I tend to suspect that most people don't like Starbucks coffee because of how they feel about Starbucks as an entity, not because of what they're tasting. Like the fellow the other day that preferred Seattle's Best, whose espresso beans and extraction methods are the same as Starbucks. Certainly individual baristas may produce variations, but considering the automated machinery used by SBUX and SBC, the matching training and QA methods and standards, the idea that SBC is better is absurd. It's the same, except for the logo on the cup. Then there's that guy who insisted no good coffee could be found in America. Ha ha. You don't find it if you don't want to find it. Pre-dispositions count.

The fact is, Starbucks is a big company that does surprising little harm and a lot of good. The quality of the coffee varieties vary, but that has more to do with what customers respond to than some kind of awful desire to destroy the concept of good coffee. Don't forget that before the national coffee explosion in the 90s, good coffee was rare in the United States, REALLY expensive and relegated to specialty shops and distributors. Most people thought good coffee was Maxwell House or Folgers made with an extra scoop so it would be stronger. Starbucks helped educate us on the possibilities of good coffee. Because of Starbucks (and other regional chains) we can now find good coffee all over the country. True, the best coffee probably isn't at Starbucks now, but Starbucks helped create the environment where ordinary Americans could actually experience good coffee on a regular basis without having to make a special trip somewhere. You think those specialty roasters in your area with the primo beans would be doing so well if the big chains hadn't led the way? Hell, if Dunkin Donuts and McDonald's coffee are so good (an assertion subject to debate), thank Starbucks.

At Starbucks, certain varieties are blends are not that great, to be sure. House Blend, Breakfast Blend, Espresso Roast, blech. But if you're transitioning from pre-ground, half-Robusta canned coffee, those are actually surprising transitional brews. The espresso beans are, I agree, roasted too dark for espresso -- they seem to use a "dark city" roast, rather than a medium roast. A lot of people like that, which is why they use it. But I've requested espresso made with other beans, and they just did it for me. No extra cost, though a little extra time.

For fresh press and drip coffee, Starbucks offers an excellent variety of coffees, both beans to take home and brewed at the store. The costs are not terrible, considering how expensive decent coffee is in the US. If they're not brewing your favorite at that moment, they'll make you up a french press.

Yeah, you can get better coffee if you want it, but not in spite of Starbucks. Because of Starbucks. They not only raised the bar, they helped create an environment where others could make a living jumping over it. Easy to poo-poo them now, but for my part, I'll happily take a world with a Starbucks on every other corner producing consistently good if not always great coffee if it means we're no longer shackled to the tyranny of percolated good-to-the-last-drop sludge.

But I don't care one way or the other.

Your actual voice sounds both remarkably close and eerily different from the version I hear in my head when I read your stuff. I'm not sure what I think about that yet.

And, question in re the Grandpa hat: Did Buster become the Early Breedin'est Four-Year-Old in the world, or did you adopt?

Your sanctimonious redirection of the argument against people who disagree about a movie into a statement of equivalency between people who disagree with you was masterful. Oh those awful name-callers, they're just like Karl Rove. Oh, how they disagree with me, and so they are the same as that awful man.

But guess what? That's nonsense. Because if you actually READ ALL the letters, you'll see that there are people who AGREE with the review who stoop to non sequiturs and attacks, and there are people who DISAGREE with the review who, yes, simply disagree.

That's right, DJ. People AGREE with YOU who, under your construction, are LIKE KARL ROVE. And, what's really funny is that your "You mean people are like Karl Rove" argument is you BEING LIKE KARL ROVE!

But you know what. Sometimes people disagree, and sometimes some of the people who disagree are self-important jerks about it, like you, and sometimes people who disagree just ... disagree.

The log in your own eye, pal. The log in your own eye.

Gracious, my heart is aflutter.

I will say this. You know who the truly great actors are? The one in teevee commercials. Think of the challenge posed by convincingly communicating utter astonishment that the hot wings have no sauce, and yet, they're still hot wings! Fukkin' brilliant.

He was just really damn good. But then, I'm just some guy who likes good movies.

A piece like this makes me want to like it even more than I usually do. In fact, I do like jazz -- as an idea. I believe jazz is important and potent and a sharp, lovely concept.

But then I listen to some jazz, and after a few minutes I want to listen to something else.

I don't know why. In the end, all I know is that I like the idea of jazz far better than jazz itself. So I enjoyed your piece, and it made me want to listen, and might even help me listen in a new way. Who knows? Maybe this time something will stick.

Make ourselves feel sorry? I don't see that. Now if you said, "make ourselves feel superior..." I'd buy it. From the tabloids we take cruel pleasure in seeing the extraordinarily fortunate pay what we perceive is their karma debt.