Not amused.
 

Bloody americans, not happy with bombings afghanistan i've noticed a new stage in the australia invasion campign, STARBUCKS has open in Melbourne. GodDAMNIT we know how to make coffee very well thankyou very much we have a large european sector here that can make REAL coffee we don't need AMERICANS TELLING US how to make COFFEE.
(as you can tell i take my coffee very seriously)

Hey, don't sweat it. If your coffee really IS better, no one will go to Starbucks and they'll close.

If they stay open, others must disagree with you and, heck, that means the other coffee places that you like will be that much less crowded. :)

I used to not like Starbucks. Then I went to West Virginia, where they don't have Starbucks. And then I was REALLY not amused.

that's the thing!
cafe culture in melbourne is so strong its not funny, half of melbourneis like little italy!
So, so many fantastic cafes its not funny we don't need no stinkin franchise trying to tell US what good coffee is *hmph*


Looked pretty empty, still its the MORALITY of the thing ;)

Friend's father recently wentto the US (Toronto i think), his first comment on coming back was THANK GOD they know how to make coffee here..

Man.

I have to say...

WHAT THE FUCK?

FYI, Toronto is in Canada. And I was there in the Fall of '99. There were all these Canadians saying shit like "Fucking Starbucks, like we need a US coffee shop here" or "fucking Pier 1 imports, piece of shit US company" or "God I wish we didn't have so much US tv here" or "Man, I wish the US wasn't destroying our culture".

SHUT THE FUCK UP.

That shit wouldn't happen if the majority of people didn't want it to. If there's an operating Pier 1 imports there, it means PEOPLE LIKE IT AND GIVE IT THEIR MONEY. If there's too much American TV, it's because PEOPLE ARE FUCKING WATCHING IT. If your culture is becoming too Americanized, it's because YOUR NEIGHBORS WANT IT TO BE THAT WAY. If there are too many American movies playing in foreign theaters, it's because PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WATCH THEM. And if there's a fucking operating Starbucks, it's because PEOPLE ARE BUYING SHIT THERE. But of course, you can't, in your super-enlightened "I'm not an American so I'm intelligent" mindframe, grasp the fact that DIFFERENT FUCKING PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT FUCKING THINGS. If Starbucks gets any business, it's from Australians, but I'm sure you'd be all too quick to point the finger and blame an American company for ruining your coffee independence. Shut the fuck up. If you don't want it, don't drink it. Tell your friends not to drink it. But don't blame it on Americans. It's there because there's interest, and if it stays, it's not our fucking fault.

dude...
 

Try switching to decaf. Sheesh!

I'm sure I noticed an Aussie tongue in his cheek.

Brian

I -hate- Starbucks. As much as I hate, well, Vegemite and those horrible musk flavored Life Savers.

Bad news for you, Jag, Vegemite was here long before Starbucks was over there. If Australia Fair wants to achieve cultural dominance by means of dead yeast and meat-flavored candy, I'm afraid it deserves Starbucks, and White Castle, and Chia Pets, and Beadazzlers, and Cabbage Patch Kids.

Nobody deserves the Starbucks System, though, which is to set up right next door to the competition and not have anyone inside (ever try to -relax- in a Starbucks? They are the antithesis of a decent cafe) so harried commuters will go to the Starbucks instead of having a decent cup of coffee in a place that welcomes them.

I keep going to Peet's, even though I pass two Starbucks' on the way, because Peet's is a -cafe-.

Well, around here there is no competition for them to set up next to. The competition here is a really crappy cafe 4 miles away, where I would never go in the first place. For beans, the competition is the supermarkets, who don't know what they're selling and don't give a damn.

The whole question is really whether franchises are what people want. If you hate Starbucks for being a franchise and acting competitively, there are an awful lot of other chains you have to hate as well, in my opinion.

