Monday, October 24, 2011
Droning On
by Sam Biddle, Gizmodo
Today, our president said every soldier in Iraq is coming home, leading many to believe The War Is Over. Except it's not. Getting humans out of there is great, but the fact is war today doesn't need humans at all.
The recently-ended Libyan war is the perfect example of why soldiers aren't requisite for warfare, and why boots off the ground don't mean much anymore. The rebel ground campaign was the majority of the war, but the aerial minority made revolution possible. The US had neither the support nor the means to invade Libya. It would've been both a political and military blunder. So we had robots do the work for us—and it worked, perfectly. Qaddafi's air defenses and armor were obliterated from control rooms a world away. And this same drone aegis has no reason to leave Iraq—the war in the sky will continue indefinitely, and invisibly.
In Virginia and secret bases throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, the CIA controls a fleet of MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper drones, capable of nailing targets with hundred pound Hellfire missiles as they buzz along near-silently overhead. It's a power unprecedented in the history of blowing thing sup, and not one the CIA is going to relinquish. The fleet isn't accountable to the public. As the Washington Post reported earlier this year, "The CIA doesn't officially acknowledge the drone program, let alone provide public explanation about who shoots and who dies, and by what rules." And given the agency's explosion of counter-terror operators, laboring to dig up "targeting" data and pulling triggers, the agency has every reason to stay aloft in Iraq. "Presumably, we're finding people to blow up in Yemen," agrees defense think tank GlobalSecurity's John Pike, "so [from the CIA's perspective] there will be some who need to be blown up in Iraq." Pike, who has testified before Congress in matters of national defense and collaborated with NASA, knows drones. And he doesn't think they're going anywhere.
"UAVs provide a persistent surveillance capability that satellites do not," Pike explains, giving the government more reason to keep them flying over Baghdad long after american soldiers have been shipped home. The war on terror is indefinite and sprawling, with every inch of the globe a potential target. The near future of Iraq—especially post-occupation—will be a shaky one. The CIA doesn't want shaky futures. "Any area where we feel the government doesn't have effective control of its territory, and [it] can't be solved via law enforcement—that's why we have drones." Iraq has no air force. Iraq's ability to prevent itself from harboring enemies of the CIA is dubious. This gives America's drone fleet a self-justification to fly ad infinitum, and for a smaller war of distant humming and craters to continue as long as the CIA wants.
So how will we ever know when we continue attacks inside Iraq? We won't—except "the people who get blown up. And even they won't know what happened," says Pike.
via:
Photo by USAF
Today, our president said every soldier in Iraq is coming home, leading many to believe The War Is Over. Except it's not. Getting humans out of there is great, but the fact is war today doesn't need humans at all.
The recently-ended Libyan war is the perfect example of why soldiers aren't requisite for warfare, and why boots off the ground don't mean much anymore. The rebel ground campaign was the majority of the war, but the aerial minority made revolution possible. The US had neither the support nor the means to invade Libya. It would've been both a political and military blunder. So we had robots do the work for us—and it worked, perfectly. Qaddafi's air defenses and armor were obliterated from control rooms a world away. And this same drone aegis has no reason to leave Iraq—the war in the sky will continue indefinitely, and invisibly.In Virginia and secret bases throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, the CIA controls a fleet of MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper drones, capable of nailing targets with hundred pound Hellfire missiles as they buzz along near-silently overhead. It's a power unprecedented in the history of blowing thing sup, and not one the CIA is going to relinquish. The fleet isn't accountable to the public. As the Washington Post reported earlier this year, "The CIA doesn't officially acknowledge the drone program, let alone provide public explanation about who shoots and who dies, and by what rules." And given the agency's explosion of counter-terror operators, laboring to dig up "targeting" data and pulling triggers, the agency has every reason to stay aloft in Iraq. "Presumably, we're finding people to blow up in Yemen," agrees defense think tank GlobalSecurity's John Pike, "so [from the CIA's perspective] there will be some who need to be blown up in Iraq." Pike, who has testified before Congress in matters of national defense and collaborated with NASA, knows drones. And he doesn't think they're going anywhere.
