wabashcr

Congrats to the Aussies. I would have bet money on Honduras before the tie, based on recent form and quality alone. But Australia got a great result in the first leg, and the Hondurans were never likely to win the return in Oz. Had really hoped the Aussies would be joining us for the Alternative Facts World Cup in the US next summer. https://twitter.com/MenInBlazers/status/930545963051073536

I don't think they're anything close to being the same blend. For me the EoTS is more like the usual Don Carlos blend. The PR seems to use far better tobacco, for my tastes. I found the EoTS to be a novelty, and the PR to be a truly memorable cigar. Other than the release dates and the black bands, I don't think they have much in common at all. But that's just speculation having smoked them both, and not based on anything concrete the Fuentes have said about the two.

I wet the wrappers in a similar manner a lot in the colder months. The wrapper repels most of the water, so the cigar doesn't get soggy or anything. I don't use as much water, just a slight dribble, but enough to wet the wrapper. And I wrap it in a paper towel for a few minutes before cutting and lighting. Helps keep the wrapper from splitting. I also feel like it adds a touch of vibrancy to the flavors, but that could certainly be psychological.

I think you're probably right about the circumstances around his exit from Cuba. From what I understand, there was quite a bit of tension between Che and Fidel. From what I've read, it wasn't necessarily that Che wanted to be the top dog, rather he had more philosophical differences with how the regime was governing. He had been assigned numerous different posts in the government, and none of them really worked out. While I'm not sure he was necessarily given the boot, I imagine press release would have said they parted by mutual consent. And we know what that means. I disagree about Che being an idealist. I think he was too much of an idealist. He wanted nuclear war because he'd rather the entire world be wiped out than for his people to have to live under the continued oppression of American imperialism. He was clearly irrational, but idealism often is. I believe that's where he split from Fidel when it came time to govern. Che's idealism was never practical, and Fidel figured it out pretty quickly. BTW, isn't most terrorism rooted in some sort of idealism, perverted as it may be? Che was blinded by his idealism, arguably to the point of insanity.

Words have meanings. There was literally nothing imperialist about Che leading revolutions in foreign countries. That's simply not what imperialism is. It's not even close. The fact that you insist on saying he was acting in some kind of imperialist manner causes me to question why I'm even bothering. Your continued use of it in this thread clearly indicates you do not. I'm happy to have an honest discussion, but I find your insistence on misusing terms you don't seem to understand anything but honest. Che would say what the Castro regime became is not what he fought for. That was pretty clear even before he was killed. So, I don't know, maybe blame the Castros? Godwin's Law is undefeated. I'm surprised it took so long. Yet in your last post, you were asking me to enlighten you on the good things Che did. So much for having knowledge "of the entirety of a historical figure's life." The truth is you have been willing to overlook any facts that don't suit your political position. The subtext in this thread has been clear from the start. If you were being honest, you'd admit that your real problem with Che wasn't that he killed people, rather that he was a communist. Which is a perfectly fine and valid opinion! Lord knows I'm not here to talk you or anyone else out of your McCarthy-like aversion to communism. My initial point in this thread was that it was short-sighted to view Che in black and white terms, as only good or only bad. In my view the discussion has only served to further that point. I'll gladly concede the last word in this to you. Enjoy your weekend.

What a game! As @Nekhyludov said, this series might not make it back to LA, the way Houston has played at home. I still think it's gonna be a long series, as LA is much better equipped to win in Houston than Boston or NY were. LA also won't be facing Verlander in Houston, but will be seeing Morton and McCullers instead. Fascinating matchups the rest of the way.

1. Che was not an imperialist. Being foreign born and fighting for a political cause is not the definition of imperialism. That's a complete non sequitur. 2. You keep using the term moral relativism. Moral relativism would be justifying his actions because of the circumstances, which is decidedly not what I've done in this thread. If you think my bringing up other flawed historical figures, which was clearly to illustrate a double standard, and not to exonerate anyone, amounts to moral relativism, I would respectfully suggest you don't know what moral relativism means. 3. Saying Che had a negative net impact on the lives of the Cuban peasant class is wildly subjective. I happen to agree with that, but it's certainly not a fact. Blaming the entirety of the Castro regime on Che is pretty short sighted, considering he was executed in 1967. And prior to that he had already expressed major disagreements with Fidel over the type of government they were implementing, and the purpose of said government. Che was an idealist, and while most of his concepts were impractical, he certainly wouldn't have agreed with the way the Castro regime continued to exploit the working class. Digressing, if you're going to blame him for all the atrocities that came after he was gone, then you should also credit him for the movement spurred around the world after his execution. Large protests and political activity inspired by his legacy undoubtedly led to more equality and less oppression all around the world. He had about as much to do with that as he did the Castro government of the 70s and 80s. But if he gets blame for one, he deserves credit for the other. 4. If you don't know what positive things Che did in his life that might inspire people around the world, but you seem to know about all of the bad things, that leads me to question the sincerity of your argument. But I'll humor you, as it seems there are people here who genuinely don't know who Che was. Che eschewed a life of comfort and luxury to champion the peasant class in Cuba, and later across Latin America. He was a physician by trade from a middle class upbringing. Yet he went to work in the fields with the peasants, to experience their plight. He built schools and hospitals/clinics for the poor when the Batista regime refused. He helped organize a revolution of the oppressed peasant class, overthrowing the oppressive Batista regime. And instead of living out his days in luxury in charge of Cuba like the Castros did, he took his idealism and revolution to oppressed classes in other countries in the region. It took the CIA and the Army Counterintelligence Corps (who had turned to hiring former nazis) to capture and kill him. And yes, in the pursuit of his ideals, Che was directly responsible for many murders and executions, and famously stated the revolution didn't have time to determine if everyone they killed was actually guilty of anything. He also attempted to use Castro's alliance with the Soviets to start a nuclear war. Nobody is denying that. My only point in this thread is that just like many other revered historical figures, there's a lot of good and bad that can be attributed to Che. To focus only on the good, or only on the bad, is shortsighted at best, and flat out dishonest at worst.

