If only there were privately-owned toll roads between Glen’s house and this Starbucks…
.

Roger, that post was a joke. I know that Starbucks is a mainstream chain. My wife has been there with women from her Bible study. I was just doing what is called “having a little fun”. There was no point.

I remember that post. I guess Glen’s wife didn’t take him to the Starbucks on Hillsboro Rd. in Green Hills, which I used to frequent back when I was a latte-sipping, Volvo-driving NPR listener, not the commie bastard revolutionary I am today. There was always a car with a “Gore Free Tennessee” bumper sticker parked by the front door in the mornings. I daresay Glen would have felt right at home.

After reading about the psychic trauma poor Glen suffered that day I remember thinking he’s lucky his wife didn’t want to visit Whole Foods afterwards. I daresay he’d have suffered a nervous breakdown.

SB, she has been to Wild Oats before, and yes I did make fun of her.

Roger, that post was a joke.

Sure, now you tell us!

[…] Roger Abramson attempts to disabuse Glen Dean of the notion that the ubiquitous Starbucks coffeehouse chain is some sort of bastion of secular liberalism: 1. You don’t become a corporate powerhouse by catering to such a small segment of the population and […]

It’s really weird to me that you or anybody would think otherwise. It’s just really strange that so many people took that post so seriously. Oh well. Happy new year.

Why do you hate capitalism, Glen?

Boy, that Mike Keith gets around . . . my wife and I saw him at The Franklin Chop House 8 years ago.

when I was a latte-sipping, Volvo-driving NPR listener, not the commie bastard revolutionary I am today.

You owe me a new laptop, and a new pair of pants!

Is there such a thing as uncontrolled snorking?

If they’ll employ a zaftig unhip conservatarian like me (which they did, for a year), anyone can most definitely be a customer. Ironically, I felt at the time I was hired that I’d pretty much given it all up to The Man.

Glen, how does your wife respond to you making fun of her?

I like Whole Foods Market. I’m looking forward to the one they’re going to open in Cool Springs in 2009.

I like Starbucks too. Although I gave up coffee three years ago.

Guess that makes me a lib!

She laughs Kevin. Just like I laugh when she makes fun of me. Being best friends, we like to kid each other. She and I have this strange and unusual thing called a sense of humor.

Your wife thinks you’re funny?

Glen –

I know it was a joke, or, at least, that it was meant to be funny. It did, however, give voice to a general theme about Starbucks that I hear on occasion from some conservative types–that Starbucks is (supposedly) some bastion of “blue state” urbane latte liberalism when it’s really nothing more than a pricey coffee chain with a hell of a marketing strategy behind it.

Interestingly, this disdain that sone conservatives have for Starbucks only adds to the chain’s abilty to make itself look more hip than it really is.

Holly,
Baroque D/X.
It’s all we have but you know how that goes.
***private joke w/Holly***

Interestingly, this disdain that sone conservatives have for Starbucks only adds to the chain’s abilty to make itself look more hip than it really is.

We call that the “free hand of irony.”

Glen’s original post reminded me of a radio comment (yes, NPR, but it’s been decades since I even stood next to a Volvo, and never owned one) from a Franklin old-timer I heard after the old-style stores started moving out of downtown Franklin. It was comparing the inflow of the “Starbucks” crowd to the outflow of the “Mayberry” crowd. (And I’m not implying you are at either extreme, Glen.)

But as far as Starbucks is concerned, I say feel free to make fun of people who pay $4 for a cup of burnt coffee.

Let me clarify that this is only a subset of conservatives, but it’s still weird.

I say it’s weird because conservatives are, as a (very) general rule, a little more in tune with mainstream American tastes than their more liberal conterparts (this, in part, is what makes them conservative in the first place), yet these people seem largely unaware that Starbucks is about as mainstream as McDonald’s or Toys R Us nowadays.

As are the drinks. For instance, the term “latte liberal,” is really an anachronism. Everyone (speaking generally) drinks lattes now. It’s really not that big a deal.

Jim –

I agree, but that’s not what he was making fun of.

