February Drink of the Month

Avatar

boegiboe

Scott Starin is an aerospace engineer with a specialty in spacecraft dynamics and control. He works at NASA, but of course he does not speak for NASA or the Federal Government in any way on this site.

Related Post Roulette

30 Responses

  1. Avatar Scott
    Ignored
    says:

    Maybe I’m missing the connection between the Tunisian revolution, the Arab Spring and “American imperialism.” If anyone is responsible for Tunisia, it is the Italians. Or maybe you feel the US is always to blame?Report

    • Avatar boegiboe in reply to Scott
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes, you’re missing it.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to boegiboe
        Ignored
        says:

        Don’t pay attention. Some people want to make everything about this vs that. Pay no mind.

        Great story, great recipe. If they have rose syrup in Vegas, we’ll toast your ex-roomie in May.Report

      • Avatar Scott in reply to boegiboe
        Ignored
        says:

        Then by all means enlighten me.Report

        • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Scott
          Ignored
          says:

          Scott,

          Think about how many anti-democratic dictators we’ve propped up. Harder to do that in a democratic state, eh?Report

          • Avatar Scott in reply to James Hanley
            Ignored
            says:

            James;

            Yes, the US propped up dictators to protect our interests, mainly in response to the Soviets and their expansionist policies, so what?  The world is a crappy dangerous place.  US policies in Egypt produced the Camp David accord and have kept the peace for the most part.  US policies have not by any means been perfect by any means and I think we’ve made some mistakes.  However, the liberal expectation that the US should always have clean hands is naive and dangerous given the realities of the world we live in.Report

            • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to Scott
              Ignored
              says:

              Did we really have to prop up these tinhorn dictators?   I can’t think of one instance where it worked out to our benefit.Report

              • Avatar Scott in reply to BlaiseP
                Ignored
                says:

                Blaise:

                I suppose the US could have let the Soviets spread their influence via their dictators unchecked.  I fail to see how that would have been so much better, but maybe you can enlighten us.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Scott, do you think the U.S. was purely playing defense in the Middle East?  Do you think none of those states looked to the Soviet Union for support precisely because the U.S. was mucking around over there?  Can you say with certainty that Iran would be a Russian client state today if we hadn’t propped up the idiot Shah?  Do you think the Taliban would have been able to take over Afghanistan so easily without the U.S.’s involvement there against the Soviets in the  ’80s?

                It goes beyond our policies not being perfect–our policies helped create the problems we’re still dealing with.Report

              • Avatar mark boggs in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                Exactly.  This sounds a lot like the conversation had on your blog about how Americans decline to investigate how their government’s foreign policy actions often times have negative consequences, like those we had in Iran by overthrowing Mossadegh.  Or worse, we excuse it by assuming that our motives are always pure because, well…World War II.Report

              • Avatar Scott in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                James:

                You conveniently forget we supported the Shah b/c Mossadegh  nationalized the oil fields.  As for the Taliban, your amnesia continues given that the US wouldn’t have been there in the first place if the Soviets hadn’t invaded or did you forget that?  Would the Taliban have even existed but for the the Soviets invasion?  I think not but clearly you know better.  If anything, the US should have stayed involved in  Afghanistan and not allowed the power vacuum that occurred after the Soviet retreat. I suppose the UN could have stepped in but they are useless. It is funny how some folks always want the US to be at fault despite the actions of others.Report

              • Avatar Jason Kuznicki in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Even granting that what we did was necessary back in the bad old days of the Cold War, you’re still forgetting something.  When the Soviets stopped, we might also have stopped.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                I wonder if you remember why he wanted to nationalize the oil fields in the first place.

                Anyway, this is a silly game you’re playing: The U.S. did bad things, bad things that (at least in most cases) it felt were necessary because of the evil Soviet menace, I know, but still bad things, and things that looked a lot like a sort of imperialism. There’s nothing wrong with both admitting this last part and saying that you’re not sure how we could have done it differently in the context of the Cold War. I think you’d be wrong, but at least you’d be staking out a position that didn’t look like knee-jerk “America is never wrong” defensiveness. What youv’e done in the service of this knee-jerk defensiveness is establish that you are a rank relativist who thinks that assassination, coups, and all sorts of other ways of undermining democracy and propping up dictators (one person is usually easier to control than an entire population, eh?) so that we could control various regions or at least keep the Soviets from controlling them, often looking the other way (or worse) in the face of the atrocities that our propped up dictators then committed, is not bad, and not open to criticism, because the Soviets were the bogeyman.

