Comment on Starbucks

There really is no doubt that Starbucks started the whole decent coffee trend in the US back in the early nineties. Sure, you could find good coffee if you knew what it was and you lived in a place like San Francisco, Los Angeles, or Seattle, but basically, "coffee" was the crap you got at the local diner, or the crap you got from a can.

So, despite the super over-expansion of Starbucks in the last few years, I tended to have a soft spot for it. I knew that I could go there and despite the other crap they added to their menus, I could get a good cup of coffee. Sure, I had to start specifying the "bold" roast instead of their insipid "breakfast blend" and other weak-sister appeasements to those who should be drinking at McDonalds, but I could get it.

I noticed in the last year, year and a half, when I did go to Starbucks, I started getting bad coffee. Not just not what I expected. Not just weak. But bad. Basically undrinkable. This was inconsistent at first. I would try again, and the next time, it would be a bit better, and still above the bar as drinkable. However, in the last few months, that changed. Even after Schultz closed all Starbucks for a few hours to "trained in creating the perfect shot," the coffee still as bad -- actually, that is when it became consistently bad.

Shultz started his reorganization of Starbucks in January, and said he was going to, essentially, go back to basics: great coffee. And, stop selling the re-heated breakfast food.

So, what happened?

First, the coffee is bad. Undrinkable. I actually got my coffee this morning from Panera, which is right next to Starbucks, because I knew that Starbucks would not be better, and Panera has great scones.

And, in one of the most obviously commitee-driven chicken-sh* decisions I have ever seen a major corporation do... Well, here it is, verbatim from the Wall Street Journal:

"Starbucks Corp. plans to keep selling warm breakfast sandwiches at its stores and will change their recipes in an effort to minimize their smell, the company confirmed Friday."

That is the final nail. Starbucks is officially dead. All they really have is coffee, and that is now as bad as the stuff I used to drink before Starbucks changed the world. And now, their "management" can't even pull the plug on one of the most bone-headed decisions they made as a company.

Now, I'm a Peets man - have been for over thirteen years. The coffee cups have the same motif as 1994. They play classical music, just like in 1994. They have the same sizes. You go into a Peets, and you know you are not only in a coffee place, but you know you are in a special coffee place. Peets kicks you in the ass; it is great coffee.

Starbucks was a close second, to me. Their French and Italian roasts were excellent, and on par with Peets. But, now you get "Pikes Peak Blend" which might as well be pushed by Mrs. Olson.

It's really too bad. Why does quality have to suffer when going mass-market? Why do executives lose their balls when companies get big? They can claim "bacause we'll lose money!" or "the risk is too high!". Bull-sh*. Starbucks is dead, and declining. This is a lesson in how to kill a brand. Cheapen the hell out of it, and watch it die.

More People is Good

From my point of view, more people is a good thing. As a percentage, people generally are good hearted rather than evil. As a percentage, more people not only pull their weight but add much more than they take. The percentage of people who take are lower than the percentage of people who give.

Let's say that 80% are good, creative people. 20% glom off the rest. A very small minority are actively hostile or evil. Therefore, if you add ten people, you have eight people doing good things, outweighing the bad the other two people do.

Of the eight people who are doing good, one or two of them do amazingly good things, like cure cancer or invent rocketry or create masterpiece art. The great inventions are individual, not committee-driven. All art is created by amazing individuals, not masses.

Because of this, I am not worried about the global population. We add a million people, we add a few thousand incredibly brilliant people who change the world for the better, and hundreds of thousands of great people who add to life on this orb. To my mind, this outweighs the few bad apples.

Can we feed them? Well, we always have. Smart people figure out how to feed themselves and their families, and so doing, figure out how to feed the rest of us.

And, I believe I have proof that I am right:

There are more people living now than have ever existed, and

We have the best overall living conditions that we have ever had, and

We know more than we have ever known before.

Yes, there is plenty of evil, cruelty, and pain in the world. Yet, despite the evil in the world, Good is winning. And Good is winning because as we add people, we out-number bad people more and more and more.

UFBF... Again

So, this blog is not about things that are just unbelievable, but, on the other hand, some things just need to be pointed out as asinine.

In this case, it is that Hillary Clinton and her supporters want Obama's supporters to pay her debt, debt she incurred trashing Obama and continuing her campaign way past the point where the fork came out clean. I do not get this at all. Since when does the loser get paid for losing? And by the winner?

Is Clinton so insensed from losing that she is trying to derail Obama with these distractions? Is this another case of the crabs in the bucket that keep pulling at the other crabs trying to get out?

The goal, I think, for any Democrat out there, must be to put everything else aside except getting Obama elected. Second priority would be to keep the congress. But some of Clinton's followers are just plain crazy, and are actively working to take down Obama. Here are two samples of the vitriol and hatred that's out there. They cry sexism. Perhaps there is just a hint of racism and misandry here?

Personally, I think we could survive an Obama presidency, but I would not like it, mainly because Obama's politics have been pretty straight-ahead old-school Democrat. He reminds me of McGovern. But, he has the potential of a Kennedy or a Clinton (Bill, anyway) to be more than the usual Democrat. If his positive comments re Reagan are an indicator, he may prove to be a surprisingly moderate unifying president. If he is elected, I hope he is.

UFBF File 2: Statins for kids?

In the New York Times, the doctors are saying that kids as young as eight should be on Cholesterol lowering drugs. Of course, this is for the obese kids. How'd these kids get obese in the first place? Cokes, Candy, Big Macs, TV and Video Games. But, hey, they are not selling enough Lipitor (the #1 selling drug in America), so drug 'em up.

From the UFBF: SF Frees "Undocumented" Crack Dealers

An entry for the UFBF (Un-... Believable! File):

San Francisco has its priorities out of whack: "protect" illegals from the feds, even if they are arrested crack dealers!

I don't care what your political leanings are, this is just plain insane.