But I think the franchises have had an easy time of it because the mom and pop places in the world have no sense for business. While developing web sites, I tried to deal with both independent bookstores in the Philly area; one went out of business while the other owners were a terrible pain to deal with and could not even make basic decisions.

agreed, that is definitely a problem. my problem is that i'm not a businessman. i do computer repair on the side, and my rate is "whatever you think is fair." it's easier when you're actually selling a product, of course. but most of these places are real humans that are sensitive and don't have a real business sense about them. running a business is damn hard work. nice people tend to want to give away their work/time for free, make just enough to live off of. unfortunately, that doesn't work in the business world...

anyway... if you wanna hate franchises, that's fine. i agree that you have to hate them all, or at least a sizeable majority... i just get *really* tired of people spouting venom because something is american... i think we could all do without that kind of intolerance...

er....dham.......i wasen't being that serious........yes decaf looks like a good idea.....Man talk about knee-jerk.......:rolleyes:

I'm guessing it'll die, its not in a fantstic locatin for a cafe and man, competition around here cafe wise is already crazy, i counted nearly 40 just wandering round the city =)

jet_silver - i tink that theres more US franchiese/tv/etc here than 2 products ;)

Toronto.....something starting with T i remember....ill ask him tonight, any idea where he/I may have meant?

Please...this thread *Was* 99% in jest...It was just a joke along the usual lines of war, taking the piss out of it...i should have added a
warning i guess..... like
THIS IS A JOKE - LEAVE YOUR FLAMETHROWERS AT THE DOOR
Cafe culture round here is *huge*, its not the right enviroment for it so i've got a feeling it'll close (it took a spot next to the enormous nike store that's closing next week too ;) (after 4 years of continual protest and lack of intersting they gave up) :D

I'm sorry, but I love Starbucks. Before they came to St. Louis (in the summer of 1998), we had a limited, snooty, "fuck you! We're hip!" scene, which Starbucks brought down to earth. For a while, a coffee craze hit teens in their last couple of years of high school, which spawned a few coffee houses (including my beloved SoHo). They're all gone now.

Shit...1995. 2 in the morning on a hot June night...or pretty much almost every night during that summer: Sitting at Denny's, sipping coffee, eating omelettes. Those were the days...

Where I used to live there was this little, poky cafe that was comfortable. It was very much in the European idiom. You could stay there as long as you liked, there was a pleasant muddle of abandoned newspapers and people came and went in a steady trickle all day long. During rush hours they would provide to-go cups for the train commuters.

Starbucks moved in, two doors down. They got most of the business because they were a) new, b) famous, c) not a poky little cafe. The place glistened.

But you can't stay long in a Starbucks. It is too cold, the seats are hard, the lighting is merciless and they go around picking up the newspapers. Starbucks is -not a cafe-. It is a store that sells coffee. Not -bad- coffee, mind you. However, the store that sold coffee got the yuppies and the poky cafe got people who like cafes.

UT, in a lot of ways capitalism and the principle of majority rule are the same. The result is everybody gets what the majority wants. In this case the poky cafe went under. Perhaps that is merely the survival of the fittest. I'm just tired of the fittest being the banal, the average, the mediocre - and I felt the town was damaged by that kind of leveling.

So - if you like Starbucks you can join a whole lot of people who do: Starbucks is successful and it is probably responsible for cultivating in some people a taste for coffee that would otherwise be lacking. And I understand it is penetrating the Midwest, a desert when it comes to decent coffee. But at the same time, be aware that there is a better way, a real cafe, and if you have one in your neighborhood it may please you better.

I am very sympathetic with Jaguar's rant, my previous bitchy comments notwithstanding.

Yes, well, if it turns out that the tyranny of the majority says that you can have good coffee, but can't sit around in the place you got it... well I for one will remain optimistic that I can eke out a life somehow. It'll be difficult to bear, but...

What we are really railing against is change. Today business is short on luxuries like expensive real estate to devote to people sitting around consuming borrowed newspapers and not buying anything. Space is a resource, so in a busy culture where time is at a premium, you'll more likely succeed by volume and throughput.

In a town near me there is a poky little cafe that sells Folger's out of a Mr. Coffee in foam cups. If this cruddy little place were put out of business by a Starbucks, it would be a serious step up. So it works both ways. The "levelling" you refer to would be improving the culture of the crappy places out there.

I have a rant that I trot out at this point, which some people are tired of, but it's time. A few years ago I went to Charleston West Virginia for a week on business. The first day I drank the coffee at the seminar I was attending. It was weak, bitter, and cold. The second day I drank the coffee at the hotel where I was staying. It was weak and bitter.

