Putting the “Fair” in “Fair Trade”

April 22nd, 2006 by skeetamatthews

I don’t live in Tulsa anymore. I wish I did, but I don’t.

I was thinking today, that Tulsa has the best of everythying. The best neighborhoods, the best running trails, the best stores, restaraunts, everything – except for schools, which is why I don’t live in Tulsa anymore. Instead, I live here in the tolerable but lacking Chambana, and being who I am, I wander as I have for the past two years in search of great coffee. Here Tulsa has Illinois beat.

This is because Tulsa is home to DoubleShot . The best coffee in the Southwest, and as I’ve come to see, the Northeast and Midwest as well. I started going to DoubleShot regularly in March 2004, at the end of my senior year, and it became (as any place will if you visit many times a day) a second home. To this day, when I walk into DS and see that something has changed (as it ususally does) I react the same as when my parent change something in the house. I feel little betrayed, and then remember that I don’t live here anymore. So I settle in, and hopefully Brian will be in to make the espresso.

Brian is the owner at DS, and some refer to him as the coffee nazi, which may or may not be a title that he cherishes, but I’d rather think of him as the Godfather of coffee (“Don’t ever ask me about my business.”). You see, the coffee at DoubleShot is perfect, in a way that would blow your mind. I always thought espresso was supposed to be bitter until I tasted Brian’s. It comes to you first in it’s fragrance, a thick layer of foam on top, and when you gulp it down, its flavor is sweet and doesn’t overcome you. Perfection, sheer perfection. And this is because Brian is a perfectionist. I respect perfection, and those who aspire to it, and I never believe those who claim it doesn’t exist.

It’s a place for people who love coffee. Don’t ever order something silly at DS. Just don’t.

If you do, you’ll find out the hard way that DoubleShot is not Starbucks, which apparently is something the execs over at Starbucks don’t realize themselves. Starbucks is attempting to sue Brian, because they claim that the name of his establishment “DoubleShot” is trademarked by them for use on their canned cream and espresso drink. They think he ought to change the name of his shop and destroy anything with the name on it.

Hmm.

For starters the purpose of a trademark is to keep consumers from being confused. For example: Coke trademarked to word “Cola” i.e., “CocaCola”. Notice that Pepsi also uses the word “Cola” in the name “Pepsi Cola”. In order for Coke to sue Pepsi for use of the word Cola, they have to prove that customers think they are buying Coke when they buy Pepsi. Obviously this is hard to prove, since Pepsi has it’s own distingushed logo, brand, etc. Aside from this, no one is so stupid as to buy Pepsi, and think they’re buying Coke.

In the case of Starbucks, they’re really flattering themselves if they think that we all assume we’re buying their packaged “espresso drink” when we buy Brian’s espresso. Not to mention that “douleshot” is a generic industry term like “coffee” and that the actual trademark registered by Starbucks reads “Starbucks DoubleShot”. Not “doubleshot” itself, but the combination of the two words. As it has been stated before by Brian and various other bloggers, if Starbucks has the rights to “doubleshot” then I guess they have “coffee” too. Yes, folks, that’s right. Corporations have the right to trademark our language. Get your wallets out. Pay up, or learn esperanto.

Given that legally this is a barrel of silly, it violates the very spirit of capitalism. Starbucks is not winning the coffee market because they sell a good product. In fact, their coffee is probably the worst in the universe. They’ve more or less fooled the public by selling a terrible product that is highly packaged in stores with squishy, earth-toned chairs, hip color schemes, enigmatic “inspirational” quotes from NYT authors on the cups, and copies of jazz and new-age music near the register. Like everything in America, put a lot of sugar in it and they will come. Who cares about dedication, perfection, hard work. Those are antiquated notions. A little sucrose, and the people flock. Markets are no longer won by competition. Perhaps the government dabbling in the economy has so warped business that in order to make money, companies have to play a legal game instead of compete head to head. Starbucks puts people out of business not in cups of coffee sold, but in subpeonas issued, and this to me is wrong. Gone are the days when they would just try to steal the top secret formula, instead they can just trademark every word relating to coffee or its production and call it a day.

Starbucks isn’t fooling anyone with their “fair trade” coffee. If they were really concerned with fair trade in its real sense, they would stop triffling with people who really know how to serve a good product. And maybe instead of spending so much on lawyers to twist the law, they’d pick up a few books and learn how to serve a decent cup of coffee.

