Newsweek - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Newsweek:
> MBFC: Right-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
I was curious how scientology could harass companies into bankruptcy since that seemed like harassment. I couldn’t turn up anything other than this article by searching for the companies names’ and lawsuit or scientology.
It looks like there is a lobbying organization, Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR), funded by the church of scientology. They look to be funding lawsuits brought by individuals against the ECT device makers. The lawsuits against electronic therapy look to go back to the late 1960s.
This web page looks to be an anti-ECT propaganda page, but it covers their “victory” of bankrupting another ECT manufacturer and it covers their methodology for targeting them and for trying to get the practice banned. Although it is all likely BS, it’s very clear on what their intentions are, so it’s very informative reading even if it is propaganda.
I don’t know enough about ECT to make any kind of informed decision on it, though I do generally trust moderm medicine as a whole. I was more interested in the legal process as it relates to the shared article, so take this as some threads to follow if you want to dive deeper than this article, not as me making any personal stance on ECT, since I know next to nothing about it.
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Associated Press:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Article 3. [Freedom in religion; right and duty of religious worship]
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience…
—Vermont Constitution, 1793
Really wish we could have got that “or erect or support” clause in the US Constitution. Would have made for some interesting court arguments about tax exempt status.
Their coffee in the U.S. is the worst too IMO, aside from the occasional awful gas station coffee and I wouldn’t be shocked if they were buying Starbucks roast since they also sell it in bags in supermarkets. But, of course, it’s like McDonald’s- no matter where you go, you know what it will taste like. So people rely on it.
I avoid it as much as I possibly can (it doesn’t help that I used to work on a show in L.A. that was partially sponsored by Starbucks and it was that or our other sponsor, Red Bull, if I wanted caffeine while working). The only times I go when I’m not traveling and have to make a caffeine pit stop and there are no other options is when all the other local coffee places are already closed since they all close earlier than Starbucks and I want to sit somewhere not at home to do something.
Other than that, I always go local. And here, a lot of the local places have drive-throughs, so even that convenience Starbucks offers is unnecessary. They’re usually cheaper than Starbucks too. And, of course, better coffee.
That’s what I hear, but I’d rather go to a local place. I always try to support local businesses over chains when possible. Even if it’s just a place I’m visiting, I’d rather support their local coffee chain than put more money in McDonald’s or Starbucks coffee. And I’ve discovered a lot of really nice places to hang out that way.
I wholly agree, but if you're not in a headspace where you're able to "deal with" searching out a local shop in a new area, and just need something good and predictable wherever you are, McD's coffee definitely fulfills that need.
That does make sense. Especially when traveling on an interstate and you just need a pit stop. I might do that instead of Starbucks in those situations from now on. Thanks!
As someone who also only drinks black coffee I agree. Their signature taste is literally burnt because of the way they roast their beans. It’s terrible.
Same thing goes for tea. Lipton is super bitter. Imported teas from london don’t get bitter regardless of how long they are steeped. They actually taste and smell galaxies different than that “generic bitter tea smell” that much of the world is conditioned to.
Yes, true of most any national/international chain.
It’s because they value large volume, year round availability, and high consistency from their beans and roasts, so that no matter what location you go to it tastes exactly the same.
To do that, they select and blend several bland varieties of coffee bean, put them through an aggressive industrial cleaning and drying (which reduces the natural fruity and funky flavors but minimizes costs) then roast them in huge batches to several steps past where a normal roaster would stop for a given roast (a darker roast gets rid of more of the unique flavors of the coffee cherry and brings out more uniform roast flavors instead).
Again, not something exclusive to Starbucks at all, and plenty of small coffee shops don’t bother with the hassle and just buy cheap bulk coffee pre-roasted by large scale operations and will have similar results.
But man, when you get coffee made in small batches, with natural processing or even fermentation and gently roasted… It’s an entirely different experience.
It’s just weird that any chain would opt for consistently awful instead of just settling for slight variations. It’s also weird that people still buy it despite the fact it is objectively and consistently bad.
I don’t mean any offense but it sounds like that’s what you’re missing. People don’t seem to value taste as their number 1 concern. Probably convenience of some kind (or the fact that they are everywhere). Sounds like SB is having trouble at the moment, but they’ve had the same shitty coffee for forever and they’ve done alright previously.
People tend to value consistency of flavors a lot more than you seem to realize. Having something taste exactly how you expect it to is very comforting even if the taste isn’t that good. That’s basically the whole reason McDonald’s stays in business.
People who are going to Starbucks often aren’t drinking black coffee. They get some sugar, cream, and flavor combo such that the coffee is barely noticeable. It is coffee for people who don’t like coffee.
Any time you blend beans from different places together, you get a bland coffee. I don’t think any mega size coffee shop can ever beat locals just because scale demands won’t allow non-blended beans in the supply chain.
In the US, it is mediocre. I wouldn’t say it is terrible and if I am in a different city that lacks local shops, I’ll get it. But it is definitely not my first or even 10th choice. And no, the light and medium blends do taste burnt like everyone and their mother thinks it is cool to say. Those people are almost certainly getting dark roast.
Luckily I live in Seattle and have no issue finding good roasters and cafés that are not anti union.
I’ve enjoyed many a cup of Starbucks coffee in the past, but I’ve also tasted Starbucks side-by-side with fancy coffees, and it doesn’t even taste like coffee in that context, more like water that has had charred wood steeped in it. I think it must have gotten worse over time.
The lighter roasts may be better by the standards of lighter roasts, but I much prefer darker roasts, so I want them done right. Fortunately I also live in Seattle.
I used to love Starbucks because it was a great place to get coffee and chill. Then the whole anti-unions thing, and local coffee shops did it better making me drop Starbucks.
I used to love Chipotle because of their quality and price. Then portions got weirder. Every week was a new food recall. The ones near me look filthy and sad, and that made me drop Chipotle.
I wish! We have a “TimeOut!” coffee shop down the road, and they’ve got the attitude and they price their thimbles-worth like it’s the airport, but I really didn’t go in for the show so much as a decent frothy cuppa; and I left feeling just as lacking and a little less valued.
CNN - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for CNN:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
Associated Press - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Associated Press:
> MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
> Wikipedia about this source
This is low-hanging fruit for scientology because they actually paint it as scary.
Scientology’s “war on psychiatry” is an accurate description because it’s not that they do not believe in it - they believe its effects are evil. As in, yes, you should have to suffer with depression, and schizophrenia, and anxiety disorders. And then you treat it by joining their church where they basically institutionalize you the same way it was done prior to modern psychiatry.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.