recentpopularlog in

howardschultz

The Biden Fallacy
But this is a faulty view of how progress happens. Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow. Without radical labor activism that identifies capitalism — and the bosses — as the vector for oppression and disadvantage, there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act. If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege.

If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate. Because we lack a varied vocabulary in mainstream political discourse, we call the latter “moderates” or “centrists,” which doesn’t capture the dynamic at work.
by:JamelleBouie  from:TheNewYorkTimes  Democrats  triangulation  politics  economics  JoeBiden  MichaelBloomberg  TerryMcAuliffe  HowardSchultz  AnnaJuliaCooper 
february 2019 by owenblacker
Rethinking the Peace Culture [The Pearl Magazine]
"Last September, our university made significant progress by moving from the 39th to the 22nd position in the US News Ranking of the Best Liberal Art Colleges in the country. Soka also lands at #1 in Study Abroad and #2 in Faculty Resources. However, statistics alone cannot tell the whole story. When evaluating a college, we should also take into consideration the extent to which it achieves its mission statement. Does a national ranking mean that the university succeeds in achieving its goal to “foster a steady stream of global citizens who committed to living a contributive life”?

The core value of Soka—pursuing a peaceful culture—somehow contributes to a lack of engagement in the community. This issue was reflected in the First-Year Class Senate election this year. In comparison to the rising tension in the US political climate, our election could not have been more “peaceful.” Candidates weren’t required to give speeches about their plans. No campaigns or lobbies were launched. The process only required an application that was put in a booklet and sent to all the first-year students. Students were given one week for online voting—and then the new officers were announced.

The silence of the process surprised me. In my high school in Vietnam, to run for student council, we had to run campaigns and give presentations about our plans to win votes from students and teachers. Here, an election for the most critical student organization was unexpectedly quiet.

I’d argue that one of the unexpected results of the peace culture is that students become silent and passive when it becomes necessary to speak personal opinions. As we do not want to be excluded from the community or be seen as “too aggressive,” we easily come to an agreement even if it is not what we really think. The pressure to please other people and maintain a peaceful atmosphere makes us hesitant to express ourselves and fight for what we believe. We want to be “global citizens,” but we stop at the border of disagreement because we are afraid that we will cause trouble if we cross that boundary. How can multi-cultural understanding be developed without the clash of ideas and interactive debates? How can truth and progress can be achieved if everyone is not willing to speak up?

From the bottom of my heart, I do not regret choosing Soka as my college. I understand the importance of pacifism to the world. However, we cannot have a “happy peace” on campus without encouraging freedom of idea-exchanging and structural discourses. As life goes on, conflicts are unavoidable. The best way to solve them is not by ignoring them, but by seriously discussing them to find a solution that works for the community."

[Goes well with:
"The Biden Fallacy: Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how America produced the conditions for its greatest social reforms." by
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/bloomberg-schultz-moderate-democrat.html

"There’s something odd about the self-described moderates and centrists considering a run for president. If “moderation” or “centrism” means holding broadly popular positions otherwise marginalized by extremists in either party, then these prospective candidates don’t quite fit the bill.

Senator Elizabeth Warren’s proposed wealth tax on the nation’s largest fortunes is very popular, according to recent polling by Morning Consult, with huge support from Democrats and considerable backing from Republicans. But Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York who has flirted with running for president as a moderate Democrat, rejects the plan as an extreme policy that would put the United States on the path to economic ruin. “If you want to look at a system that’s noncapitalistic, just take a look at what was once, perhaps, the wealthiest country in the world, and today people are starving to death. It’s called Venezuela,” he said during a January trip to New Hampshire. He is similarly dismissive of the idea of “Medicare for all,” warning that it would “bankrupt us for a very long time.”

Likewise, Terry McAuliffe, the former governor of Virginia, has staked out ground as a moderate politician, even as he opposes similarly popular ideas. A substantial majority of the public favors proposals to greatly expand college access or make it free outright. In a January op-ed for The Washington Post, McAuliffe dismissed “universal free college” as a misuse of tax dollars. “Spending limited taxpayer money on a free college education for the children of rich parents badly misses the mark for most families.”

And let’s not forget Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive who might run for president as an independent, who characterizes himself as a “centrist” despite holding positions that have little traction among the public as a whole. “We have to go after entitlements,” he has said, referring to the unpopular idea of cutting Social Security and Medicare to shrink the federal deficit.