That night, I drove around town looking for a coffee shop. I found one. It opened at 7:30 am. The following morning, I went there and when it opened at 7:40, I took their Mr. Coffee carafe and poured it into one of the complimentary foam cups. They didn't even pour it for you. And the coffee was weak and bitter.

Facing another day of crappy coffee was too much, but I had a non-refundable ticket. I finally found a decent cup - at a Krispy Kreme.

Now, oddly enough, these West Vriginians worship the laid-back, rush-free culture that doesn't fly in the big city. I take that to mean they don't really need coffee; I take that to mean that coffee is a part of the rush culture that doesn't support sitting around.

It still boils down to: what we are really complaining about is change, and we're largely concerned with style over substance. The people buying coffee at Starbucks have all made a choice in their lives, and they operate to maximize what they believe to be best for them. You can tag them "yuppies" and complain that they are without an appreciation for the better things in life. But at some level, that's unfair too; their choices are theirs, they believe they are improving their lives through them.

Man I can be voluminous when I want to be....

And one more thing. These "newspapers" you speak of. I've heard of them, but it's been a while. Isn't that where they used to cut down tons and tons of trees, mash them into pulp, run that through rollers, just to deliver it to big industrial presses, to print "news" that is up to 24 hours old by the time it reaches you?

How quaint. How wasteful!

Print is dead. I get better news from Yahoo and CNN, better editorials from 100 different websites, and better "letters to the editor" from here. And the local papers duplicate their dead-tree models on their websites.

amen, reverend.

also, i'm eating some REALLY GOOD clam chowder.

but that's beside the point.

the point is: fuck coffee. drink root beer.

ok UT - so your point is americnas cafes can't make half-decent coffee to save their lives so starbucks does well.....Logical enough... Here *shock horror* to the distraught of MBAs everywhere its more like jet silvers cafe, except probably better coffee ;p

Real cups, relaxed atmosphere, and fantastic coffee in ohmygod real cups.

Oh and UT - call me a luddite but i'd rahter enjoy my news away from a computer screen most of the time :p man i'm in a bitch mood today

Is this a good thing? Its sure got allot of people pissed. FUck it gets to me, sure it makes good busienss sense but fucking hell what the pointof life if you cna't enjoy it, do we need to maxamise, rationalise and cost-cut absolutely everything.....

*sighs* Ah well, cafe culture here is as strong as ewver and mroe are opening by the die - die starbucks die!!!

;)

Well, that's a common complaint for a lot of people... The free market gives them what they say they want -- with actions. Which is often, unfortunately, not what they want in their hearts.

For example, I have a friend who thinks the airline industry should be re-regulated. He doesn't think prices were that much more expensive than they are now, but the service is much less, meals are worse, seats are smaller, etc.

So, I asked him an obvious question: "Last time you flew, how did you decide which airline to take?" He said "I did some price shopping and went with the best deal." I asked, "Did you ask any of them about the quality of their food? Size of seats? Etc?" He replied, "Of course not."

I explained to him (in nicer language) that he was part of the problem. He was looking for the cheapest airfare and not even, apparently, investigating anything else. By not even asking he was effectively telling the airlines that all he cares about is price.

And, how do the airlines minimize price? By searving cheap (or no) food, putting more seats in the same space, etc, etc. All the things that he hates.

Unfortunately, in a large industry, it's hard for one person to make a difference. It's easy to say "I can't change it, so I'll just save the $$$." But it's like voting for someone and then complaining that s/he got into office.

If you don't like chain stores, go out of your way to NOT shop at them. Find the "mom and pop" stores and buy there. Help them stay in business. Don't let the large conglomerates think that they can make money in your area.

Anyhow, that's what I try to do. I try to buy books at a small stores rather than Dalton's or Barns & Noble's. I dunno if it'll work, but I sure feel better when I do.

I know...its just depressing.
Reminded me in some vague way of privatisationhere and in Britan - waht a stupid idea that turned out to be.

This was sorta touched upon earlier, but to put it out there...