Report This Post

Why Do Birds…

April 6th, 2006 by skeetamatthews

Suddenly appear, everytime you are near.

Just like me, they long to be…

Close to you.

Report This Post

Sedaris vs Burroughs

April 3rd, 2006 by skeetamatthews

On the way back to Illinois from Tulsa, I decided to pick up a copy of Augusten Burrough’s “Running with Scissors”. I can’t really tell you why I picked this up, I just did. I read “Magical Thinking” over christmas and hated it. On the back cover of the book were critics quoted as saying things like: “Wildly funny”, but upon reading past the half point in the book I found it altogether tasteless. Burroughs, though, does have a talent. He’s not witty, so he has to do his best to appear witty. I could never really put my finger on what his guise was, but this article from Salon.com is pretty accurate. One can achieve the scathing manhattan gay guy humor by simply stating terrible events in a joking way. But in Burroughs’ case this tactic hardly solicits riotous laughter as the publishing company would like you to believe, but rather makes the reader wonder how it is that someone could publish something in such bad taste. Is it as tasteless as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No, but close.

Conversely, as he describes the awful events of his life in a jokingly delusional prose, he describes dull events in what is meant to be the heartbreaking monologue of a tortured child. This doesn’t work of course, the audience sees right through it. For example , the opening essay in “Running With Scissors” is about little Augusten watching his mother get ready to go out, he’s being abandonded-or so he wants us to think-and he conveys this sense of abandonment to the readers by simply being redundant. He repeats lines. That’s it. He says something and then repeats it at the top of the next paragraph. This does achieve the sense of abandonment, only it’s the readers being abandonded by Burroughs.

Then, is this business with Dave Sedaris. After reading both “Magincal Thinking” and “Running With Scissors” I decided to read “Dress You Family in Corduroy and Denim” by Sedaris, because on the back of every Burroughs book, is a critic who has written something like “wildly entertaining” who compares Burroughs to Sedaris. What’s interesting, is that the comparision is correct. They are much alike, but not in style. Their LIVES are creepily similar. If anything, this only shows the critics inability to decifer between the story one tells and the way one tells it. And, it probably means that the only successful memoirists will be gay men in New York.

As far as I can tell, Sedaris is much better than Burroughs. His writing is cleaner, less redundant, and actually funny. I don’t think I’d classify him as the Great Writer of the Twenty-first Century, but he’s entertaining enough which is more than can be said for many writers.

I’ve been told before that The New York Times Bestseller list is a good gauge of which books to steer clear of (Sylvia Browne’s “If You Could See What I See”, anyone?). Burroughs memoirs are a good place to start.

Report This Post

Open Letter to Nick and Jessica

December 24th, 2005 by skeetamatthews

Dear Nick and Jessica,

We all knew it wouldn’t last, so shut up already.

Regards,

Ms. Tulsa

Report This Post

Reality TV and the Indie Rock Phenomenon

December 12th, 2005 by skeetamatthews

I’ve started watching TV again. I was pretty sick for a few days, and nothing is a better mind-number. I noticed that Fox is airing a program this winter called Skating with Celebrities, in which B and C list celebrities partner with professional figure skaters for a lip-bashing, bone-crushing good time. The analysis that reality TV is less than intellectual is not new, in fact it’s a bit cliche. “Skating with Celebrities” is not the worst of the mundane. Any show that entails watching “celebrities” do anything in a reality show situation is as paralyzing; this is non-unique.

I contend that the fact that such shows exist indicates a decline in the quality of programing. It’s almost as if TV execs think that viewers have absolutely nothing better to do than watch Dave Coulier fall on his ass. Repeatedly. Most people generally operate on the assumption that TV is a cross-section of culture, because it has to be a feed-back loop. Broadcasters respond to viewers, and viewers to the broadcasts.

If it were true that TV programing was indeed a cross-section of our culture, and our culture was so low as to tolerate “Skating with Celebrities” or “Who’s Your Daddy?” as valid forms of entertainment, the world that we live in (torchured as it is) would be on the verge of intellectual collapse. It isn’t though, intellectuals still exist.