In each case, these moderate politicians have positioned themselves against broad public preference. What then makes a moderate, if not policies that appeal to the middle?

You’ll find the answer in two comments from Joe Biden, who served two terms as vice president under President Barack Obama and is mulling a third run for the Democratic nomination. The first is from a speech in 2018, the second from more recent remarks to the United States Conference of Mayors. Speaking last May at the Brookings Institution, Biden rejected the confrontational language of some other Democrats. “I love Bernie, but I’m not Bernie Sanders,” he said. “I don’t think 500 billionaires are the reason we’re in trouble. I get into a lot of trouble with my party when I say that wealthy Americans are just as patriotic as poor folks.”

Speaking a month ago, Biden defended his praise for Fred Upton, the electorally embattled Republican congressman from Michigan whom he commended in a paid speech last year. Republicans used these comments to bolster Upton in campaign advertising, helping him win a narrow victory over his Democratic challenger. Biden’s response to critics was defiant. “I read in The New York Times today that I — that one of my problems is if I ever run for president, I like Republicans,” he said. “O.K., well, bless me, Father, for I have sinned.”

Biden hasn’t endorsed a “Medicare for all” plan, but if he runs, he won’t be running on deficit reduction or modest tweaks to existing programs. He supports free college and a $15-per-hour minimum wage. He wants to triple the earned-income tax credit, give workers more leverage and raise taxes on the rich. This is a liberal agenda. And yet Biden is understood as a “moderate” like Bloomberg, McAuliffe and Schultz.

What connects them (and similar politicians) is a belief that meaningful progress is possible without a fundamental challenge to those who hold most of the wealth and power in our society. For Biden, you don’t need to demonize the richest Americans or their Republican supporters to reduce income inequality; you can find a mutually beneficial solution. Bloomberg, a billionaire, may have a personal reason for rejecting wealth taxes, but he may also see them as unnecessary and antagonistic if the goal is winning powerful interests over to your side. McAuliffe governed Virginia with an eye toward the business community. Sweeping social programs might be popular, but they might alienate that powerful constituency. And Schultz wants a Democratic Party less hostile to those he calls “people of means,” who otherwise back goals like gun control.

But this is a faulty view of how progress happens. Struggle against the powerful, not accommodation of their interests, is how Americans produced the conditions for its greatest social accomplishments like the creation of the welfare state and the toppling of Jim Crow. Without radical labor activism that identifies capitalism — and the bosses — as the vector for oppression and disadvantage, there is no New Deal. Without a confrontational (and at times militant) black freedom movement, there is no Civil Rights Act. If one of the central problems of the present is an elite economic class that hoards resources and opportunity at the expense of the public as a whole, then it’s naïve and ahistoric to believe the beneficiaries of that arrangement will willingly relinquish their power and privilege.

If there’s a major division within Democratic politics, it’s between those who confront and those who seek to accommodate. Because we lack a varied vocabulary in mainstream political discourse, we call the latter “moderates” or “centrists,” which doesn’t capture the dynamic at work.

Anna Julia Cooper was an author, activist and public intellectual, a prominent voice in the struggle for black liberation. In her 1892 book, “A Voice From the South,” she ruminates on what’s necessary for “proper equilibrium” in society:
Progressive peace in a nation is the result of conflict; and conflict, such as is healthy, stimulating, and progressive, is produced through the coexistence of radically opposing or racially different elements.

Antagonism, indignation, anger — these qualities don’t diminish democracy or impede progress. Each is an inescapable part of political life in a diverse, pluralistic society. And each is necessary for challenging our profound inequalities of power, wealth and opportunity.

“The child can never gain strength save by resistance,” Cooper wrote, a little later in that volume, “and there can be no resistance if all movement is in one direction and all opposition made forever an impossibility.”]
2018  peace  hongthuy  democracy  community  governance  government  silence  passivity  jamellebouie  us  politics  progressive  progress  change  michaelbloomberg  terrymcauliffe  howardschultz  juliacooper  antagonism  indignation  anger  pluralism  society  conflict  conflictavoidance  diversity  resistance  joebiden  elizabethwarren  democrats  2019  barackobama  fredupton  moderates  centrists  accommodation  statusquo  inequality  civilrights  power  privilege  discourse  civility  race  wealth  opportunity  sokauniversityofamerica  thepearl  soka  sua 
february 2019 by robertogreco
Twitter
RT : says healthcare for everyone is “not American.” The only thing that could make that more perfect is…
HowardSchultz  from twitter_favs
january 2019 by kaitlen
Twitter
Looking at talking possible presidential run on Mass News Entertainment Media. This is the arrogance…
HowardSchultz  from twitter_favs
january 2019 by kohlmannj
Howard Schultz: America Deserves a Servant Leader - The New York Times
Howard Schultz on being a servant leader and the absence of this in the US Presidential election
starbucks  leadership  howardschultz  election 
august 2015 by fraser
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Slams Anti-Gay Marriage Shareholder - Business Insider
"It is not an economic decision," [Howard Schultz] said. "The lens in which we are making that decision is through the lens of our people. We employ over 200,000 people in this company, and we want to embrace diversity."