Starbucks has been around for 30 years. Obviously, you can't expand your business if you don't have a good product. I personally think they make a great product. They also give back to the community. Hell, you could argue that they make Joe Q. Public *think* about coffee.

The one thing I've noticed is that each Starbucks, while generally similiar, has its own uniqueness about it. Be it a particular couch, the layout, etc. For example, the Starbucks at 36th and Walnut in University City (Philadelphia) has an upper level and a large patio. While the Starbucks at Delmar and Leland in University City (St. Louis) has a small patio, but a little "nook" where there are a few cushy chairs for you to sip and read the Post-Dispatch or Newsweek or whatever.

And it's not like it's just Starbucks. There is also Seattle's Best and Panera Bread/St. Louis Bread Co., popping up all over the place.

Hopefully jag, Melburnians will not do what was done in Chicago 2 years ago. Starbucks has a TON of locations in Chicago...even I would say there are too many there. Apparently, a new one was opening up in a neighborhood, much to the chagrin of its neighbors. One night, the soon-to-open location was vandalized...windows broken out, even some graffiti I believe.

I believe the local folks and the big chains can coexist happily. If anything, they should keep each other on their toes.

SO they took coffee to the tribals and converted them - happened ehre a long time ago, try post WW2 with millions of european immigrants.

I can't imagine vandalism happening but i did ask one waitor in one of my regualr haunts about a street away waht the thought. Summed it: if ameircans think they are gonan tell us hwo to make coffee they've got another thing coming.

Tony,

I respect your opinion, but this was dreadfully misinformed. Print isn't dead. Print is alive. Much more so than the net. The 'duplicate' papers are financially unviable: the NYT and WP couldn't produce one hundredth of their in-depth reporting through website financing. Where do you think they get all the money from to pay their foreign correspondents, journalists, editors, and freelance writers? It sure as hell isn't from banner ads.

The 'better' news from Yahoo or CNN are usually piped straight from Reuters or the Associated Press, without any perspective or background. The vast majority of the news provided for our western eyeballs is pre-cut down to size on the web, so we can easily digest it. As the vast majority of people don't read news items that take longer than 30-60 seconds to read, most sites tailor 'content' to the smallest common denominator. Yes, even the my.yahoo-type sites.

The editorials in decent national papers beat pretty much anything on the web; the amount of research materials and existing knowledge in a major newspaper office (and I'm not talking about the New York Post here) is unbeatable when it comes to putting the world into perspective. Editorial knowledge and experience isn't something you pick up from hacking together a 'My Opinion Here' website.

Newspapers aren't about news, and the news aren't 24 hours old. News deadlines can be as short as 10 hours if I pick up a paper in the morning when I get on the subway to read it on the ride to work.

Quaint? Wasteful? Paper is easily recycled, and trees can be regrown. A decent national paper is $0.25, and brings you unparalleled width and depth of news and BACKGROUND, all in one well-organized, portable, easy-on-the-eyes package. You can read it in a coffee shop, and socialize with others - *around a paper*. What is the investment cost in a computer? Internet connection? Energy? Time and effort to browse the net for all the news you want? Hunt down background information? Ensure that the people who wrote it have at least some cursory knowledge of the topic? Editorial integrity? Sure, there are some tools that help you, but in the end it's a horrible waste of time and effort, trying to keep your fingers on the pulse of information that is shallow, opinionated by badly-educated people, and often without the proper context, all under the pallid glare of a CRT tube.

If you think that you can truly get better editorials from 100 websites than from the New York Times or Washington Post, please do try to get a College education in the arts, preferable a Social Science like Political Science or Economics. Once you understand how much underlying information you aren't being told by the 'popular media', you will see the world differently.

Sure, the NYT and WP have websites. But those websites simply couldn't exist in their current form without their print counterparts who finance it all, and who provide all the 'meat'.

Wasteful? Quaint? $0.25 buys you the world. Try waking up at 8am on a weekday, go out to buy a copy of the NYT or WP, and sit down with a decent cup of coffee (Starbucks if that's what you like) and READ. Not just the main pages, sports, and comics - but the entire paper. Don't skim, read. When you're still there, two hours later, understand that there's more to the world than just the web's click-a-minute, pre-chewed, pre-thought, pre-processed synaptic pulses.

