Sunday, February 25, 2007

Wild Turkey Rare Breed Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Barrel Proof

One of my favortie joys in life is sitting back and sipping a glass of fine american whiskey. Often I will jot down notes for a review. (I was once a moderator on a bourbon message board and published regular tastings there. No More, alas). Here is one of my favorites (Carrie bought me a bottle of it for christmas, so critically revisting it is fresh in my mind):

Name (full): Wild Turkey Rare Breed Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey Barrel Proof

Batch #: W-T-01-99

Proof: 108.4

Bottle: Different than most bourbon bottles. A Squat, rather cylindrical with a flat wooden top to the cork stopper. It has a rather simple unobtrusive oval cream label that states the name of the bourbon and has an elegant portrait of the company mascot. The back label states "The spirit of Wild Turkey has been captured in this barrel proof whiskey to create the finest of bourbon pleasures. Hand-Crafted and uncut with water, Rare Breed is truly a legendary treasure to savor.". Bottled by the Austin, Nichols Distilling Company, Lawrenceburg, Kentucky, USA.

Color: like an old leather saddle beneath a warm light

Nose: cloves, cinnamon, leather, Werther's Original Candy, cream, butter rum, blood oranges

Diluted: caramelized apples & pears, cloves, nutmeg

Taste: dark sweet cherries, overripe plums, anise, oranges from the nose, peppery toward the end.

Finish: long & slow & wonderfully paced, warming (with citrus, barrel and rye spiciness), exceedingly satisfying.

Mouth feel: thick & smooth, medium in the mouth (surprisingly smaller & smoother than I though such a high proofed bourbon would be), a little oily, clings nicely to the sides of the glass.


Conclusions: I adore Wild Turkey bourbon, and this particular offering just reinforces that feeling to me. While to me this one seems younger and lighter than some of the others I have tried (i.e. Russell's Reserve), it still has the great full flavors that one can come to enjoy from Wild Turkey offerings. one of the best things about this bourbon is it can have all those big flavors ( & the big Undiluted Barrel Proof) without sacrificing smoothness in any way, it is a preeminently drinkable bourbon, much more so that I thought a 100+ liquor would ever be. The folks at WT work hard and go the extra mile for their products, and the results shine through. If you have not tried this offering (or the standard Wild Turkey 101 proof. or Russell's Reserve), I humbly suggest that you do. you will NOT be disappointed.

(hopefully this is a good first post!)

TomC

Arturo Fuente Hemingway Classic Maduro

7 X 48 MADURO

(a litlle history of the line from http://www.cigarfamily.com/our_cigars_hemingway.html )

"My grandfather always made Cuban Perfecto Cigars. Perfecto cigars were very, very, popular during the 1920's 30's and 40's. I remember when I was growing up in the factory, we made a lot of cigars that were Perfecto shaped. We made Perfectos by hand and as time went by there were less and less cigar makers rolling Perfectos, because these cigar makers were older, they retired, they passed away. It took a real master to make a true Cuban Perfecto cigar. The Perfectos my grandfather used to make were called Arturo Fuente Fancy Tales, Tales T-A-L-E-S. I think the last time they were made was back in the 1960's, or early 1970's and that was it. We stopped making Cuban Perfectos for many years.

We used to make, maybe twenty cigars a day just for ourselves to smoke and enjoy. That first cigar is what is known today as the Hemingway Signature 6" x 47. The Signature was introduced in 1983 and that was the only shape available until around 1988 when we introduced the Classic and the Masterpiece. About that same time my father wanted to develop something totally different, unseen in cigars. So we started fooling around with a very short cigar, which was only for our own personal use. That cigar became the Short Story.

The Hemingway cigars have a very warm place in my heart and in my memories. It is very pleasing for me to remember watching these cigars being made by my grandfather, and to think that these cigars are now made in our factory in the Dominican Republic. That is very fulfilling. I hope that you enjoy the Hemingway cigars and what they mean to myself and our family."

Carlos Fuente Jr.


Ah from the very beginning this baby was a gem. Opened the cello and the aroma hit me right away: distinctively hemingway, but hints of cocoa and coffee too. Mmmmmm. I am not one of those that usually takes forever fodling my cigar before lighting but this baby deserved the attention. A beautiful firm cigar with a nice shiny maduro wrapper that smelled like a dream. I told Carrie that they should make porpurri out of these they smell so good, I almost felt bad bruning it.

But it did not stop me.As always the Hemingway Perfecto lit and burned perfectly, and produce plumes of luscious smoke. This is simply a delicious cigar. Its like a Hemiingway, but different (duh, right?). In its Cameroon version, its a little tangy and spicy, but in this version, it was clearly hemingway, but riiiiiich, with chocolate and coffee and creamier and more refined, with flavors floating in and out throught the whole process. One of the best cigars I have had in a while, and worth every minute of the 1:45 it took to smoke the leisurely burn. My only complaint: it wasnt longer.

