Isn’t Starbucks supposed to be the coffee-chain of choice for the “bohemian bourgeoisie,” as David Brooks called them? The New York Times writes from a lofty perch looking down on the coffee chain that has taken over the world in an article about a former ad executive who stooped to take a job that one would think would be “beneath him” at Starbucks, learned to love it and wrote a book about the experience that has been optioned for film by Tom Hanks. The article does a good job conveying Michael Gates Gill’s “life-changing” experience—perhaps too good a job. The reporter clings to the glamorous details of Gill’s former life, hobnobbing with Kennedys and his father’s colleagues at The New Yorker. The reporter’s own skepticism towards Gill’s happiness, which she acknowledges in the article, colors the reader’s opinion, as well. For all the reasons the reporter offers that Gill should feel above this job, he is the one who points out that Starbucks is, after all, “socially acceptable.”
A Washington Post article on Barack Obama’s position on the Iraq War provides an informative analysis of the evolution of his opinions. The article seems to give more weight to his 2002 speech against the war and the fact that he opposed it before it began than to his inaction as a senator. The article quickly points out that Obama’s detractors say he did little to oppose the war as a member of Congress, despite his lofty rhetoric as a senatorial candidate. I appreciated the inclusion of Elizabeth Edwards’ comment that amidst a liberal audience in
No comments:
Post a Comment