News on TV is dead. Their agenda is to sell advertising minutes, not to inform. Quality papers have an audience that's slightly more traditional: people who buy US Today might watch Fox News, and that's all fine and dandy. But if you read the NY Times, you may as well try to see if your cable package offers BBC World News.

Yeah, I'm sure there're great news sources on the web. Sure, TV news can be decent. Someone will post an URL that has incredible editorials and awesome in-depth reporting from around the world, for free, thus disproving everything I said.

Until then - do yourself a favour and pick up a decent paper. Your brain will thank you. Stop thinking in 2-second flashes. Don't give in to cravings. Refuse to accept the need for immediate satisfaction. Fight the power.

X.

i agree
but salon.com is very, very good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest

Ever since 9/11 when -they- were the site I could get to and load, I've gotten my news there.

I was being a tad facetious when I said "print is dead" -- which is really a <i>Ghostbusters</i> quote, and not one of the more memorable quotes from that film. But I can take sides and advocate if you like!

I'm a little unique in my situation, in that I'm able to watch CNN for about 5 hours a day, and have a very serious broadband situation from which to watch the net. Now, CNN doesn't take anything from the AP. The other day, I watched Christiane Amanpour - the future Mrs. Undertoad, in my dreams - sorting through actual papers she'd actually found in an actual Taliban house, to find the documents that referred to nuclear weaponry and hold them up to the camera. Now that's reporting!

Now, I read a paper recently but was nonplussed to find that there was no "reply" button. People said that in order to reply I should send the folks at the paper an email. And I did that, and nothing happened.

Furthermore, I notice that in most papers the editorials aren't signed. What the hell!

How much traffic would any web site get if it only published unsigned and unreplyable editorials? What is the worth of an anonymous opinion? How can I correctly judge the biases involved if I don't know who wrote it?

Five years ago the Philly Inquirer wrote an editorial in which they called my wife's views "wacky". I share her views. So I am kinda biased against my hometown rag. (By the way, most people here would share her views too; they had no idea what her views were when they wrote that.)

Socialize around a newspaper? Jesus, do people actually do that? If I'm in a coffee shop reading a paper - leave me alone, woudja?

Here's another one for you. In 1999 the Eagles drafted Donovan McNabb, and I was in the media room at the time. (I swear I'm not just saying this to show off. We lost the Eagles gig, so there are no bragging rights in it.) The first thing the team did was to toss him into a limo and speed him from the draft (in NYC) to the Vet (in Philly) so the folks there could interview him and get pictures, etc.

But the very first thing that McNabb did upon arrival was go into a side room for a web chat we had set up.

After we were finished with the chat, we transcribed it (well, copied and pasted and formatted) for the site. As I finished up the work of putting the chat up, a few NEWSPAPER reporters gathered, looking over my shoulder. They figured out what it was, and were very excited. They started writing down quotes FROM THE CHAT for their stories, which would appear in the next day's paper. Well, it would be easier and probably better than gathering their quotes from the press conference.

I know this is just sports, and I know much of sports news is staged, and I know nobody cares. But when I saw that happen, it really blew me outta the water. What lousy reporting: pulling quotes from the chat that appeared in real time, then again in transcript. They didn't even have to be in the media room - they could have sat at home and read the web site to write their stories.

Lastly, the BBC, NYT, Washington Post, etc. all post full unadulterated versions of their stories to the web, so I'm not missing anything. In fact, by selecting stories from lists of relevant headlines, via news-accumulating weblogs and sites like newshub.com (try it), I'm getting sources out the wazoo.

Okay, now having advocated my side, I'll advocate yours. The worst thing about my approach is that I wind up ill-informed about local events. The local TV news, from all five TV stations that offer it, is just horrible. Webloggers don't offer a local perspective very often, and when they do, they don't have a wide variety of sources to pick from. I do hit the local suburban rag's site, but they don't publish all their stories and the site is awful.