“If you feel, respectfully, that you can get a higher return than the 38 percent you got last year, it’s a free country. You can sell your shares of Starbucks and buy shares in another company. Thank you very much,” said Schultz.
howardschultz  starbucks  civilrights  from twitter
march 2013 by asciident
Review of "Onward" book by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Starbucks CEO pours on the schmaltz - latimes.com
Much of the story will be familiar to students of business, investors and even coffee drinkers. There is the leaked memo in 2007 in which Schultz pours his heart out over the commoditization of Starbucks, fretting over the loss of romance, theater and even the aroma of coffee in stores; the temporary closure of 7,000-odd U.S. stores to retrain baristas a year later; and a subsequent scaling back of the coffee shops. His own personal failures are also given short shrift. A rare example is the adoption of a new drink, Sorbetto, which was mispriced and made in machines that took 90 minutes to clean at the end of the day. Sales failed to stack up as anticipated and eventually — with Schultz feeling "somewhat responsible" — the drink was abandoned.
Summer  2011  July  HowardSchultz  CRO  reinvent  Starbucks  notes 
july 2011 by ahasteve
Review of "Onward" book by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz: Starbucks CEO pours on the schmaltz - latimes.com
Much of the story will be familiar to students of business, investors and even coffee drinkers. There is the leaked memo in 2007 in which Schultz pours his heart out over the commoditization of Starbucks, fretting over the loss of romance, theater and even the aroma of coffee in stores; the temporary closure of 7,000-odd U.S. stores to retrain baristas a year later; and a subsequent scaling back of the coffee shops. His own personal failures are also given short shrift. A rare example is the adoption of a new drink, Sorbetto, which was mispriced and made in machines that took 90 minutes to clean at the end of the day. Sales failed to stack up as anticipated and eventually — with Schultz feeling "somewhat responsible" — the drink was abandoned.
Summer  2011  July  HowardSchultz  CRO  reinvent  Starbucks  notes 
july 2011 by ahasteve
Onward: CEO Howard Schultz on How Starbucks Got Its Groove Back - Yahoo! Finance
Howard Schultz recounts the story of how Starbucks recovered from both "self-inflicted mistakes" and the "cataclysmic" financial crisis, as detailed in his newest book Onward: How Starbucks Fought for Its Life without Losing Its Soul. After a 15-year "magic carpet ride Schultz says the company started to suffer from "a sense of hubris and entitlement". Starbucks embraced "growth as a strategy" — driven by goals set both internally and on Wall Street -- and lost focus on the nearly 60 million customers who visit its 16,000 stores each week. "There wasn't one thing that created the problem and there wasn't one [thing] to solve it," Schultz says. "We wanted to transform the business financially and make sure we preserved our values and guiding principles -- the fragile balance between profitability and social conscious," how a trip to New Orleans in 2008 "galvanized" the company and the advice Schultz got from Michael Dell, another founder who returned to the CEO role after a long hiatus.
Spring  2011  March  Starbucks  HowardSchultz  CRO  reinvent 
march 2011 by ahasteve
Starbucks' Retro Logo | Business Week
This time, she is a messenger for Chairman Howard Schultz, who is trying to restore some of the goodwill and warm feelings for the brand that have gone by the wayside because of increasing coffee prices, machine-made lattes, and bad press.
starbucks  branding  retro  turnaround  howardschultz  businessweek 
april 2008 by Vincennes
Brand Autopsy: Howard Schultz Must Blog
Jesse is onto something when he writes, “Schultz professes to love Starbucks customers but has no apparent interest in hearing from us.” We know Starbucks, as a company, has refused to blog and refuses to participate in online conversations.
brandautopsy  starbucks  online  web2.0  howardschultz 
february 2008 by Vincennes

Copy this bookmark:





to read