What’s happened instead is a sort of class seperation. The Hipster/Indie movement is fundamentally opposed to everything TV represents. The tenent of Indie-ism is that anything pop-culture is inherently bad, and thus by extention arises the other tenent: pretentiousness. Indie kids don’t watch TV, and if they do it is to 1) make fun of it, or 2) watch one or two select shows (which, of course must not be popular). TV can’t sell to these kids, they don’t buy into the medium because it’s too availible, too mainstream. Thus, they are left out of the cross-section. Fox doesn’t create it’s reality shows with hipsters in mind, it knows that it can’t reach them; they’re out of the loop. Because the indie movement is inherently pretentious, they are the representatives of high culture among the 18-25 age group. They read the proper books and understand the proper philosophies to discuss among their circles. They represent the largest showing among (psuedo) intellectuals.

The problem is not, then, that TV is dumb because the population at large is dumb. TV is dumb because it’s target audience is the less intellectual. Most of the intelligencia rejects TV in principle and therefore can’t be reached.

I’ve decided that television and pop culture in general is of great interest. Expect this to become a regular discussion.

Report This Post

Un-intellectual and Unashamed

December 10th, 2005 by skeetamatthews

I’m gonna tell you a secret:

I love country music.

I’m tired of being ashamed. I grew up in Oklahoma, and I’m friggin related to Merl Haggard.

No, I don’t mean the Rascal Flatts, Shania Twain country music. I mean the George Jones, Conway Twitty, Dolly Pardon country music. The type of country music you see on TV infomercials, a singer alone on a stage-maybe with a guitar, maybe with a huge microphone with a long, thick cord-shining under heavy lights and hairspray. I wonder as I watch recordings of George and Johnny perform how anyone could forsake this technicolor music?

Country music is like Oklahoma, for more than the obvious reason. If ever anyone mentions counrty music, the fashionable and cultured turn up they’re noses in automatic responses. I admit it now, that for too long I have been turning up my nose, but it was all a rouse. I’ve always loved country, just like I’ve always loved Oklahoma, but I only pretended not to because it was cool, and seemed like the right thing to do at the time.

I’m tired of being cool.

And what’s worse, this distaste is arbitrary. Country is no worse that Pop, and classic country is no worse (if not better) that classic rock. The standard I’m using here, of course, is talent. I could write an essay about music, and why different types of music must be evaluated differently, but this is an entry for another day. Suffice it to say that I think genius is genius, and the fact that the genius is playing “The Gambler” instead of Mahler does not make him less talented, and the people who like to listen to “The Gambler” are not less cultured.

I’ve heard many times a quote from the Counting Crows guy about Oklahomans. He says that where ever you go, it’s always kind of cool to look down on people from different places but it isn’t that way in Oklahoma. Everyone, he says, should spend sometime in Oklahoma, and then everyone would know how much better the world would be if everyone were from Oklahoma. I think this is true. I used to pretend to despise Oklahoma, but I went somewhere else for a while and grew up. I realized that I was raised an Oklahoman, on country music and taught not to be pretentious. I’m not sure why it is that Oklahomans aren’t pretentious, I can’t tell what’s inherent in being an Oklahoman that outrules pretentiousness. I suppose it could be that all the stuck-up jerks think they’re too cultured for the inept and uneducated south, and leave (like I did, and did). But anyone interested in the good life will be called back. My grandfather always told me that Oklahoma was paradise. He was right.

I love country music because it’s like Oklahoma. Unpretentious. Everyone pretends to hate country music, for no reason, so the people who stick to it aren’t worried about what cultured people think. They just love the music.

Report This Post

It’s Like Writing A Letter to Santa Claus

November 24th, 2005 by skeetamatthews

I just wrote Condoleezza Rice a letter, asking her to run in ’08.

Silly.

I am silly.

Report This Post

Rice in ’08

November 22nd, 2005 by skeetamatthews

I picked up a bio fo Condoleezza Rice yesterday, and absolutely could not put it down. The American public has a general understanding of Dr. Rice’s intelligence. Liberals, try as they may, would like us to think of Rice as nothing more than a fascist Bush cronie, but any such assumption speaks more of the speaker’s intelligence (or lack thereof) than Rice’s.