Thank you for proving my point. The Guardian is one of Britain's top 3 broadsheets. (quality newspapers) Without the paper funding its website, it wouldn't be there. However, the link you specify is - once again - a feed that mixes AP/Reuters stories and the Guardian's own reporting. The newspaper's editors - who are paid not through the website's income, which is probably negligible, but through the money the newspaper makes - are the ones who make it a worthy read.

Click on one of the stories from the worldlatest site for once; see how after the location name at the beginning of the story it often says 'AP'? That's pure news coming from a news agency. The decent bits of that page are the written articles on the right-hand side of the page. Written by journalists. Paid for by the paper's income.

That's more or less the same as going to nytimes.com or washingtonpost.com - a mixture of instant news feed reporting and actual articles from the newspaper. Which was what my entire post was all about. :-)

Tony:

Sigh. That's what it's all about. Without the papers financing the actual WRITING of the decent articles and editorials, those articles wouldn't exist. Print isn't dead. The web is dead - it can't finance and pay the people who write all the good in-depth stuff. The web can't finance the Reuters and AP links - all the Reuters and AP people are paid by their news agencies because the newspapers and TV stations pay for the feeds (amongst other things).

Sure, Salon is a nice site and all. But it doesn't have independent news reporting, it doesn't have real correspondents, it takes a news feed like everybody else, and it is 100% pure unadulterated editorializing that you need to pay for. If you really want to pay aditional money to read somebody else's opinions on the web, go ahead. Oh, unless you are at school or work there. The federally mandated filtering software for public schools in the US almost always filters salon.com out. N2H2 and the likes. Maybe one too many hooker stories, I guess.

The examples you have about CNN etc. are nice - but all TV stations are owned by large commercial entities and need to *make money*. Newspapers can rely on much less temperamental advertising than TV stations. TV needs to cater to the lowest common denominator - the PATHETIC coverage CNN gave us when that plane crashed in Queens a couple of weeks ago is typical. Every second question was 'can you speculate on the possible causes of this as yet completely unknown event'; they were foaming at the mouth to imply terrorist activity, for something like ten hours non-stop. Without providing any information, any coverage - ANYTHING. Come on. CNN doesn't really employ journalists. The situation you describe with Amanpour is quite typical - don't you think it sounds just a wee bit staged? Have a look at www.indymedia.org, if you really want commercially unbiased reporting.

Oh. Or have a look at www.worldnews.com. Their current top story is about five Palestinian children being killed in an explosion on Thursday, and mourners being shot on. Where is CNN? They sure as hell would have a camera team floating around the scene if it were Israeli children who had been butchered.

CNN reports that.. oh.. how surprising 'Hamas vows revenge' is the headline. And they're talking about Hamas will avenge the death of their leader. The rest of the story is meaningless numbers, all scrunched together - a bunch of Palestinians were reported dead. No details, nothing. You wouldn't want to annoy anyone, would you? Have a look at cnn.com right now. Almost all the top stories in most categories are about the Taliban defeat and northern alliance victories, rah-rah.

Oh, sorry. The two top stories that aren't about the Taliban's defeat are titled 'True love overcomes anthrax scare' and 'Survey: Fewer Thanksgiving shoppers hit malls'.

Journalism? CNN? Jesus. Bite-sized info that's neatly pre-packaged and pre-chewed so as to not upset your viewing habits.

X.

Ah the guardian - fantastic newspaper. Hopefuly getting a subscription for christmas.

I'm not sure what oyu mena bu unsigned editorials....I've never seen an article or an editorial in a paper that hasen't had aname attached... Newspapers aren't about some frigging community, its baout high quality, in depth news, far deeper than something like CNN can do purely because it would not be intersting to msot CNN viewers - no pretty pictures.

I read, on average 2 full papers a day when i have the time, plus time magazine. I also hit salon.com and news.com.au . The news is bitesize online compared to print. Althoug hsalon.com i have to say is the big exception - i love it i wish i could get a print copy i could read on the train.

I haven't read the WP or the NYT in a long time, but the way the Philadelphia Inquirer gets the money is.... they don't. The Inky's idea of in-depth reporting is fictionalized documentaries (_Blackhawk Down_, _The Hunt For Whazzisname the Drug Dealer_) and the occasional series denigrating "Generation X".