"UAVs provide a persistent surveillance capability that satellites do not," Pike explains, giving the government more reason to keep them flying over Baghdad long after american soldiers have been shipped home. The war on terror is indefinite and sprawling, with every inch of the globe a potential target. The near future of Iraq—especially post-occupation—will be a shaky one. The CIA doesn't want shaky futures. "Any area where we feel the government doesn't have effective control of its territory, and [it] can't be solved via law enforcement—that's why we have drones." Iraq has no air force. Iraq's ability to prevent itself from harboring enemies of the CIA is dubious. This gives America's drone fleet a self-justification to fly ad infinitum, and for a smaller war of distant humming and craters to continue as long as the CIA wants.
So how will we ever know when we continue attacks inside Iraq? We won't—except "the people who get blown up. And even they won't know what happened," says Pike.
via:
Photo by USAF
Seasonal Investing
by Barry Ritholtz, The Big Picture
Let’s take a quick look at the history off the seasonal advantages. “The Best Six Months of the Year” was first described by Yale Hirsch in Stock Traders Almanac decades ago. The historical chart below via Investech Research reveals the surprising degree of seasonality for investors, going back 50 years.
Here are the specifics of seasonality: Imagine we start with two $10,000 accounts, and use them to make investments in an S&P 500 Index fund. One account invests in one 6-month period, the other invests in the remaining 6-month period. Account A is invested from November 1st through April 30th each year, while Account B is invested from May 1st through October 31st.
Here are the numbers:
Source:InvesTech Research, October 21, 2011
Technical and Monetary Investment Analysis, Vol11 Iss11
via:
Let’s take a quick look at the history off the seasonal advantages. “The Best Six Months of the Year” was first described by Yale Hirsch in Stock Traders Almanac decades ago. The historical chart below via Investech Research reveals the surprising degree of seasonality for investors, going back 50 years.
Here are the specifics of seasonality: Imagine we start with two $10,000 accounts, and use them to make investments in an S&P 500 Index fund. One account invests in one 6-month period, the other invests in the remaining 6-month period. Account A is invested from November 1st through April 30th each year, while Account B is invested from May 1st through October 31st.
Here are the numbers:
• Account A portfolio grew from $10,000 to over $438,967. That is a 42-fold increase.By selecting the seasonally strong period from November through April, you capture 97.1% of the available performance over the past 52 years. (Note the November-April seasonality fared poorly in 2007 and 2008).
• Account B portfolio barely doubled to $22,659.
Source:InvesTech Research, October 21, 2011
Technical and Monetary Investment Analysis, Vol11 Iss11
via:
Happy Birthday iPod!
Daniel J. Levitin, a neuroscientist at McGill University, is the author of “This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession.”
Oct. 23 is the 10th anniversary of the iPod. Daniel Levitin reflects on the little gizmo and the many ways it has changed our lives — and the way we listen. via: NY Times
Has the iPod brought more music — more rhythm — into our lives?
Yes. The average 12-year-old can hold in her hand more songs than my great-grandfather would have heard in his entire lifetime. Also, digital music is a great democratizing force for musicians. They no longer have to go through the narrow turnstile of record companies.
Does listening to music through headphones — rather than loudspeakers — affect what we hear?
Headphones potentially offer greater clarity, but at the loss of power and low bass response. Another difference with headphones — a team of researchers in Britain just reported that using headphones reduces your sense of personal space on subways: you’re willing to let someone stand closer to you if you’ve got your tunes playing.
Does listening to an iPod affect your hearing?
Adolescents routinely listen to their iPods at levels exceeding 95 to 100 decibels. That’s about the same loudness you’d hear standing near the tarmac as a 747 takes off. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health allows only eight hours a day of 85 decibels in the workplace; more than that, you’re going to damage your hearing. The hair cells in the ear are very delicate. Once damaged, they usually don’t recover.
