I love coffee.

Really, I do. It's one of the few warm brown things I'd ever put in my mouth. Of course, that could go a few different places, and I think it would just be best to let sleeping dogs lay.

I found this on Facebook, and I just had to tell you guys about it. It's a "piece of flair" that nearly knocked me out of my chair with laughter.

See here, I'm from the east coast, and we Run on Dunkin'. When I lived back in the Old Country, I hated Starbucks, I mean hated. I had a bad experience with bitter hot cocoa, and it was all just ruined for me.

But, now I live in Yuma, where the Starbucks' menu is a second gospel. And, let me tell you, Starbucks has stolen my heart. I live in terms of cappuccinos, americanos and macchiatos. Espresso is a guiding light. Though, ladies and gentleman, I stay away from the straight coffee. It just doesn't tickle my taste buds the way it should. I have always thought that Starbucks coffee taste like burnt, bitter water, devoid of any of the nuttiness that coffee should have -- and just generally unpotable unless accompanied by way too much cream (which I consider to be any at all in line with purist philosophy).

However, I have a theory behind why Starbucks makes their coffee so burnt. It is espressly to goad people into buying the more expensive espresso-based drinks. But, that's okay. I prefer Columbian to Arabica any day. I will make my own coffee at home if I get the hankering, under the stipulation the Big Men at Starbucks continue to make the espresso stuffs they way they have for all this time. Deal?

I remember the running theme in DD (Dunkin' Donuts) ads with the check boxes and clip boards and "Who Had the Better Coffee?" Yes, I agree. DD is better for straight coffee. But, I've had their lattes, and one might as well drink a steamer. If Starbucks has gotten anything right, it's the espresso, and we love them for that.