Which is to say, without any spin. The Washington Post certainly showed its roots as a Democratic Party organ when I used to read it; it was less biased in the opinion section than the front page. And then they had an "Ombudsman" who simply made excuses for the paper's shortcomings. Blech.

News in print is there to fill the holes between the advertisements. The places for the stories are called "news holes", after all.

http://www.plastic.com/article.pl?sid=01/11/23/1530233

I believe the above link can stand by itself, without further commentary.

Buy a decent national paper. Fight the 12-second attention span trend.

X.

X, your words have been making me think a lot these past few days. Thanks.

My main CNN time is between noon and 5pm. From noon to 3, most of it is straightforward reporting of facts. These days, much of it is live coverage of events and press conferences; there is about a half-hour per day of Ari Fleisher. At 3 they do a call-in show called Talk Back Live, which is mostly opinion and it's easy to spot biases in their guests, but that's part of the whole deal. At 4 they do an hour of "regular" newscast, which is not as interesting.

I think I'm "covered" if there is anti Palestinian bias in CNN, because I read robotwisdom.com, which is operated by a hard-core lefty who believes that all Israeli violence is 100% racist and 100% unjustified. And I agree with tw's assertion that Ariel Sharon is a "dichead" (sic), so some if it must have "taken". I don't read robot wisdom because it's anti-Israel; I read it because the guy is a good editor, and since I <i>know</i> his bias, his bias doesn't really exist for me. All I really want is the information he points to, much of it coming from indymedia and other similar sources.

Now, personally, I can always point to major facts and events that are left uncovered by the national media. I promoted Project Censored on the original Cellar incarnations. I also have a pseudo-libertarian viewpoint that doesn't register on the bias map of any major news organization. But after about a decade of working hard to figure out what is news in these broadcasts and what is just crapola, I'm ready to admit that lack of coverage of the news from MY bias is not an atrosity but merely a fact of life.

As far as electronic media being subservient to its master - the advertiser - that's certainly true and I wouldn't say it's not. Chomsky and I will stop short of claiming that the old-style newspaper is NOT subservient to ITS master - print advertising. And furthermore, I'll wager any amount of money that the online versions will outlast the print versions - the cost of which is set by the price of wood pulp. By the way, some huge percentage of the mass in landfills is newsprint, and the disposal cost MUST be part of your calculations. Don't leave it out like everyone else does!

Lastly, just as important as understanding the news is understanding the popular culture. This culture drives what is reported, but it also drives what people feel is important, and thus, what WILL BE news. The people for whom CNN is presented are the masses. Do they care if Ashcroft does a power grab as a part of the war on terrorism? Well, apparently they do. Do they understand that a single school shooting is meaningless in the noise of tens of thousands of schools? No they don't.

You and I know that what O.J. does isn't news even if he kills someone; the resulting hijacking of the legal system may not even be news. But the furor over the case is our popular culture, and that we cannot avoid.

I feel vindicated amoung equals. I was standing a few doors down from one of the 3 soon-to-open starbucks and watched 3 gorups of people (ranging for 18-24 male to +60 group of females)
"disgusting, fucking americans"
"how arrogant"
"what the fuck do they think they are doing?"
And two blokes spat on the place.

And they are not alone

I'm enjoying the Christmas Blend right now. It's excellent.

Australia: The 52nd state (after Canada, of course).

Well jag, that's some pretty tough talk from folks who still have a queen as the head of state. ;)

*laughz
I just htought it was interesting there was such a large and broard annoyance with starbucks =)

Thats pretty arrogant from folks who have their head of state chosen by a court :p

Depends on how you look at it. Besides, you don't see the US keeping a tie to mother England, now do you? ;)

YOu don't see most of australia doing that anyway.

You don't see 2 states in Aastralia passing laws to block the teaching of evolution (20 in the US - comparison number) though :p

This my country is better than your country is so silly its not funny.

Ya... The Yanks are invading...

One -if- by cappucino ... two -if- by steamed milk.


BTW... if the Yanks were invading by way of Coffee; it'd be known as a 'Cup of Joe'


Cheers

<i>20 in the US - comparison number</i>

Whose number is that? It's closer to 1 (Kansas).