Is iPod sound quality better or worse than a basic home stereo system?
Worse. The MP3 standard ruined high fidelity. It’s possible to upload CD-quality onto the iPod. But most people opt for the default, lousy quality of MP3 and M4A compression. An entire generation has grown up never knowing high fidelity, never hearing what the artists heard in the studio when they were recording. This is a real shame.
In your book “This Is Your Brain on Music,” you say music works like a drug. Say more.
Listening to music with others causes the release of oxytocin, a chemical associated with feelings of trust and bonding. That’s partly why music listeners become so connected to the artists they like. Plus, the nucleus accumbens — the brain’s well-known pleasure center — modulates levels of dopamine, the so-called feel-good hormone. (This same brain structure is active when people have sex, or when cocaine addicts take cocaine.)
Can music have mood-altering effects?
Lots of people use music for emotional regulation. It’s similar to the way people use drugs such as caffeine and alcohol: they play a certain kind of music to help get them going in the morning, another kind to unwind after work. Brain surgeons perform their most concentration-intensive procedures while music plays in the background.
iPods change the way we “share” music. For one thing, we don’t listen together. So?
Music listening used to be an activity that we did with great ceremony. We’d invite friends over and sit down, pass the album cover around, study the artwork. And when the record started, we’d listen intently together and do nothing else. In short: music listening was deeply social. The iPod has turned music listening into a mostly solitary experience.
Read more:
Has the iPod brought more music — more rhythm — into our lives?
Yes. The average 12-year-old can hold in her hand more songs than my great-grandfather would have heard in his entire lifetime. Also, digital music is a great democratizing force for musicians. They no longer have to go through the narrow turnstile of record companies.
Does listening to music through headphones — rather than loudspeakers — affect what we hear?
Headphones potentially offer greater clarity, but at the loss of power and low bass response. Another difference with headphones — a team of researchers in Britain just reported that using headphones reduces your sense of personal space on subways: you’re willing to let someone stand closer to you if you’ve got your tunes playing.
Does listening to an iPod affect your hearing?
Adolescents routinely listen to their iPods at levels exceeding 95 to 100 decibels. That’s about the same loudness you’d hear standing near the tarmac as a 747 takes off. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health allows only eight hours a day of 85 decibels in the workplace; more than that, you’re going to damage your hearing. The hair cells in the ear are very delicate. Once damaged, they usually don’t recover.
Is iPod sound quality better or worse than a basic home stereo system?
Worse. The MP3 standard ruined high fidelity. It’s possible to upload CD-quality onto the iPod. But most people opt for the default, lousy quality of MP3 and M4A compression. An entire generation has grown up never knowing high fidelity, never hearing what the artists heard in the studio when they were recording. This is a real shame.
In your book “This Is Your Brain on Music,” you say music works like a drug. Say more.
Listening to music with others causes the release of oxytocin, a chemical associated with feelings of trust and bonding. That’s partly why music listeners become so connected to the artists they like. Plus, the nucleus accumbens — the brain’s well-known pleasure center — modulates levels of dopamine, the so-called feel-good hormone. (This same brain structure is active when people have sex, or when cocaine addicts take cocaine.)
Can music have mood-altering effects?
Lots of people use music for emotional regulation. It’s similar to the way people use drugs such as caffeine and alcohol: they play a certain kind of music to help get them going in the morning, another kind to unwind after work. Brain surgeons perform their most concentration-intensive procedures while music plays in the background.
iPods change the way we “share” music. For one thing, we don’t listen together. So?
Music listening used to be an activity that we did with great ceremony. We’d invite friends over and sit down, pass the album cover around, study the artwork. And when the record started, we’d listen intently together and do nothing else. In short: music listening was deeply social. The iPod has turned music listening into a mostly solitary experience.