Starbucks has a reputation for sponsoring ‘Gay Pride’ events (they backed off those for a while when they were challenged, a few years ago) and for giving money to the really-left-wing Planned Parenthood (read: planned abortions) group.

I guess here in Middle Tennessee Starbucks has to make allowances for our backwards beliefs…we’re not Seattle, after all. At least, not yet.

And since Waffle House kicked out the smokers, why drink bad coffee when you can enjoy the real thing in a smoke-free environment?

Serr8d –

I think if you check on that you will see that those contributions were “matches” of employee contributions (that may not completely absolve them in your eyes but it is a different animal) and that the sponsoring of “gay” events is decided on the local and regional level.

I mean, if you’re a Starbucks store in San Francisco or many other big cities, it’s probably a pretty good business move to sponsor a Gay Pride event. Just like it’s probably a pretty good business move for a Franklin, Tennessee Starbucks to highlight a “barista’s” choice of the Bible as her favorite book. So what?

***giggles privately with ‘Coma***

And I forgot to say that this:

“Why do you hate capitalism, Glen?”

wins.

Yeah but Roger, don’t forget, they featured a quote from an ATHEIST on their cups a while back, proving they are “anti-God” and commie and liberal and stuff.

I see my comment at 3:13 is still awaiting moderation. I forgot about what happens when you insert links into comments.

Anyway, Holly, Sarcastro, once again the post was a joke. I accept that I probably deserve that comment though about hating capitalism. To Rachel, I apologize very much and sincerely regret the things I said that day. And to everybody else at this site, I apologize for veering away from this MCB’s intended purpose.

Like I have said many times before, the post was a joke. I wasn’t aware of any of the things Serr8d spoke of and if I liked the product at Starbucks, I would probably buy it anyway, just like I buy Cherry Garcia, an ice cream named for my favorite guitar player, but made by that huge corporate, and supposedly liberal but not really, success Ben and Jerry’s.

The reason most people think of them as leaning “liberal” is because the only people who have time to sit around drinking coffee for hours are either college students(generally liberal) and people that majored in art history and can’t get a real job (also liberals).

Gooodness, Glen, no apology necessary (to me, at least). I recognized it as humor/irony and had no problem with the original post. I also, however, was recognizing Sarcastro’s bon mot. My apologies to you for making it seem otherwise.

Glen, you’ve been around long enough to be familiar with the “Why Do You Hate America?” routine. You may want to take that sense of humor in for a tune up. Get them to thicken that skin while they are at it.

Abramson is still sore about being labeled a ‘gingerbread latte sipping fag’, or some such thing, by that Terry Frank guy.

Serr8, again with the gays?

Yeah I know, but it reminded me of that Rachel post, when you said “Rachel, why do you hate freedom?”, after I said something I regretted. I just felt a little embarrassed about that day I guess.

Ha! Just some background research, in case you missed it…

/sarc off

There are others who dislike Starbucks for non-political reasons…

1. The vast majority of the coffee is grown using underpaid third world labor.
2. Starbucks is spreading across the world like a virus, infecting cultures with their formula of what a coffee shop should be.
3. They are everywhere.
4. They have predatory business practices. Common practices are things like paying landlords to not renew leases for coffee shops so that they can move in.
5. They sell fake corporate responsibility.
6. I think that their coffee sucks. It is always bitter.
7. The gross profit margin per store is, on average, 59.1%, therefore there is plenty of wiggle room for the company to pay more than a dollar a pound for coffee. (read: livable wage for their slave labor)
8. Faux ecologic responsibility.
9. False employee benefits. They give part time workers (20 hours per week) health insurance. However, I have received hundreds of emails from employees that consistently receive 19.75. 15 minutes shy of earning those costly benefits.
10. The crap they sell is incredibly unhealthy. Get the nutritional information, from their website it is appalling. The Caramel Pecan Sticky Roll (which has more fat than a Big Mac) or even better (worse), the Eggnog Latte are so bad for you it is astounding.

I’m famous for ‘camp-coffee’, from days spent in the woods with the old tin percolator, making coffee that would jump right out of the thing into your cup. Still won’t use cream, but one or two sweetners is fine. Or, a shot of Grand Marnier.

hmmm… close the link…

On the other hand, their caramel-apple spice drink is, on a cold winter day, a wonderful wonderful thing.

