say, they do have many other things, but they are expensive! A large something or other(well, a "GRANDE") and a couple goodies can cost more than an all-you-can-eat dinner at Old Country Buffet, including coffee and dessert!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 11:24 AM

Stand guarding a coffe house and they're bound to give you a coffee handout. Stand outside a bank, they are never going to give you a money handout. These cops aren't fools.

Brilliant name Starbucks - sorrt of combination hippy tripp vibes, but with a genuflection in the direction of the money god.

Our local Sainsburies supermarket you used to be able to get quite reasonable all-day breakfasts, now they've let the franchise to Starbucks, and it's just overpriced frothy coffee. They don't like it when you take in the cakes you bought in the main shop either.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Peg
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 11:19 AM

I heard that The Gap and Starbucks are the focus of anti-globalization protesters...hence the beefed up security...hope the cops don't get billy-club happy...

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Rick Fielding
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 11:03 AM

One of my favourite lines from a favourite movie. Fred Willard and Catherine O'Hara telling how they first got together, in "Waiting For Guffman"

"We met at Starbucks.....not the same one though".

Don't worry if it doesn't make sense...you had to be there!

Rick

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: Kim C
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 10:49 AM

They don't have donuts but they do have all manner of other pastries and sweets.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: van lingle
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 10:22 AM

very distrurbing news indeed. when these bastards start going after our chai lattes they've gone too far*g*

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: InOBU
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:54 AM

Ya see how often I go into Starbucks! So why do the cops hold it in such high secrurity esteem. I am not kidding there are cops in front of EVERY starbucks. I know one got trashed in Seatle, but comeon! jeezeloueeze!
Cheers, Larry

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JedMarum
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:43 AM

;-)

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: mack/misophist
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:43 AM

At last!!! Terrorists with a sense of proportion. And taste.

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: JedMarum
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:42 AM

No doughnuts at Starbucks?? No wonder the anti globalization folk're pissed!

Subject: RE: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:39 AM

No doughnuts at Starbucks, Larry--

Subject: STARBUCKS UNDER TERROR THREAT
From: InOBU
Date: 31 Jan 02 - 09:23 AM

I noticed cops in front of all the Starbucks in New York on the eve of the anti globalizaiotn rally... at first I thought there was a cop on every corner, then I found a corner without a starbucks! Emagine that! Then it hit me... They are protecting the coffee and doughnuts!!!
Give peace a chance
Larry