This woman was a prodigy, speaks 5 languages, and posses such a command of international affairs, that to desribe it simply as ‘impressive’ would be lacking. She isn’t a legacy like Hilary Clinton, who rides on her husband’s political prestige, but rather has earned every position granted her through sheer ability. Condi is a born and bred southerner, who experienced the civil-rights movement first-hand. In fact, one of the four young girls killed in the famous Birmingham church bombing was one of Dr. Rice’s childhood friends. She is a supporter of the 2nd amendment because her father and neighbors would sit out in front of their homes with shot-guns to protect their families from The Klan.

Whatever one thinks of president Bush, I find it impossible that a person who respects ability and intelligence could not have the uptmost admiration for Condeleeza Rice. I find it repulsive that white-liberals have the audacity to critisize her. She represents americanism in it’s purest form. She is an African-American woman who has defied what many would believe to be her determined role in society to become Secretary of State.

Secretary of F-ing State. You’ve got to be kidding me.

Not only is she an African-American woman who has defied odds to accomplish what many “privileged” americans haven’t, but she winces to think of herself as a succesful “African-American” woman. She doesn’t think that her sucess is more valid because she’s African-American. Her sucess is what it is, ethnicity aside.

Maybe Liberals can’t stand this. She’s black, right, so she ought to be down-trodden. What’s White-Liberal america for if black people can be sucessful on their own? Who needs a bunch of patronizing racists when women like Condi Rice can be Secretary of State without their sympathies or assistance? She is what the liberals claim to be their ideal realized, and yet they hate her anyway.

Probably because she can speak proper english. Oh, and she speaks French, German, Spanish and Russian pretty well too.

I strongly encourange anyone who admires ability to research Dr. Rice’s life a little more. Even if you don’t want to read her enitre biography, just a quick glance at her resume on whitehouse.gov is enough to send you into fits of awe.

Condoleezza Rice, you are my hero.

Report This Post

Why I Am Not An Objectivist

November 18th, 2005 by skeetamatthews

It’s true.

I used to consider myself one. A pretty staunch one infact, but it seems that a number of problems not only with the philosophy, but also with those genuine “Objectivists” in the world cause me to hesitate before putting on the Objectivist hat.

These are just a few of the reasons why:

My first and highest devotion is to reason. I hold that the ability to think about things in the rational manner that is natural to us is the most sacred facet of life. This is the basic tenent of Objectivism, but also the basic tenet in most thought. Not until post-modernism do philosophers advocate an utter rejection of reason. Most of the groups that Objectivists attack as irrational are groups who hold reason in high esteem, in fact, think that they are being rational. The disparity is in the inputs, and I think that these inputs are Ayn Rand’s strength.

Ayn Rand’s greatest contribution was in metaphysics and epistemology. The branches of philosphy she attempts to develop thereof show weakness, in that most of the argumentation in their support harckens back to her conclusions on metephysics and epistemology. An Objectivist would argue that this is simply because her philsophy is ground-up, that it begins from the beginning and proceeds forward. The trouble is that Rands attempts to set epistemology on top of metaphysics in her heirarchy creates a sort of confusion. This was eveident in a conversation I had with Nathan and our friened Justin a few days ago.

We were talking about consciousness. Nathan’s claim was that the only way we can be aware of our own consciousness is through introspection. All of metaphysics must be understood through induction, the axioms arise through observation and reasoning about those things that are self-evident. But if the consciousness that perceives these self-evidencies in nature must be recognized through introspection, it would seem that epistemology would preceed metaphysics. I think this is true not because I believe in a primacy of consciousness, but rather, because philosophy is a humanistic pursuit, and it must be understood in terms of humanism, i.e., the heirchy must be organized in the order in which these problems occur for the human. Philosophy exists only to inform human action, and therefore should be designed specifically to do so.

She critisized the Austrian School for subsituting economics for philosophy, and it seems in the same manner she has subsituted metaphysics for ethics.

These are only a few gripes I have with Objectivsim, and they are miniscule in the realm of philosophy as a whole. I still hold many opinions that lean toward Objectivism, but then again so did Jefferson, Franklin, Geothe and Locke.

I prefer to think for myself, and prefer the company of those who also insist on their own judgement. I would most certainly enjoy the company of a thinking Christian to a parroting Objectivist. It’s ironic, really, that Rand critisized heavely in We The Living the use of slogans, and buzz-words (which I deplore), and many (not all) Objectivist have strong reactions to certain words. Just the same as I could get a reaction form someone at Temple for calling him a “eurocentrist”, so can I get the same reaction by calling an Objectivsit a “multi-culturalist”.