Read more:
Sunday, October 23, 2011
A Cultural Thought Experiment
[ed. I had never heard of Charlie Stross until today, but this is quite an amazing essay. If you read it be sure to check out some of the links he provides.]
by Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing
Charlie Stross goes on a tear with "A cultural thought experiment," looking at what the wealth of the 1 percent means, what it can't buy them, and how it might be viewed from a future society.
via:
by Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing
Charlie Stross goes on a tear with "A cultural thought experiment," looking at what the wealth of the 1 percent means, what it can't buy them, and how it might be viewed from a future society.
The diminishing marginal utility law dictates that the more money we have, the less utility we get from any additional incremental gain. And this bites the top 1% very hard indeed.
Examine the world around us from the point of view of someone with a net income of $5M/year ...
Food is essentially free; you can afford to spend $1000 per meal, three meals a day, in the most expensive restaurants in London or Tokyo or Manhattan, and not make a dent in your income. (Oddly, even the hyper-rich don't typically spend $1000 on lunch every day: a more realistic expectation might be to dine out expensively twice a week, for $100K/year, and have the best of everything in-house the rest of the time, with a live-in chef, for another $100K/year.)
Clothing is essentially free; want a different $5000 suit for every day of the week? That's going to set you back only $35K! Spouse wants a dozen designer evening gowns a year? That's still going to be on the low side of $200K.
Housing is essentially free; $1000/day will rent you a penthouse suite in a five star hotel in Manhattan, while your mortgageable income will let you buy a palace in the $5-20M range. (There are places where you may need to spend more than $20M to buy a house; but not many of them.)
You don't have to do housework, interior decorating, cooking, driving, DIY home improvements, flight booking, or shopping (unless you want to). People can be hired to do any of the above for rates ranging from $15K to $100K per year, depending on the complexity of the job. And you earn $100K per week.A cultural thought experiment [antipope.org]
via:
[ed. Who doesn't love diatoms?]
Diatoms are a major group of algae, and are one of the most common types of phytoplankton. Most diatoms are unicellular, although they can exist as colonies in the shape of filaments or ribbons (e.g.Fragillaria), fans (e.g. Meridion), zigzags (e.g. Tabellaria), or stellate colonies (e.g. Asterionella). Diatoms are producers within the food chain. A characteristic feature of diatom cells is that they are encased within a unique cell wall made of silica (hydrated silicon dioxide) called a frustule. These frustules show a wide diversity in form, but usually consist of two asymmetrical sides with a split between them, hence the group name. Fossil evidence suggests that they originated during, or before, the early Jurassic Period. Diatom communities are a popular tool for monitoring environmental conditions, past and present, and are commonly used in studies of water quality… (read more: Wikipedia)
via:
Bailing Out the Complex
by Tom Engelhardt
Think of Iraq as the AIG of wars—the only difference being that the bailout there didn’t involve just three payouts. More than eight years after the Bush administration invaded that country, the bailout is, unbelievably enough, still going. Even as the U.S. military withdraws, the State Department is planning to spend billions more in taxpayer dollars to field an army of hired-gun contractors to replace it. Afghanistan? It could have been the Lehman Brothers of conflicts, but when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office he chose the Citigroup model instead, and surged troops in twice in 2009. In other words, he double-TARPed that war, and ever since, the bailout money has been flooding in.
Until now—as the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations make clear—“too big to fail” has meant only one set of institutions: the plundering financial outfits that played such a role in driving the U.S. economy off a cliff in 2008, looked like they might themselves collapse in a heap of bad deals and indebtedness, and were bailed out by Washington. Isn’t it finally time to expand the too-big-to-fail category to include the Pentagon, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and more generally the National Security Complex?
There is, of course, one major difference between those bailed-out financial institutions and the Complex: however powerful the banks may be, however much money financial outfits and Wall Street sink into K-Street lobbyists and the election campaigns of politicians, however much influence the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may wield, when too-big-to-fail financial institutions totter, they have to come to the federal government hat (and future bonuses) in hand.