Sar –

Yeah, Frankie was a little chippy there. But, then, it’s not like she much else in her arsenal to work with.

Bill –

Yep. And, if you have a cold, get the chai latte, extra hot. Clear you up for a good couple of hours.

Long live the 50%+ profit margin!!!

There are others who dislike Starbucks for non-political reasons…

Other than #6, which of those ISN’T a political reason?
.

Serr8,
Why do you, or the person you are copying, hate capitalism?

Glen, fair enough. Something stupid that any of us regret writing is always just a Google search away.

Thanks, Glen. I’d forgotten how much I hate freedom.

Rachel,

JP has a good point. Almost ost of those are political reasons, or at least, in the cases of a few, reasons informed by a particular political viewpoint.

I get why (some) lefties don’t like Starbucks. It’s the conservative criticisms I’m having a hard time getting my head around.

My criticisms are purely about taste and price.

Maybe it’s my uncultured ways, but to me, coffee shouldn’t taste like the beans have been burned.

I really prefer McDonald’s coffee now. How uncool can I get?

Slarti –

The taste and price stuff I certainly understand. Not for everyone.

And as for McDonald’s, well, I think they won a taste test against Starbucks coffee last year, so you’re certainly not alone.

I go back and forth between Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts coffees myself.

Roger A. : Coffee swinger.

Busy Mom –

Perhaps, but I think we all know that DD’s the one you date. Starbucks is the one you marry.

Ah. Well as long as you have your values straight, I was worried for a minute.

Diet Coke: the one I shoot for, but, never attain.

Great. You just made the words “Krystal” and “Ho” pop into my mind.

Dunkin Donuts is owned by Bain Capital — Mitt Romney’s company.

Boycott!!!!

I’m driving so I’ll be brief. Though Glen is retreating faster than a cheese-eating surrender monkey (which is somewhat understandable), Roger’s taking this incredulity-about-Conservatives a bit far. The “thing” about Starbucks is the mix of what might be termed Elitest-Hipness. I appreciate you Roger, but I think this may be a blindspot of yours.

Ned –

Nope. Not a blind spot. That is exactly what it is. I was just waiting for someone to say it, and I appreciate your doing so…largely so that now I could ask the next question:

Why do these “conservatives” care about that? Aren’t there more important things to worry about?

And, while we’re talking about “blind spots,” doesn’t the fact that these conservatives think that a multinational corporation patronized by millions of mainstream Americans is somehow elitist and “hip” demonstrate how out of touch they can be sometimes?

Roger - an aversion to trendiness, hipness or other such rejections of the mainstream - this sort of thing transcends politics. It’s more visceral than that.

For me, it goes back to high school. Otherwise known as Rejection Hell.

Anyway, it took me years to understand: not liking something just because it’s popular with the masses is just as shallow as liking something just because it’s popular.

Even the non-conformists seem to have a dress code.

I didn’t really answer your question, but yes, hipsters get on my nerves.

I think Starbucks is about as hip as McDonald’s. But don’t let that get in anyone’s way…
.

JP - it’s about perception.

Target spent go-zillions of money to make people think that buying toothpaste at their store was much,much cooler than buying the exact same thing at Walmart. It has, as far as I can tell, worked.

Starbucks has done the exact same thing. Apparently, many people have never been there before, but assume from the marketing that it’s a trendy place.

Are we getting closer, Roger?

Slarti –

Not exactly, because I’m not talking about the regular ol’ “the-in-crowd-really-sucks” attitude, which does indeed transcend politics. I’m talking about the version of that attitude which comes from a political POV. Read Glen’s original post again. It’s all politically oriented.

JP –

Yep. My point exactly. I just find it interesting that these folks seem to have a problem (understandably, in some respects) with “elitism” and “hipness” yet can’t even properly identify what is (or is not, in this case) elitist or hip.

And, before someone decides to get all philosophical on me, I recognize that there are bigger things going on in the world than this. I just find it interesting, is all.

