This Is Why I Passed The Bar

This letter from yesterday's Wall Street Journal is making the rounds of the office today:

Martini's Founding Fathers: Original Intent Debatable

Eric Felten's essay on the dry martini is itself near-perfect ("Don't Forget
the Vermouth," Leisure & Arts, Pursuits, Dec. 10). His allusion to
constitutional jurisprudence is faulty, however, since neither in law nor
martinis can we know the subjective "original intent" of the Founding
Fathers. As to martinis, the intent may have been to ease man's passage
through this vale of tears or, less admirably, to employ the tactic of
"candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker."

What counts in mixology is the "original understanding" of the martini's
essence by those who first consumed it. The essence remains unaltered but
allows proportions to evolve as circumstances change. Mr. Felten's
"near-perfect martini" is the same in principle as the
"original-understanding martini" and therefore its legitimate descendant.
Such latter-day travesties as the chocolate martini and the raspberry
martini, on the other hand, are the work of activist bartenders.

Mr. Felten lapses into heresy only once. He prefers the olive to the lemon
peel because the former is a "snack." Dropping a snack into a classic drink
is like garnishing filet mignon with ketchup. The correct response when
offered an olive is, "When I want a salad, I'll ask for it."

Robert H. Bork
The Hudson Institute
Washington

I am an original-understanding martini-ist myself. Damn all chocolate penumbras and raspberry emanations! And three cheers for the Bork-meister for standing up in favor of the lemon peel.