For the Pentagon and the National Security Complex, it’s quite another matter. These days it’s only a slight exaggeration to claim that they are Washington and that their very size, influence, and power protects them from the consequences of failure.
In the last decade, as “the troops” became sacrosanct, the secular equivalent of religious icons, they also helped ensure that no Congress could afford not to pour money into the Pentagon. (Pay no attention to the much-touted $450 billion that institution is expected to trim over the next ten years. That sum will largely come from “cuts” in future projected growth and anything more will be strongly resisted.) In that same decade—thanks largely to two hijacked planes that damaged New York beyond al Qaeda’s wildest dreams—“American safety” (narrowly defined as “from terrorists”) became the mantra of the moment. Soon enough, it was the explanation of choice for any expenditure: the latest drones, surveillance equipment, high-tech motion sensors, or peeping-Tom technology at airports.
“The troops” translated into a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Pentagon, and it worked like a charm. In the three years since the economy melted down, when so much that mattered to most Americans was being cut back or deep-sixed, that budget was still merrily expanding. In the meantime, there were those constant infusions of fear for “American safety,” helped along by terror plots generally too inept to do the slightest damage. All this ensured that an already massive crew of intelligence outfits would morph into a labyrinthine bureaucracy of stupefying proportions.
That same phrase fertilized the Department of Homeland Security, the homeland security state that went with it, and an immensely lucrative homeland-security-industrial complex that went with that—all growing at a remarkable clip.
Read more:
Think of Iraq as the AIG of wars—the only difference being that the bailout there didn’t involve just three payouts. More than eight years after the Bush administration invaded that country, the bailout is, unbelievably enough, still going. Even as the U.S. military withdraws, the State Department is planning to spend billions more in taxpayer dollars to field an army of hired-gun contractors to replace it. Afghanistan? It could have been the Lehman Brothers of conflicts, but when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office he chose the Citigroup model instead, and surged troops in twice in 2009. In other words, he double-TARPed that war, and ever since, the bailout money has been flooding in.
Until now—as the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations make clear—“too big to fail” has meant only one set of institutions: the plundering financial outfits that played such a role in driving the U.S. economy off a cliff in 2008, looked like they might themselves collapse in a heap of bad deals and indebtedness, and were bailed out by Washington. Isn’t it finally time to expand the too-big-to-fail category to include the Pentagon, the U.S. Intelligence Community, and more generally the National Security Complex?There is, of course, one major difference between those bailed-out financial institutions and the Complex: however powerful the banks may be, however much money financial outfits and Wall Street sink into K-Street lobbyists and the election campaigns of politicians, however much influence the U.S. Chamber of Commerce may wield, when too-big-to-fail financial institutions totter, they have to come to the federal government hat (and future bonuses) in hand.
For the Pentagon and the National Security Complex, it’s quite another matter. These days it’s only a slight exaggeration to claim that they are Washington and that their very size, influence, and power protects them from the consequences of failure.
In the last decade, as “the troops” became sacrosanct, the secular equivalent of religious icons, they also helped ensure that no Congress could afford not to pour money into the Pentagon. (Pay no attention to the much-touted $450 billion that institution is expected to trim over the next ten years. That sum will largely come from “cuts” in future projected growth and anything more will be strongly resisted.) In that same decade—thanks largely to two hijacked planes that damaged New York beyond al Qaeda’s wildest dreams—“American safety” (narrowly defined as “from terrorists”) became the mantra of the moment. Soon enough, it was the explanation of choice for any expenditure: the latest drones, surveillance equipment, high-tech motion sensors, or peeping-Tom technology at airports.