It was a joke for the most part...

*smack!*

Didn't Tennessee pass something like that too? Or, I must be thinking of the original Scopes trial. That, and they're the ones that tried to pass the "moment of silence" deal that got struck down in the Supreme Court.

One good thing that came out of being educated in Catholic schools: They specifically tell you not to take the Bible word-for-word. Big fans of evolution...of course, 400 years ago, it was another story...

Most were passed (and since repealed i assume) in 1960, particulary 1961 after a speach by a secular professer at a christian compus who's name I have forgotten saying the same chemical process that brought us into being could have brought adam and eve into being. THe following outrage, sparked by a far right wing publication called the Sword of the Lord caused the laws to be passed.

syc - i am jokeing =)
Although i can see an international called the CDABAC being formed "Coffee Drinkers Agains't Bad American Coffee"
At least it is according to two people i've spoken to who've tried the virtual caffinated garden of eve that is Italy and tried starbucks in the US.

Just for that, I hope the hell Starbucks blows up down under...heh. American coffee kicks ass. And Starbucks isn't even my favorite...I have to go with Chock Full O' Nuts.

Hey, has anyone ever noticed how the taste of coffee is affected by the water used? As an example, I am finally enjoying coffee again in the City of Philadelphia. Man, when I lived in Prince George's County, MD, they must have been dragging water directly from the Anacostia River. That water used to make me sick as hell...and made my coffee taste like shit. Unfortunately, I am too cheap to invest in a Brita filter or Culligan. ;)

Serves you right. Real men drink Root Beer. Coffee == gross. Really really gross.

Wait until you're a few years older...maybe then you will appreciate the awesome power that is coffee. :)

Fuck that shit. Seriously. Stinky breath. Yellow teeth. Shitty taste. No thanks. :)

Well, not that I agree with the way it was stated or the implication that it is a fact, but I am not a coffee fan either and I am old enough. :)

Honestly, I just never got into the taste. And, if you drink it for the caffine, I have an alternative drink of choice -- coke. Yes, I realize in many ways that coke is bad for you as well. But I don't reject coffee (personally) on "health" grounds... just taste.

But, since this thread is for coffee fans (and anti-americans) and since people certaintly have a right (though not stated in the constitution) to like coffee, other than this post to defend those who disklike coffee (which is a right also), I will stay out of "which coffee is best" debates. :)

The taste of coffee never did anything for me until I learend to appreciate the caffeine--an acquired taste, like tobacco. But I'd hate like the dickens to only have soft drinks available in the morning.

When I was in the Navy, we would sometimes start the day with a Dr. Pepper from the barracks vending machine before hiking to the mess hall, where there was proper coffee and breakfast--chocolate milk at breakfast was one of my fondest memories of military service, along with making 50 or 60 pounds of bacon at a time while mess cooking. Of course, when you're working the breakfast watch in the enlisted mess, you have to report for duty at 0400. :-)

Easy lisa...it was said in jest. No statement of fact was contained in that quote. :) I have nothing but respect for the awesome caffeine that coffee contains. And yes, it can be helpful in the morning...though not always. The main reason I made the comment is b/c a)of dham's comment and b) Most people that I've heard complain about the taste of coffee have been younger than myself (26). I also know plenty of people that don't like coffee, including my own mother (who prefers a nice cup of orange pekoe in the morning).

Quote:

Honestly, I just never got into the taste. And, if you drink it for the caffine, I have an alternative drink of choice -- coke. Yes, I realize in many ways that coke is bad for you as well. But I don't reject coffee (personally) on "health" grounds... just taste.

As far as the caffeine issue, coffee has as much as 3 times the caffeine that Coke does. A quicker pick-me-up, if you will. :) (Info on caffeine from here.) Personally, I love the taste of coffee. When I'm famous, you'll see me on TV hocking Chock Full O' Nuts in a heartbeat. :)

Of course, there's always Jolt Cola, which is pretty alright.

Personally, I don't really need caffeine. Though tea is pretty good and can help. I just try to stay well rested. Works most of the time. :)

P.S. - work on Christmas Eve just rules. No one is here to bug me. :)