Over at Alternet, Kim Fellner, a reporter for Colorlines magazine, ponders the "Starbucks Paradox" - is the coffee behemoth inherently evil just because it's a big corporation? Or, is Starbucks actually a diverse company that offers viable career opportunities for those of all races and classes?

As I went around the country, I couldn't help notice that both the employees and habitues of Starbucks seemed far more diverse by race and class than the American anti-globalization movement. I wanted to know, was big, by definition, bad? Was Starbucks' touted commitment to "values" just a cynical ploy to complement its branding and market share?

Few people argued that coffee was inherently evil like bombs or SUVs. Rather, Starbucks stood accused of: buying coffee at prices that couldn't sustain the farmers; purchasing from farms that degraded the environment; causing neighborhoods to gentrify and small cafes to wither; and representing the mega-branding that's killing small businesses and homogenizing the world.

I frankly like having Starbucks at the airport, and at strip malls in strange cities. I wouldn't mind independently-owned coffee shops instead, but Starbucks is usually what's there. Moreover, progressives have tended to romanticize small businesses; yet many sweatshops in this country have been small, family-owned enterprises, and that didn't benefit those who worked there. As a rule, racial minorities have fared better in larger institutions. Was Starbucks doing right by race? What about class and politics?

Naturally the issue is much more complex than a casual survey of who's working where and Fellner is careful to examine all the concerns and accusations levied against Starbucks over the years. It's a pretty fair, unbiased piece and, as a Starbucks consumer, I'm glad to see that although the company still has miles to go, it's made significant strides in its role as a community builder. Hell, is it even Starbucks' responsibility to think beyond the coffee it sells? Yes, as Fellner reports:

"People who go into corporate management didn't sign up to be civil servants," notes global justice organizer Liz Butler. "But increasingly, the crucial decisions are being made in board rooms, and we need them to take on that role."

The decisions are, of course, also being made by we the consumers. Every day we have choices to make. Every day someone tells me what I should or should or shouldn't eat/drink/wear/consume. While I think it's really easy to say that one shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart, wear Nikes or drink Starbucks, I think the real decision-making comes via a careful examination of a company, its policies and its overall/long-term effect on the community.

As consumers we can't be all things to all people - and neither can a corporation. I'm not being pro-corporation here, I'm only saying that there are other options besides knee-jerk boycotts and I think this Starbucks article is a thorough and provocative example of such.