Apparently the owners of Starbucks have never read these words from Kipling:

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

Otherwise they would have never started this new policy

Starbucks baristas and store managers have long found the coffee company’s guidelines on how to treat lingering nonpaying guests vague at best. One company executive told the Journal the guidance on nonpaying guests had long been a gray area, which the Philadelphia incident brought to the forefront.

The company said at the time that it had different guidelines for its 28,000 stores globally, depending on the market. The new policy will apply to its more than 8,000 U.S. company-operated cafes.

On Saturday, the company told its employees in a letter that “any person who enters our spaces, including patios, cafes and restrooms, regardless of whether they make a purchase, is considered a customer.”

Jazz Shaw is exactly right about the abuse of the policy that is coming

This “woke” policy is an invitation to abuse, and history has shown us that when you roll out such an invitation, there will be someone coming along to take advantage of it soon enough. This is particularly true in larger cities where business owners regularly have to deal with individuals looking for a place to pass the time, either to escape the heat or the cold or to find a free bathroom. If the word gets out that Starbucks can’t stop anyone from hanging out there, some of the stores are going to turn into impromptu homeless shelters and that’s not going to do much for the store’s prospects in terms of paying customers.

And he is likely right concerning the goal as well

Starbucks may believe that they’re going to get the SJW crowd off their backs with this policy change. And for a short time they might. But I would wager that many of their outlets will come to regret the new policy in short order.

They will regret it not just because of what will happen, but because SJW’s are never satisfied.  One concession will require another and another and still another.

If the owners of Starbucks read either history or Kipling they would know this, but then again if they read Kipling, the SJW community would likely object to that too.

by baldilocks

One might say that Starbucks is defecating on its own market share, but I hate going for the easy poop joke. Yes, I’m lying.

Seriously, it’s sad to watch as a thriving business dies, even when it Deserves to Die.TM Even when it is committing suicide.

Monica Showalter:

The ever well meaning Starbucks chairman, Howie Schultz, more terrified of bad publicity and claims of racism than anything in the world, has just announced a rather customer-unfriendly policy of opening Starbucks bathrooms (as well as table space) to all comers, including people who won’t spring for a $4 cup of coffee.  Speaking to the Atlantic Council, according to the Washington Post, Schultz said:

“We don’t want to become a public bathroom, but we’re going to make the right decision a hundred percent of the time and give people the key,” Schultz said, “because we don’t want anyone at Starbucks to feel as if we are not giving access to you to the bathroom because you are less than.” (…)

For those of us who do buy Starbucks coffee, we know what this policy change means: an open invitation to the homeless to bring in hepatitis, trash, used syringes, solicitations for spare change, and all the other detritus of their uncured condition to Starbucks bathrooms.  The fact that Starbucks will be the only business with such a policy means that all of the homeless will concentrate in these outlets.  Rival store-owners and social service agencies will actually direct the homeless to Starbucks outlets for the free services.  Large groups will congregate, and tents will go up.

I have been guilty of using Starbucks’ free WiFi to check my email, but one usually doesn’t have to enter the business for that. Now I suspect that it will be difficult and unappealing to even get that close to any Starbucks.

But Monica thinks Schultz has a plan.

“One wonders if what Howie is really saying is that he intends to close outlets – in places where the homeless are concentrated.  Is it that? It’s already well known that a Starbucks outlet’s presence correlates with rising real estate values.  Perhaps Schultz means to concentrate that trend and will now keep his establishments in only rich areas with no social service outlets that draw the homeless.  Maybe he knows something about a coming housing bust and its effect on real estate values.

If he’s going to do that, I bet wasn’t the original plan, but the fix after the disaster. And it’s a good plan, though I doubt that Schultz conjured it.

There’s a Starbucks within walking distance in my blue/white-collar multi-ethnic LA neighborhood . But Dunkin Donuts is closer, has WiFi, coffee, tastier doughnuts than Starbucks (duh), no homeless hanging out and seems to have a smarter CEO — or at least a less white- and rich-guilt plagued one.

And, before I walk to DDs, I use the bathroom facilities in my apartment. I know the janitorial crew for that one.

Juliette Akinyi Ochieng has been blogging since 2003 as baldilocks. Her older blog is here.  She published her first novel, Tale of the Tigers: Love is Not a Game in 2012.

Hit Da Tech Guy Blog’s Tip Jar for his new not-GoDaddy host!

Or hit Juliette’s!

Loves the world, except for all the people

Men at work Dr. Heckyll and Mr. Jive 1982

I think Ace has nailed it when it comes to starbucks.

25. That’ll be great for Starbucks’ business. Their yuppie douchebag clientele love the homeless in the abstract, but we’ll see how much they appreciate their coffee shops being jammed with them, close-up-like, occupying most tables and chairs.

26. I don’t even want to defend Starbucks; I want them to have the full taste of Social Justice Warrior progressivism. If this is the company’s ideology, then they should live that ideology to the full.

27. I have a feeling Starbucks is just claiming this policy until the Social Justice Warrior locusts find a new business to harass, and then, when they do move on, they’ll quietly shift the policy back to “Paying Customers Only,” but I think it would be a hoot if conservatives monitored them to make sure they’re sticking with this new, idiotic policy of letting anyone just sit and lounge without actually buying anything.

28. I think it would be funny if rightwing blogs made sure they were continuing this policy and made sure everyone knew they were backsliding when they do, inevitably, backslide into a non-insane position.

Starbucks has caught themselves between a rock and a hard place.  The gated community crowd that lives in neighborhood far removed from those they agitate for are unlikely to be anxious to share a coffee shop with the great unwashed as they mutter to themselves.  Nor will they be anxious to avail themselves of the facilities as the homeless gather.