[…] Abramson on A Starbucks for Glen DeanRoger Abramson on A Starbucks for Glen Deannedwilliams on A Starbucks for Glen DeanSouthern Beale on A Starbucks for Glen DeanSlartibartfast on A Starbucks for Glen DeanBusy Mom on A […]

“Read Glen’s original post again. It’s all politically oriented.”

No Roger, for the upteenth time, “IT WAS A JOKE.”

Perhaps Roger, you should drink less coffee.

“it was just a joke”
“I don’t remember”
“I was drunk at the time”

ad nasium

being conservative and being hip are pretty polar (in the sense of tradition versus the now) and, although wikipedia likes to think of political elitism as relayed to dominance, referring to a conservative elite seems, well, odd.

“[R]eferring to a conservative elite seems, well, odd.”

Really? Why? In many ways, “elites” are quite conservative, if only because they like the status quo over which they became elite in the first place.

Anyway, what are people like, say, William F. Buckley, Jr. or George F. Will, if not members of the “conservative elite”?

buckley’s not dead yet?

i forget there’s also an intelligentsia on the conservative side, what with Carl Rove and Ann Coulter & such getting more prominence.

Jim –

WFB may as well be dead, for all the influence he has anymore, sadly.

You can certainly be forgiven for forgetting about the existence of a conservative intelligentsia. Lord knows many of today’s conservatives aren’t aware of one, or, if they are, they assume it must be suspect somehow. Perhaps even–elitist!

“You can certainly be forgiven for forgetting about the existence of a conservative intelligentsia.” «timeout for a hit from an awesome gingerbread-chia-latte bong…»”Perhaps even…where was I now?”

I suppose since your Leftist boilerplating of Conservatives as mostly knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, gay-bashing, brown-people-hating, racist, homophobic Jesus freaks, it’s OK to point out the elitist Liberals who seem so ‘enlightened’ are mostly for the destruction of Israel, are pro-Hamas and -Chavez and -Castro (because they suckle at the breast of Jimmy Carter, I suppose); most are fervently anti-military (I LOATHES me some military) and seem to look down on middle-class Americans (whom they view as easily-led sheeple) as ready for the political correct harnesses they’ve been fitted for. Nice ‘plating, huh?

“Waitress, I’ll have a plain coffee, black. And a side order of grits.”

Roger,
I personally am not “worried” about it.

I have never been a coffee drinker, so it’s difficult for me to know/discern whether the price or demand for Starbucks is “justified,” but I do know that trendyness or change-for-change’s-sake don’t count for much with me as a Conservative.

And there are anomalies galore in the culture, so I wouldn’t waste energy trying to figure out why conservativish types (to include Democrats of that proclivity) think that coffee-snobbery or (perceived) herd-like coffee consumption is ridiculous. And though you’re probably right that Starbucks has become increasingly mainstream/popular, I’d assert such is the inevitable consequence (in the U.S) of something being “perceived” as elite or exclusive, wouldn’t you agree?

Still driving . . .

Don’t forget the scattered, smothered, covered, and chunked.

Ned –

I still think you’re kind of missing it. Glen’s post (and it’s not just him–it’s indicative of a sentiment I’ve heard from other quarters) really had nothing to do snobbery or herd-like mentalities. It was about the actual types of people themselves who frequent the place.

Anyway, I think you’ve helped my point about some “conservatives’” awareness of what is or is not “trendy.” Starbucks is not in the least bit trendy. It stopped being trendy years ago, as far as I can tell. I just think it demonstrates a (fairly typical, in my experience) lack of awareness of the very thing being criticized.

Note: I’m not criticizing the lack of knowledge of what is or is not trendy. I don’t know much about that either, nor do I place a high value on it. I just think it’s odd to criticize or dislike something for being hip and trendy when it really isn’t, especially for political reasons.

I just think it’s odd to criticize or dislike something for being hip and trendy when it really isn’t, especially for political reasons.

You do? You’ve missed a large number of recent political campaigns, I guess. Unless you’re using “odd” in the sense of “disingenuous.”

nm –

No, I mean odd in the sense of “weird,” but I’m open to discussion. Give me an example or two of what you’ve seen like this in recent political campaigns.