Obviously HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

TomC

Support The Troops: Bring Them Home

I don't often believe in posting whole chunks of other peoples work on here, but this was elaborated upon way better than I could have expressed it. That said I want to be absolutely clear with this. The following is not my writing, though I may share its opinion. The articel can be found here:

By MICHAEL KINSLEY

The resolution passed by the House of Representatives on Feb. 16, expressing disapproval of President Bush's "surge" of additional troops for the war in Iraq, is only 69 words long, and the disapproval itself takes only 27 words. It's point two. Point one, a loquacious 32 words, is an expression of approval for the troops. Not just for the troops who are currently serving, but also for those who "have served bravely and honorably" in Iraq in the past.

It appears that any expression of disapproval for the war in Iraq has to be accompanied, if not preceded, by a declaration of support for the troops. The specific inclusion of troops who are no longer in harm's way shows how empty and rhetorical this declaration of support has become. It's not that anybody around here doesn't "support the troops" — whatever that means. It's that the only reason this gets said is to block the accusation that, by opposing the war, you somehow oppose the troops — once again, whatever that means.

Sen. Barack Obama has apologized several times over for what would seem to anyone unfamiliar with the rituals and requirements of American politics to be a fairly touching tribute to "over three thousand lives of the bravest young Americans wasted" in Iraq. Unlike many, Obama has opposed this war since the beginning. "Wasted" is a strong word, but not an inaccurate one if you believe the war was wrong. (In fact, the verb "to waste" became a synonym for killing during Vietnam.) But Obama, like every other politician, has to watch his words, and must temper any sincere expression of horror and dismay, or he will be accused of not "supporting the troops."

There is something backward here. Congressional opponents of the Iraq war are "supporting the troops" in the best possible way: by trying to bring them home to safety and their families. It is those — those few, apart from President Bush — who want to send even more troops to Iraq who should feel defensive about their support for the troops. Some of those troops are on their third tour of duty in Iraq, and few of them are pleased to be there. Maybe, as Bush and his advisers no doubt sincerely believe, the drip drip drip of young American blood is worth it. Maybe the critics underestimate the peril of pulling out. Maybe the "surge" will turn out to be a huge success and vindicate Bush's strategy. But please — let's not pretend that staying the course is a favor to the troops.

Criticism of the war surely is dispiriting to the soldiers who are engaged in it. If you're killing and risking death in a miserable faraway desert, you ought to be able to believe that your sacrifice is in a worthy cause. But whose fault is it if that belief is hard to sustain? Is it the fault of people who note that the cause is not worthy? Or is it the fault of the people who sent American soldiers into this distant desert in an unworthy cause?

The cause actually was worthy in purpose: to liberate a country from a dictator, perhaps to find and destroy some dangerous weapons, and more recently to stop the chaos and slaughter that we have unbottled in Iraq. Some war critics don't wish to give Bush this much credit. But none of the ulterior motives sometimes attributed to the President make any sense. His intentions were noble, however na�ve and pigheaded. But the war was a horrible mistake. And as everyone comes to realize it was a mistake, continuing it becomes something much worse than a mistake.

How can you make this point — which is surely a legitimate one in a democracy, whether you agree with it or not — if any form of words that might undermine the morale of American soldiers is not allowed because it fails to "support the troops"? Even Bush's defenders in Congress do not, presumably, support in advance any conceivable use of American military power. Many of them, for example, who were in Congress at the time, opposed President Clinton's initiatives in the Balkans. Maybe there were those who bit their tongues, in order to "support the troops." But many spoke out, and bitterly. As they should have: to keep quiet as American soldiers died in what these politicians saw as a misuse of American power and American blood would have been a strange way to show support.

Then there is the question of money. Bush has established a virtually dictatorial right to send this country into war. The Administration's professed indifference to anything Congress might do about the "surge" is a case in point. The one power members of Congress still might have is the power of the purse. Why don't they use it? Supporters of the war dare them to try, but stand ready to accuse them of abandoning the troops if they shut off funds — as if ending the war meant leaving American soldiers shivering in Baghdad without bus fare home.

This all goes back to Vietnam, of course. There were some Vietnam-era antiwar protesters — few — who disparaged the troops along with the war. (A lively debate continues about whether any returning American soldiers were actually spat upon.) Vietnam also saw the first appearance of the ridiculous argument that we couldn't stop the war until our POWs were freed — as if stopping the war wasn't the quickest way to free them. This, too, fed a myth that opposition to a war was somehow a betrayal of the soldiers. Ultimately, in the case of Vietnam, the antiwar movement included a majority of the country, and it saved the lives of untold thousands of Americans by getting us out of that war — not quickly, but eventually.

If opponents of today's war in Iraq manage to do the same, it will be surprising if many American soldiers object.