                Boo! Oh shit, we need another Saddam! Boo! Oh shit, let’s give this guy Bin Laden some stingers!Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Wow, Scott, doubling down, are we?

                You conveniently forget we supported the Shah b/c Mossadegh  nationalized the oil fields. 

                So every time a country engages in a stupid economic policy that hurts a British firm, the U.S. should overthrow a democratically elected leader and put in its place a lousy dictator whose reign will ultimately result in a revolution that includes people storming the U.S. Embassy and taking American hostage?   I’ll try to remember that.

                As for the Taliban, your amnesia continues given that the US wouldn’t have been there in the first place if the Soviets hadn’t invaded or did you forget that? 

                You seem to think that the U.S. had no choice but to get involved in response to the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. Given how unsuccessful multiple invaders have been at subduing Afghanistan, a wiser decision on our part might have been to sit back and laugh our asses off at their stupidity.

                It is funny how some folks always want the US to be at fault despite the actions of others.

                Oh, look, pseudo-patriotism being used in an effort to obscure a lack of good arguments.  Gee, I’ve never seen anyone try that approach before.Report

              • Avatar Chris in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                So every time a country engages in a stupid economic policy that hurts a British firm

                Except for the fact that it led to the government’s overthrow by us, I’m not sure this was a particularly stupid economic policy. The British had basically said, “We’re going to run these oil fields, and we’ll give you a bit,” without actually consulting the Iranians (they made the deal with a coerced Shah in 1908). What’s more, what they told the Iranians they’d give them in return, and what they’d told the Saudis they’d give in return, were two entirely different things (they were basically splitting the revenues with the Saudis). So the Iranians had a choice: continue to let the British screw them over as a result of a deal made half a century earlier with a Shah who had little choice, or take control of the oil fields from the British. There may have been other options for doing the latter, but I’m not sure what they would have been. The British sure as hell weren’t selling, and attempts to renegotiate the deal had been unsuccessful for decades.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Chris,

                To be clear, I don’t think taking the oil fields from the Brits was illegitimate, not a reneging on a contract, given that the Brits imposed control on the oil fields during the mandate era.

                But stupid in the sense that Iran didn’t have any plans for what to do after nationalization.  All the British oil technicians left the country, Britain froze Iranian assets, and, with the help of its allies, imposed an embargo on Iranian oil. They ended up bringing in less oil revenue than under the Brits.

                Not that Iran was flush with good options, of course, but they weren’t thinking strategically–they weren’t looking beyond step 1.  They would have done much better to line up someone to run their oil fields and condemned them with a decent payment to the Brits.  There would still have been repercussions, but they probably would have been milder.

                And to the extent Iran had plans to run the oil fields as a government monopoly…stupid.

                Legitimate, though?  Yes.Report

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Scott
              Ignored
              says:

              OK, I admit it, I can’t resist.

              So Scott, which part of the post are you gleening all of this from? Is it the rose water/rose syrup comparison? Or is it the description of the pastries? At fist I was thinking that maybe anything “rose” related is liberal and anti-American, but it sounds like its hard to get those amazing sounding seseme based pastries in most of the US, so maybe that?

              In either case, I think you totally nailed the point of this post.Report

  2. Avatar BlaiseP
    Ignored
    says:

    Arabic is coffee flavoured.  It’s nigh-on impossible to meet someone without the ol’ dallah coffee pot being put on for you and the little finjaan cups appear on a little brass tray as if by magic.

    Coffee is made in various ways throughout the Arabic-speaking world and the dallah is a symbol of hospitality, much as we’d think of the Welcome Mat.   There’s a big statue of a dallah in Abu Dhabi.

    If you don’t have a dallah, a thermos bottle will do admirably.