In truth, because I think the mind is so sacred, I find it deplorable that anyone would use a short-cut to avoid thinking about something seriously. A slogan or a word in place of a thought.

This is why I am not an Objectivsist. In fact, I think I’ll avoid calling myself anything for the sake of my ideas and conclusions standing on their own merit.

My problems with Objectivists (not objectivism) are many. Be prepared for this to become a regular topic of discussion.

Report This Post

The Meaning of Keepin’ It Real

November 17th, 2005 by skeetamatthews

Rachel is telling this story, not showing. Because she believes that telling is showing in less words. Words are sacred to Rachel, she uses them sparsely, but wisely. She believes that we only have so many words to use in our lives. Scarcity, she thinks, the economics of life, of words. Everything is scarce to Rachel, life is scarce. Time itself is scarce, because it marches-as they say it does-blindly, into a lethal trap, fooled like a laughing seventeen year old; driving as fast as it wants on an unfamiliar and sinuous road. Entropy always wins, she says. She found a bumper sticker with those words on it, and stuck it to her car. Entropy always wins, she says. She’s right.

Rachel married Steve when she was twenty-five. He had been an English major, he wrote terrible dark poetry and drank “Writer’s Chai” from Starbucks. He loved Anthony Burgess, and his dorm had been plastered with still-shots from A Clockwork Orange. He always told a story about getting drunk when he was fifteen and skateboarding into the night with a bunch of friends. His mom found out and broke his skateboard, and he was never allowed to skateboard again. His mom was nuts. Steve was nuts. Rachel married Steve and he killed himself a year later, slit his throat. Afterward, Rachel looked through all of Steve’s Moleskine notebooks, read all of his poetry and counted the words. His poetry was elaborate, composed of some 2, 367, 976 words. That was Steve’s limit, self-imposed obviously, but he had said so much and could say nothing more. Steve took his life, and Rachel hated Steve. He slit his throat because he was such a showy bastard, he could have just taken pills, but he decided to make an unmistakable mess instead. He had written on a beige sheet of stationary:
“The sadness that drips from me is red and warm at last
It had been black for all my life, and now the storm has passed”
He was such a showy bastard, and a terrible poet.
Rachel is sitting now in a coffee shop. She peers into her pristine porcelain mug and ponders the swirls of oil in her coffee, she drinks french-press just for the oil. The experts say it’s bad for the heart and she hopes that they all go to hell.

Rachel is badass.