Game 2 is now a must-win for Houston, right? Obviously nobody wants to go down 2-0, and they get to come home after that where they've been unbeatable in the postseason. But if they lose both Keuchel and Verlander's starts, it's tough to feel good about their chances to win 4 of 5 from this LA team. Better hope Hill's curveball isn't unhittable tonight, like it has been in the past. I think Houston gets their split tonight and puts the pressure on LA to win in Houston.

Anyone who overlooks Che's atrocities because they agree with his anti-imperialism is guilty of the same black/white analysis. But just to be clear, most people who still celebrate or revere Che aren't doing so because they agree with the form of government he wanted to implement. They like that he was a revolutionary who led a rebellion against oppressive imperialists. I think it's pretty clear to see why that might still appeal to people who continue to suffer under similar circumstances today, and those who sympathize. Again, I'm not suggesting anyone ignore Che's crimes against humanity. But to only focus on that aspect of him is willfully ignorant, and I believe incredibly condescending to those who celebrate him as a revolutionary icon. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and rapist, but we're not tearing up the Declaration of Independence. Andrew Jackson led a genocide against Native Americans, and we put him on our $20 bill. But thankfully both had the good sense to avoid communism, or else we'd really have some tough choices to make.

Shortsighted was the politest way I could describe people who view the world in black and white, while attempting to remain respectful of our host's decorum. I'm glad you aren't offended. I disagree with your assertion that there's nothing redeeming about someone you deem a "murderous racist," a term that describes many of the revered founders of our own country.

I think it's pretty easy to see Che's appeal to those who feel like they're oppressed by any type of imperialist forces. He was the face of anti-imperialist rebellion in Latin America, and he eventually became a martyr. He led a rebellion against some pretty exploitative and oppressive imperialists. Obviously his radicalism bordered on insanity in the lengths to which he was willing to go to achieve his purpose. But I certainly can see where some may still think the ends justified the means. In any event, we're lucky the Soviets had the good sense to send Che and Fidel to the kiddie table during the missile crisis. It's not uncommon for revolutionaries to be dichotomous characters with troubling behavior. To view someone so complex in such black and white terms, good or bad, is pretty shortsighted in my opinion.

Palmeiro was a dirtbag who had an affair with Ryne Sandberg's wife in Chicago and was then exposed as one of the biggest hypocrites of the steroid era. But he could hit. Most of these guys played before my time, so it's hard for me to compare them to contemporary players. But I'm surprised neither Orlando or Livan Hernandez made the list. Orlando (El Duque) won 4 World Series, and was integral in 3 of them. His brother Livan was a World Series MVP, and was an effective starter for 15 years. Neither will make the Hall of Fame, but they were also pioneers in a way, in that they helped spark the market for Cuban defectors. As the article points out, there weren't many Castro-era Cuban players in MLB until the 90s. Not only did the Cuban government make it very difficult for elite baseball players to defect, but MLB teams were hesitant to invest in Cuban defectors for a number of reasons. The success the Hernandez brothers had certainly helped open the door for many other Cuban players to get big opportunities. Obviously that won't show up in a statistically driven analysis like this, but it's important to acknowledge nonetheless.

Cubbies stayed alive. If they can find a way to beat Kershaw tonight, obviously the series will be interesting again. I still think it's way too much to ask, and I expect LA to close it out tonight. Although I've been wrong about nearly every single prediction I've made this year. So there's that. I think Houston blew their chance to win this series. Even if they get a good outing from Verlander and win game 6, it's tough to feel good about their chances in a game 7. Although as noted above, my predictions have been abysmal lately.

Can't say it's too surprising to see LA dominate this postseason so far. They really don't seem to have any weaknesses. Excellent starting pitching, great bullpen with the hammer at the end, solid defensively, and timely hitting. They were always going to be a tough out. It was pretty evident during the divisional series that the Cubs and Nats were both flawed in ways that would likely prove fatal against LA. I'd like to see the Cubbies pick up a game or two to save face, but I'm afraid the series is a fait accompli at this point. At least the ALCS is intriguing. And the WS should be good, too. I still like Houston to beat NY, just because they need two wins, and get to throw Keuchel and Verlander again. It's never as easy for a starter the second time out in a series, but with as dominant as they were in the first two games, I'd feel pretty good about their chances. Definitely can't afford to lose either of their starts. Would have to think NY would be favored in a game 7.

To make matters worse, Javy swung through and hit Wieters, which should have been a dead ball, strike 3, inning over. Wieters knew it, but the umpires blew it. From twitter: