The comments on a recent blog post by Sarah Gilbert, about Starbucks retraining efforts took an interesting turn towards discussion about whether or not that company supports our troops. This seems to be a subject which elicits strong passion among many blog readers, which prompts me to ask this question of you: Does a company's position, openly declared or not, regarding support for our troops, affect your perception of that company and whether or not you'll intentionally do business with them?

This issue can be difficult to assess, because often times a company's position on the matter is cloaked, unavailable or skewed by misinformation. The comments on Sarah's blog post give clear evidence of that. Some folks seem convinced that Starbucks doesn't care about our troops, yet packages bearing its logo are reported to arrive at military addresses every day. What's more is the fact that often companies elect not to state a position regarding our restructuring efforts in Iraq. To some people, silence on the matter is interpreted as contempt rather than consent.

I must admit that my own opinions about individual companies regarding their stance on our military involvements are sometimes colored by unconfirmed email commentary and careless internet banter. That is why I generally refrain from discussing the issue. What about you? Do you base your opinions on random emails which purport to reveal a company's stance regarding our military, or do you research the topic before coming to your conclusions?

If the flow of political fund raising capital can be used as a gauge, then there's a strong message coming from the flow of campaign contributions from venture capitalists. Contributions by venture capitalists to Democratic candidates exceed contributions to Republicans by a nearly two to one margin. Red Herring reports, of the contributions from individuals and political action committees connected to the venture capital industry, Democrats have gathered $2.4 million compared with $1.4 million given to Republicans. That's quite a difference and it reveals a little about the current mindset of the finance industry in light of the coming elections.

National Venture Capital Association, is top contributor with $365,500 split 54% Democrat to 46% Republican. This seems to be a reasonable split. The giving picture from the number two and three contributors is much different however. The second largest VC contributor is Kleiner Perkins who piled 94% of $147,400 onto Democratic candidates. Third on the big donor list is Hummer Winblad which gave 100% of it's political contributions to the Democrats. The article from Red Herring expands on the list.

Most interesting to me is the fact that presidential candidate Barack Obama has handily out paced Hillary Clinton in total contributions from the VC camp. Top recipient, Obama has had $349,074 donated to his name while Clinton has only received $235,000 from similar sources. It's also important to note that Obama's total topped the VC's donations of $289,350 to Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Rudi Giuliani wraps up the top four with total contributions received of $178,400.

What do these funding dynamics indicate to you? Is there a fundamental shift taking place or are venture capitalists just hedging their bets? Do these patterns of political contribution reflect intent or are they simply a reaction to an overwhelming sense that something big must change? If political donations by venture capital organizations are an electoral thermometer, I must say it's getting mighty warm in here.

Starbucks' 'The Way I See It' cup campaign, in which philosophers of both the famous and mundane varieties express pithy opinions on paper coffee cups, has caused a lot of talk from day one. When the first batch of quotes seemed too left-leaning, Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ: SBUX) reached out to a variety of more conservative folks, including customers, to add their ideas to the company's green-and-black cylindrical medium. And then the ideas started spinning fast and furious until it seemed that anything went.

But Bill Schell's quote was just too much for Michelle Incanno, a longtime Starbucks customer in Ohio and avid Catholic. She took offense to its rather atheistic message: "Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure."

Incanno says she won't go to Starbucks any more after reading such a questioning of her beliefs along with her morning caffeine (despite the fact that the company has printed many pro-religion quotes). Perhaps if she'd just picked up a different cup that day ...

Oh, what could have been.

As reported by The New York Daily News, Donald Trump was addressing a group at the Learning Annex Real Estate & Wealth Expo, on November 19th and was quoted a stating, "Condoleezza Rice, she's a lovely woman, but I think she's a b----. She goes around to other countries and other nations, negotiates with their leaders, comes back and nothing ever happens."

Well that may be so, Donald, but at least she has better hair than you do.

Donald Trump is increasingly disgusted with the manner in which American government is dealing with the entrepreneurial spirit these days. In consideration of the fact that Mr. Trump is a self made success, I think he has every right to be upset. I believe, however, that the problems associated with growing a successful business from the ground up don't lie strictly within the government. Yes, excessive government causes many small business hardships and we need to deal with that, but I'm seeing an ever increasing volume of personal and social "score settling" being injected into the business world and I, for one, am troubled by it.