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?

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

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.

A good thing might be used by some people for bad things. So, um. What?

As for what you think you know about the homeless, maybe you should go to school before you cast aspersions that are often baseless.

Mr. 19%, hello.

Except for inside the febrile imaginations of conservative fabulists, Reagan was 0-for-Everything. Except, of course, convincing way too many people who should have known better that he was their friendly grandpaw.

Saints or sociopaths are the only options? I suspect there are plenty of folks who can "tell it like it is" without being hypocritical, criminal bullies.

The dinosaur, not the dog.

It's just spin, folks. No need to get so overwrought.

The way someone put a gun to your head and made you read this story. You probably are being forced at gunpoint to read the actual book (available at your local Starbucks, which you can also ragestorm over).

Talk about narcissism...

And there's a bunch of handwringers freaking out that someone had the audacity to write a story they don't approve of.

Don't want to read it? Don't read it. No one forced you, and pitching a hissy fit about it is childish at best. If the narcissistic shoe fits...

For mild viruses, thinking you'll feel better if you do X is probably enough, even if X is meaningless. A hardcore flu will probably kick your ass either way.

And, as you say, it doesn't hurt. Plus, maybe it does help, a little. If you don't eat as well as you should and don't take a quality vitamin supplement, simply getting a sudden boost of a few key vitamins may help you feel a bit better, even if the virus itself isn't getting touched.

I dunno. I don't use these sorts of remedies, but the placebo effect is well-documented. It may not have worked, but for some people, it may have "worked." Still, fraudulent claims shouldn't be tolerated. They were fairly benign in this case, but they're not always so inconsequential.

That stuff really costs $17-30?

Good lord!