“The troops” translated into a get-out-of-jail-free card for the Pentagon, and it worked like a charm. In the three years since the economy melted down, when so much that mattered to most Americans was being cut back or deep-sixed, that budget was still merrily expanding. In the meantime, there were those constant infusions of fear for “American safety,” helped along by terror plots generally too inept to do the slightest damage. All this ensured that an already massive crew of intelligence outfits would morph into a labyrinthine bureaucracy of stupefying proportions.
That same phrase fertilized the Department of Homeland Security, the homeland security state that went with it, and an immensely lucrative homeland-security-industrial complex that went with that—all growing at a remarkable clip.
Read more:
The Wild Ride of the 1%
[ed. It's not just the poor and middle class; the rich are suffering too, you know.]
by Robert Frank, WSJ
Jacqueline Siegel paces the floor of her unfinished 7,200-square-foot ballroom. The former beauty queen, with platinum-blond hair, blue eye shadow and a white minidress, clacks along the plywood construction boards in her high heels trailed by a small entourage of helpers and staff.
"This is the grand hall," she says, opening her arms to a space the size of a concert hall and surrounded by balconies. "It will fit 500 people comfortably, probably more. The problem with our place now is that when we have parties with, like, 400 people, it gets too crowded."
The Siegels' dream home, called "Versailles," after its French inspiration, is still a work in progress. Its steel-and-wood frame rises from the tropical suburbs of Orlando, Fla., like a skeleton from the Jurassic age of real estate. Ms. Siegel shows off the future bowling alley, indoor relaxing pools, five kitchens, 23 bathrooms, 13 bedrooms, two elevators, two movie theaters (one for kids and one for adults, each modeled after a French opera theater), 20-car garage and wine cellar built for 20,000 bottles.
At 90,000 square feet, the Siegels' Versailles is believed to be the largest private home in America. (The Vanderbilt family's Biltmore house in North Carolina is bigger at 135,000 square feet, but it's now a hotel and tourist attraction). The Siegels' home is so big that they bought 10 Segways to get around—one for each of their eight children.
After touring the house, Ms. Siegel walks out to the deck, with its Olympic-size pool, future rock grotto, three hot tubs and 80-foot waterfall overlooking Lake Butler. Her eyes well up with tears.
Versailles was supposed to be done by now. The Siegels were supposed to be living their dream life—throwing charity balls and getting spa treatments downstairs after a long flight on their Gulfstream. The home was the culmination of David Siegel's Horatio Alger story, from TV repairman to chief executive and owner of America's largest time-share company, Westgate Resorts, with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and $200 million in profits.
Yet today, Versailles sits half-finished and up for sale. The privately owned Westgate Resorts was battered by the 2008 credit crunch and real-estate crash. It had about $1 billion in debt—much of it co-signed by the Siegels.
The banks that had loans on Versailles gave the Siegels an ultimatum: Either pay off the loans or sell the house. So it's now on the market for $75 million, or $100 million if the buyer wants it finished.
As she stands on her deck in the Florida sun, Ms. Siegel wipes away her tears. "Maybe it will still work out," she says. "It always does, right?"
Read more:
by Robert Frank, WSJ
Jacqueline Siegel paces the floor of her unfinished 7,200-square-foot ballroom. The former beauty queen, with platinum-blond hair, blue eye shadow and a white minidress, clacks along the plywood construction boards in her high heels trailed by a small entourage of helpers and staff.
"This is the grand hall," she says, opening her arms to a space the size of a concert hall and surrounded by balconies. "It will fit 500 people comfortably, probably more. The problem with our place now is that when we have parties with, like, 400 people, it gets too crowded." The Siegels' dream home, called "Versailles," after its French inspiration, is still a work in progress. Its steel-and-wood frame rises from the tropical suburbs of Orlando, Fla., like a skeleton from the Jurassic age of real estate. Ms. Siegel shows off the future bowling alley, indoor relaxing pools, five kitchens, 23 bathrooms, 13 bedrooms, two elevators, two movie theaters (one for kids and one for adults, each modeled after a French opera theater), 20-car garage and wine cellar built for 20,000 bottles.