She looks up from her coffee to take a sip, and notices a man who has noticed her. He smiles, and she looks away quickly, but is too late. He’s a man who takes eye contact as an invitation. He takes a seat at her table.
“Heh, I thought you’d never notice me.” He says as as he scoots his chair closer to the table, with awful and familiar scrapes. Rachel smiles awkwardly, she doesn’t know what to say.
“I, um, I’ve seen you here often. Everyday at 11:00, like clockwork.” He notices the swirling oil in her mug. “French press, I see. What are you? Heh, a coffee snob or something?” He chuckles and takes a sip of his drip coffee. Rachel is not amused or impressed. She stares blankly for a moment, sitting slackly in her chair, one arm over the chair’s back and the other posed casually on the table, hand around her mug. She notices a silver cross around his neck. She considers the implications for a moment.
“You’re a Christian.” she says coldly.
“I also like Simon and Garfunkle, drive a Golf, oh, and my name is Ray.” This is obviously something he goes through often. He smiles. His eyes are blue, his teeth are white, despite his coffee habit. He must whiten his teeth, she thinks, superficial ass.
“I’m not a friend to Jesus, Ray.”
“You’re unhappy.” Ray is not looking at Rachel and Rachel glares suspiciously into his face, her expression poised viciously.
“And why do you say that, Reverend Ray? Let me guess, I need to accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior. I need to repent, I need to believe!” This is obviously something she goes through often.
“No”, his eyes are apologetic now, “It was just an observation. How about we talk about something else… Quantum Physics.”
“Have you ever read Aristotle, Ray?”
“Yes, though I find myself more aligned with Plato.”
“Of course, you would, Ray.” She is repeating his name now in condescension. “Because you think that things can be things and not things.”
“What makes you so sure?”
“You wear your conclusions around your neck, Ray. I know exactly what you are.”
“Hmm.” Ray’s expression is now cold thought. He doesn’t move. He is a mouse in a python’s cage, being served to a snake who hasn’t had a meal in months.
“The cat…you know about the cat, right. Schroedinger’s cat?”
Ray straightens his posture, and his face lights with interest. This is a topic he could speculate over for hours.
“Dead.” Rachel cuts his interest with a cruel smile. “Schroedinger’s cat is dead.”
Ray is silent. He stares at his reflection in a mirror hanging near their table. He’s a leg shaker. “I’m addicted to you, I think.” He says finally, his tongue clings to every word as if he’s afraid he’ll lose them. “If anyone else spoke to me like you have, I would have walked away. What is it?” The question is rhetorical, but Rachel answers anyway.
“I’m a misanthrope.” She sips more coffee, and looks down into the swirling oil again.
“A philosophic misanthrope.” Ray smiles. “Why you be hatin’?” Ray thinks this is funny.
Rachel pauses for a moment. Aside from the silly improvisation, Ray’s question is viable to her. It’s a serious question with an answer she can’t quite grasp. She tries to formulate and answer anyway. “Paris Hilton wrote a book, and people buy it.” she says finally. “Given that incomes are fixed, that money is scarce, that every purchase assumes one that is forgone, people actually give up money to read what Paris Hilton wrote. While real people, real artists with something to say, with something brilliant and pure starve. They are waiters, they serve us coffee because the world is so full of morons who would rather hear about who Paris Hilton has sex with, than read something genuine!” She realizes that she’s talking too loud, and lowers her voice. “And those who do read, do so pretentiously. They read what they’re told to read by the leaders of their sub-cultures. Who knows what’s good anymore. The question ‘what is art’ has lost all validity. Art no longer exists to be identified. Somewhere the world lost its soul, Ray. I hate it, and this makes me a misanthrope.”
Rachel’s face is red, her eyes are glassy. Ray knows that he’s hit a nerve, he knows that he’s seen Rachel’s core, something he should have never seen. He has seen a volcano erupt, and he is watching the molten core of Rachel seeping toward him. He would be frightened, if he weren’t mesmerized by its beauty.
For a moment the air is silent. Ray stares at Rachel, his face fixed in her eyes. He means to say something inspired and profound, but he can’t move his face.
All he manages is: “I understand.” Rachel twists her face into an accusation.
“What? What do you understand, Ray?”
“You.”
Rachel’s face is blank. Ray can see two expressions canceling each other out. Rachel means to communicate arrogance in her face, but it registers as a thin veil over her genuine interest in what this means; what Ray means, and what what Ray means means.
“We exist in degrees.” Ray explains. The world is real, and we are only as real as our relation to it.
“Forms.” Rachel is whispering.
“Not exactly. Entities existing closer and further away from reality. The world is real for you, and thus you are more real than most people. You choose to exists closer to reality. A sort of ground-up existence. You deal with what’s given in reality first, and then the varying outward deviations from it. Paris Hilton is not real. She’s worse than hollow, or empty as some people categorize it. Paris is a ghost, and as such can’t even touch what’s real. She can’t touch us. She can’t touch you. We’re not forms, we aren’t some reflection of another realm of being. We exist fully in the only form of being that exists.”
Rachel is staring into her coffee again. Her countenance has changed. Her face is no longer accusing. Her eyes are soft, her manner is absent-minded. She looks up at Ray slowly.
“I, um, I have to go now.”
“Right.”
“Sorry.” Rachel gets up and puts on her jacket.
” You know…I never got your name.”
“Right, it’s Rachel.”
“Right…Well, Rachel will I see you here at 11 tomorrow?”
“Always.”
Rachel steps out onto the sidewalk. The air is damp and hanging over her, the buildings are drizzled with water and look like giant cakes covered in dark, runny frosting. Rachel is walking and notices her steps. She walks slowly, then more quickly. She’s careful to avoid the cracks in the sidewalk. She counts her steps, “One, two-one-one, two, three…” She feels biting cold air inflating her lungs, she pauses, and feels her lungs deflate and inflate again. She feels herself exist. The world seems sharp, like someone has adjusted the contrast, and she can see more clearly everything she’s seen everyday. She thinks of Steve.
“Steve”, She’s talking to the sidewalk, and smiling.”You never knew enough about what you left behind to know what it meant to leave.”

Report This Post