Even better with thousands of locations around the nation  the first time a homeless person, particularly one of color is turned away from either a bathroom or a table they can be sure that even an Obamaphone video of such an act will be made viral by the first conservative who sees it, presuming of course a conservatives isn’t ready to shoot such a video themselves.

If I owned a Starbucks franchise, I’d sell now because one they make it policy to reject the “unconscious desire to keep vagrants and transients from just parking themselves in their shops all damn day.”  I suspect nobody will have any interest in buying.

One of life’s seldom-asked, but very useful questions is, “Why am I here?”

It can be writ large, as “Why are we here”?, an existential question on the meaning of life, pondered by philosophers. It can be asked in a smallest way – when you momentarily get distracted and forget why you’re in the garage, ask yourself, “Why am I here?”, and presto! you remember that you need a pair of pliers.

So, when you are stuck with a couple of hundred people in a sealed metal cylinder traveling hundreds of miles an hour several thousand feet above the surface of the Earth after enduring security searches and long lines, the answer to, “Why am I here?”, is “To get from point A to point B.” It is most definitely NOT “To listen to a ranting lunatic indoctrinate me on Communism.”

Never mind that the ranting lunatic is a Penn State Abington sociology professor, who was interviewed following her release from jail,

Can you comment on your arrest and on the videos of you on the plane that are circulating?
I do have a comment. I know that I expressed an act of civil disobedience. But that act was necessary.

Why so?
I’m very knowledgable about that part of the world. I teach about U.S. imperialism in Latin America. And the U.S. has declared war against Venezuela. That means military aggression. They tried to take out Hugo with a coup, and then they took him out with cancer.

There’s a place and time for civil disobedience. Air travel is not it.

You can read the rest of the interview, but keep in mind that “Silence is golden” for very good reason.

It seems that Prof. Halnon took to heart rules 6 and 8

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.”

Which brings me to Starbuck’s #RaceTogether scheme, whereby baristas will impose upon you a script talk to you about race. But wait! There’s more,

The compendium called “Race Together” is the first installment in a year-long effort designed to stimulate conversation, compassion and positive action regarding race in America.

Apparently the Starbucks people enjoy (rule 6) this sort of thing, and will keep the pressure up (rule 8) for a year.

Their competitors must be delighted,

Silence indeed is golden, and could lead a great marketing strategy.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics, news, and culture at Fausta’s Blog. She was going to title this post “Shut the —- up”, but opted for the more genteel “Oh, for the days when silence was golden!”

As you might know I’m an early riser. As I churn out my posts for the day I frequently check Memeorandum as per Rule 3

I kept my eye open till I left the house and found something very interesting there, or rather something very interesting that Wasn’t there. Can you guess (the answer is below the jump)

Continue reading “Anyone notice what was missing from Memeorandum today?”

Today I woke up to the news that some LGBT activists have decided to launch a Starbucks Appreciation Day since their attempts at Chick-Fil-A protests were as the LA Times put it: more subdued as opposed to those who live in reality land that called it: a dismal failure

Still a positive move is smarter than a negative one, I figured I’d check when the date would be to see if Chick-Fil-A fans would counter there or perhaps stay away from Starbucks for the day…

…then I found out it was TODAY.

The story came out THE DAY BEFORE THE “appreciation day”.

This is very significant because it shows not strength but weakness. Here is why.

1. Normally you might expect this to go out a few days before such an event, that allows people to build up folks and media. Instead the media announcement comes the night before and doesn’t hit nationally until the day of the event. This tells me the groups pushing this are not confident in drawing beyond their core protest groups. The additional days would not add to their numbers.

2. The groups pushing this were afraid of any kind of counter. A 2nd Chick-Fil-A day where they would be outnumbered would be very bad for them, but people choosing to skip Starbucks for the day would be worse. By not announcing this event the majority of Starbucks customers today, unlike the people at Chick-Fil-A last Wednesday will have no idea their custom will be considered a symbolic act.

These tactics tell me they know they are in trouble, the whole Chick-Fil-A thing allowed the reality of both their weakness and their opponents strength, this “instant” event allows them to create a false media meme that will be picked up by national media.

Unfortunately for them the mask is already off.

Update: Tammy Bruce comments

The Anti-Chick-Fil-A Kiss-In not worky so well? LOL! As I noted on Fox & Friends this weekend, the approach of punishing people and companies with whom you disagree is fascist, petty and rejected by the American people. I’m all for positive, encouraging activism meant to promote the things we agree with. Apparently that’s a lesson the left can only learn from failure and embarrassment.

Update 2: No More Mr. Nice Blog has the hive mind business backwards (note a person of the right/tea party will talk about why they believe what they do while the left demonstrates er fedoraphobia) but he is exactly right in terms of tactics

Face the fact that Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day was a great one-day success for the right, and it’s going to be difficult to mount an imitation protest that equals or exceeds it; if you fail, you look less powerful, and even if you succeed, what you did looks like me-too-ism.

Better to give the right its one-day news-cycle victory and then stop drawing attention to that victory.

Due to the relative birthrates of left and right I think he’s wrong about the long game, but it’s still the right move for the left and the best advice I’ve seen anyone there give.

I bet I’d have enjoy playing AH games with him back in the pre-pc days.

Update: Allen West Bazinga!

A Democratic lawmaker says Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) offended the entire Congressional Black Caucus by delivering Chick-fil-A chicken and biscuits to their weekly meeting

I’m sure every member of the black caucus can’t wait to explain to the ministers in their district how they were so offended by Chick-Fil-A chicken. Should be interesting.

————————-

Hey let’s make today DaTechGuy Appreciation day kick into the Tip jar to help pay for that cheap 15 yr old car so I can continue to cover events without using dawife’s car

For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.