At 90,000 square feet, the Siegels' Versailles is believed to be the largest private home in America. (The Vanderbilt family's Biltmore house in North Carolina is bigger at 135,000 square feet, but it's now a hotel and tourist attraction). The Siegels' home is so big that they bought 10 Segways to get around—one for each of their eight children.
After touring the house, Ms. Siegel walks out to the deck, with its Olympic-size pool, future rock grotto, three hot tubs and 80-foot waterfall overlooking Lake Butler. Her eyes well up with tears.
Versailles was supposed to be done by now. The Siegels were supposed to be living their dream life—throwing charity balls and getting spa treatments downstairs after a long flight on their Gulfstream. The home was the culmination of David Siegel's Horatio Alger story, from TV repairman to chief executive and owner of America's largest time-share company, Westgate Resorts, with more than $1 billion in annual revenue and $200 million in profits.
Yet today, Versailles sits half-finished and up for sale. The privately owned Westgate Resorts was battered by the 2008 credit crunch and real-estate crash. It had about $1 billion in debt—much of it co-signed by the Siegels.
The banks that had loans on Versailles gave the Siegels an ultimatum: Either pay off the loans or sell the house. So it's now on the market for $75 million, or $100 million if the buyer wants it finished.
As she stands on her deck in the Florida sun, Ms. Siegel wipes away her tears. "Maybe it will still work out," she says. "It always does, right?"
Read more:
For the Perfect Martini, Wetter Is Better
by Rosie Schapp, NY Times
(...) I’ve spent more of my life in bars — on both sides — than I ought to admit. An ice-cold bottle of pilsner or a whiskey on the rocks can make me just as happy as a great cocktail, but my first column is an occasion to honor a classic. I take a pretty hard line on the martini. I prefer gin because, unlike vodka, which is valued for its neutrality, it’s packed with flavor. The taste we most strongly associate with gin is the juniper berry, which is reminiscent of pine and faintly citrusy. Beefeater, my favorite for a classic martini, also includes Seville orange peel, coriander seed and almond, among other ingredients. It’s assertive but beautifully balanced.
Still, drinking should be a pleasure, not a chore. If gin isn’t your poison, go with vodka. If you can’t imagine a martini without an olive, have an olive (I find the saltiness too much). But if you’ve never had a martini any way but bone dry, I implore you to give a wetter version a chance: vermouth — fortified wine flavored with botanicals — adds depth and imparts a spicy, subtly fruity quality. It’s what makes a martini a cocktail rather than just a chilled spirit.
Read more:
Photo: Victor Schrager for The New York Times. Prop stylist: Angharad Bailey
4 parts Beefeater gin
1 part Noilly Prat dry vermouth
1 small strip of lemon peel.
1. Fill a mixing glass with ice.
2. Pour in the gin and vermouth.
3. Stir for 30 seconds, then strain into a chilled coupe.
4. Twist the lemon peel over the drink, then place it on the coupe’s edge. The mildly adventurous can garnish with a fresh sage leaf instead.
Still, drinking should be a pleasure, not a chore. If gin isn’t your poison, go with vodka. If you can’t imagine a martini without an olive, have an olive (I find the saltiness too much). But if you’ve never had a martini any way but bone dry, I implore you to give a wetter version a chance: vermouth — fortified wine flavored with botanicals — adds depth and imparts a spicy, subtly fruity quality. It’s what makes a martini a cocktail rather than just a chilled spirit.
Read more:
Photo: Victor Schrager for The New York Times. Prop stylist: Angharad Bailey
4 parts Beefeater gin
1 part Noilly Prat dry vermouth
1 small strip of lemon peel.
1. Fill a mixing glass with ice.
2. Pour in the gin and vermouth.
3. Stir for 30 seconds, then strain into a chilled coupe.
4. Twist the lemon peel over the drink, then place it on the coupe’s edge. The mildly adventurous can garnish with a fresh sage leaf instead.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)