It goes back at least to Pat Nixon’s “Republican cloth coat,” but I’m thinking more of things that were said last presidential election about Kerry, and remarks about “East Nashville” politics in the recent mayoral election here.

Re. “missing it,” I don’t think so. “Elitism” is not really/necessarily a partisan classification. I’d say it cuts two ways . . . and it manifests itself in different ways based on a person’s other “values.”

As far as demonstrating your point–not exactly. This might be difficult to believe, but not everyone is on the Starbucks bandwagon with you (well, Mike Keith is . . .). I can’t judge much about your anecdotal evidence, and I can’t speak for what Glen was thinking in writing that post (I will go out on a limb, however, and say that I don’t believe it was intended as a Roger Abramesque slap down of Starbuckophobic Conservatives). Regardless of various, exceptional, local gestures of non-Liberalness by Starbucks (e.g., until recently, a Nashville Starbucks store would donate beverages to Hope Clinic for Women) it strains credulity to assert that the corporation is not Left-of-center in its orientation and not “activist.” Couple that with the disdain for Starbucks crazed consumers felt by the stick-in-the-mud segment of our population and you have dissonance.

Gosh, “trendiness” is about as subjective a term as there is, but it is probably best defined as someone or something more recently on the scene than the person using the term.

I didn’t write the Starbucks bashing parody post, and I think stereotyping is sloppy–though almost essential for humor, I guess. But I do understand why some people are critical of Starbucks. It is human nature to elevate oneself by criticizing others–whether or not the criticism is warranted. So, it isn’t really “odd” and it is hardly “weird”; it is rather normal. Though normal, it is often (unwittingly) irrational and I would say it is often wrong.

Speaking of lack of awareness, I’ve been a decades-long NR subscriber and I’m of a fan of decidedly elitist Bill Buckley.

But I think you’ve made your point about how petty some “conservatives” can be.

Ned, with respect you’ve joined this party a little late and it appears to me that you haven’t gone back to really read the post that started this, but I’ll respond anyway:

“This might be difficult to believe, but not everyone is on the Starbucks bandwagon with you (well, Mike Keith is . . .).”

Ned, pray tell when did I ever suggest they were? The whole point of my post was to discuss why some people have such an issue aith Starbucks. How do you then figure that I didn’t realize a lot of people didn’t like it? That doesn’t make any sense. You’re better than that.

“I can’t judge much about your anecdotal evidence, and I can’t speak for what Glen was thinking in writing that post (I will go out on a limb, however, and say that I don’t believe it was intended as a Roger Abramesque slap down of Starbuckophobic Conservatives).”

Again, you need to start from the beginning. When did I ever suggest any of that?

“Regardless of various, exceptional, local gestures of non-Liberalness by Starbucks (e.g., until recently, a Nashville Starbucks store would donate beverages to Hope Clinic for Women) it strains credulity to assert that the corporation is not Left-of-center in its orientation and not “activist.”

Based on…what exactly? That was conclusory. Give me some examples. And, bear in mind, I assume you generally apply whatever standards you use for Starbucks to all major corporations. Like Disney. And Ford. And General Motors. And Coca-Cola. And Nissan. And the Gap. And so on. Or is it just something about Starbucks, and, if so, what, exactly?

“But I do understand why some people are critical of Starbucks. It is human nature to elevate oneself by criticizing others–whether or not the criticism is warranted. So, it isn’t really “odd” and it is hardly “weird”; it is rather normal.”

Yes, it’s normal when it makes sense. And it’s only funny when it’s based on some sort of fact. Neither of these things applied to Glen’s post. Which is my overall point.

“But I think you’ve made your point about how petty some “conservatives” can be.”

Wasn’t really my point, unless you mean that in some sort of passive-aggressive way, i.e., that I’m the one being petty. But you couldn’t mean that. After all, I’m not really a conservative. Heck, just ask Terry Frank.

Ned –

On second thought, forget about it. Apologies for being a little snippy there. We’ve discussed this topic way too much relative to its importance, which is partially (mainly) my fault. On to other things…