    Cardamom seeds.   They’re easy to find in Indian stores, ask for elaichi.   It’s a little green seed pod.   Grind three parts coffee beans (here your own preferences can take over, Arabs are terribly particular and regional in theirs and everyone hates the Saudi’s tastes in coffee except them)  with one part cardamom seeds.   There’s a special little mortar and pestle used for this but you can do just as well in a standard coffee grinder.  Some folks like to put cloves but this is acquired tastes and I never grind cloves into my coffee.   Sometimes I’ll pitch in a clove into the boil and a splash of rose water into the dallah, depending on who’s drinking it.

    As with tea, boil water, throw it into the thermos, then back into the saucepan.   Don’t put hot coffee into a cold container.   Gently boil one tablespoon of coffee grind for a cup of water for oh, ten or twelve minutes.

    Serve with good dates.  No substitute for dates with coffee.  Don’t bother serving milk and sugar to an Arab, he’s not interested in either.   He wants a nice plump date.   He will drink precisely three little cups of coffee, don’t fill up the finjan, only about half way, it gets cold quickly.

     

     Report

    • Avatar James Hanley in reply to BlaiseP
      Ignored
      says:

      Or tea.  I was surprised in Syria to find that I was offered tea far more often than coffee.  On the other hand, my Jordanian friend normally offers me coffee, and the Palestinian lady who was once our landlord always offered us coffee.  I’m not sure what’s a personal preference and what is local culture.

      But Arabic coffee is not to be missed.Report

    • Avatar BSK in reply to BlaiseP
      Ignored
      says:

      BlaiseP-

      How does it compare to Turkish coffee?  I thought I hated coffee.  Then I visited Istanbul, had Turkish coffee, and discovered that I love good coffee made well.  Turkish coffee is THICK… they leave the grinds in it and you have to keep stirring it to prevent it from settling.  You’ll end up with a sludge at the bottom that some consider a delicacy, but as a rookie drinker, I couldn’t bring myself to enjoy it.  I took it with a tiny amount of sugar which, similar to what you said, was somewhat frowned up by the locals, but they understood it standard for the foreigners.  If you asked for it with less sugar, they generally respected you for attempting to remain authentic.  I forget the words now, but there were specific terms to indicate “no sugar”, “little sugar”, and “lots of sugar”, with the third one drawing smirks.  The process was complicated but a joy to watch.Report

      • Avatar Chris in reply to BSK
        Ignored
        says:

        Arabic coffee differs from Turkish coffee (which is very similar to Greek coffee) in that Arabic coffee is not motor oil.Report

      • Avatar BlaiseP in reply to BSK
        Ignored
        says:

        Chris is correct, heh.   Turkish coffee is reduced to fine powder and they put a premium on a thick head of foam.   It’s difficult to make well and is easily burnt.

        My knowledge of Turkey is reduced to a single course on Ottoman Turkish, a strange conflation of Turkish, Arabic and Farsi.   It was the exclusive province of the scribes and lawyers:   it was never a spoken language except within the inner reaches of the early Ottoman courts, rather like Latin in the courts of Europe.   Thereafter it became a strange legal-ese with its own perverse grammar.  Ataturk immediately began to abolish its use.

        We used to be able to take MAC flights from Germany to Incirlik in Turkey.   I could rent a little motor scooter and visit the ruins in Tarsus.   All along the way, people would flag me down and offer me Turkish coffee.   By day’s end, I was completely wired, gesturing helplessly, babbling politely in Arabic and the tattered remains of my 14th century Turkish, trying to avoid yet more of this rocket fuel being poured into my finjan.   It was rather like being a talking dog being fed treats, the object of gentle hilarity.Report

  3. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    When I was living in Nantes, a Tunisian made me a mint tea that was unfrigginbelievable. I’ve had my sister send mint tea from Morocco and tried to replicate it, but to no avail.Report

  4. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Plus, it’s a lovely pink-to-red color if you use rose syrup, which makes it perfect for Valentine’s Day!

    Given the recent Susan G. Komen “Race for the Money” dustup, maybe we could enjoy a much more pro-choice color in our Valentine’s Day drink.Report

  5. Avatar Alan Scott
    Ignored
    says:

    I didn’t know you studied in France.  That’s must have been fun.

    IIRC Jason’s history PhD was focused in French history.  Is that how you guys met?Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *