Peter11216

My condolences.

It frustrates me to no end that it is difficult or impossible to get good info on the consistency of tobacco going into NC's. Pete Johnson's Tatuaje's (and everything else of his, I think) are manufactured under the care of Garcia's "My Father" factory in Nicaragua. Since I like some of the Tatuaje's, on occasion, I try other brands coming out of the same factory. I recently burnt through a set of "La Aroma de Cuba," produced by Garcia for another US company. They had hints of a good blend, but literally made me sick in the stomach. Some really foul tobacco was used. Maybe it would be bad for marketing, but I think it would be much better for the consumer if there was more transparency about quality, or at least which crop, of tobacco is going into each blend. So, tough to say if it is a sick period, or just poor quality control.

x5 I recently had someone tell me the older Epernay (from Illusione) were much better than the current offerings . . . too bad they are not available anymore, b/c the Epernay line now is excellent. There is a lonsdale, "Le Grande," I believe, it would be worth picking up a cab of these.

Bertrand Russell describes how being seated in the smoking section of an areoplane, because, he explained, "If I can't smoke, I shall die," saved his life. In addition, I came across Norman Mailer's description of Picasso's birth. The topic was raised earlier, here. However, I thought it would be worth quoting Mailer, from the first paragraph of the first chapter of his book on Picasso. Hope someone enjoys the Russell story, and Mailer's description.

How'd Cohen do? Does everyone just play hold 'em in CA card rooms now, or can you still get good stud games? I don't get why it was bad for the guy, Goldstein, to "fake it." What he was doing was testing the magazine to find out how it actually operated, because he suspected its awards were given out for marketing and advertising reasons, not because of the quality (however defined) of the actual restaurant.

As I understand it, Goldstein didn't set up the hoax because of anything to do with rating subjectivity. He set up the hoax because he believed that the the two hundred and some dollar submission fee was the thing the magazine wanted, and secondarily maybe more importantly, a chance to sell ad space to the restaurant. It's worth noting, Goldstein wasn't a candidate, who lied about his restaurant, though some restaurants may lie about their wine lists, he wanted to see if Wine Spectator would at least verify the physical existence of restaurants they give awards to. If one reads that WS says a restaurant is excellent, doesn't one expect that someone has actually visited the restaurant? Wine Spectator was under no obligation to grant the award, and had opportunity to, say, call food and wine critics in the region to find out about reviews of the restaurant, even if they were not going to actually visit the restaurant. It's not that the magazine gave an award of excellence to a restaurant based on their subjective judgment which might not be in line with other people's, it's that they represent themselves as having evaluated the restaurant based on more than looking at a wine list, menu, website and listening to a telephone message. If you found out that a restaurant guide didn't actually have reviewers go to the restaurant to try the food and talk to the sommelier, but instead just gave out awards based on a website & menu submitted with a $250 check, how seriously would you take the award? Let's say one went looking for “Osteria L’Intrepido”, would one really think, "gosh, someone tricked Wine Spectator," or would one think, "Why on earth did Wine Spectator give an award to a restaurant that didn't exist"? The problem is discussed within the context of freakonomics concern for functioning free markets. Later they discuss the problems with the wine industry controlling information about wines, and Goldstein has some links on his blog to explanations for why this can happen. I'm interested in this kind of hoax because sorting out information about non-Cubans is very difficult. I'm not sure if the cuban industry is more transparent.

I searched for "wine spectator" in previous threads, but didn't find anything that addressed this issue. My apologies if I missed something obvious, since the actual incident took place some years ago. I listened to this Freakonomics podcast, which describes the prank and interviews the prankster, who has also written a book about wine tasting. The prankster, Goldstein, has a blog called "Blind Taste." According to Goldstein, he submitted a fake wine list to Wine Spectator from a fake restaurant, and won the magazine's excellence award. According to him, when Wine Spectator called to announce the award, they also suggested he take out a full page ad in the magazine advertising the fact that his restaurant got the award. From the podcast, Goldstein said, "I wasn’t sure going into this that I would win an award. There were two questions being tested here. One was, do you have to have a good wine list to win a Wine Spectator award of excellence? And the second was, do you have to exist to win a Wine Spectator award of excellence? So I thought that it was quite possible that my experiment would fail. . . ." Evidently Goldstein also included, on the reserve list, wines that were rated very badly by Wine Spectator itself, again from the podcast: "One of them was a 1982 Brunello di Montalcino, which the magazine had given 67 points, or a D+ rating, calling it "barnyardy” and “decayed." He listed another vintage that Wine Spectator had reviewed as “Unacceptable … sweet and cloying … [and] smells like bug spray.” Then off his application went, with the fake wine list and a real money order." His blog also has interesting observations on wine tasting, and the influence of price on how people report their enjoyment of wine. What think you? And does this suggest any experiments that should be done with CA, or similar?

From a BBC article on a study done in Spain: "The Spanish research involving more than 15,500 men and 26,000 women found large quantities of alcohol could be even more beneficial for men. . . . And for those who drank anything from three shots to more than 11 shots each day, the risk worked out an average of 50% less." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8367141.stm Obviously, many of us were happy to read about this study, no matter how dubious it might be. There may be physical benefits as well as mental.

This is a cigar I like very much. Last night I had a chance to take a few pictures, so I figured I would post a short review. I also had a glass of Springbank 10, of the most recent bottling, I believe. This is a wonderful whisky that I normally drink without any water. I over did it, I suppose, but I was not too happy with the result of adding water. This cigar is marketed by Pete Johnson under his Tatuaje company. I don't know the exact story behind this release. Evidently, the blend was produced for a few years, but only given away to friends or to folks at Tatuaje events. This cigar comes from the first batch of the regular release, which hit stores last fall. I think this is a great vitola. It doesn't wind up being a long smoke, but this can be advantageous sometimes. Here's a Czar styled look at the cigar, poised above my Springbank. The best thing about this cigar was the texture of the smoke. From the first puff to the last, it provided thick, rich smoke with an almost powdery feel, as opposed to an oily or liquid sensation. The clean finish is also a plus in my opinion. The very first puff, and a few right after had a touch of citrus, and a capsaicin sensation that was barely perceptible. Following this, the citrus is gone never to return, and a perfume, floral sensation takes over. I found that the cigar developed a gradual increase in pepperiness until the very end when it was right at the nub. The perfume-like quality remained through much of the cigar, while as it developed some spice character came out, perhaps cloves or something along that line. The finish throughout the cigar is very crisp, and clean. As I've mentioned before, I have not really dived into Cubans yet, so I can't say how this style of strong nicaraguan tobacco compares to what most of you are familiar with. I am getting to the point where I notice some real differences between Nicaraguan, and Dominican cigars. From my limited experience, these are both quite different from Cubans. I think the difference could be quite shocking if you are especially used to tobacco from one island versus another.

That's a good question . . . I like topics with pictures. I had a picture of the garden on iPhoto, so I attached it. However, I see now that it is a little weird.

It's been unseasonably warm in New York this winter. Last week while in garden I was examining my rose bushes (see picture from last summer), now starting to grow again with small buds appearing all over the branches. Figuring with the leaves gone, this would be a good time to prune . . . Things seemed to be going fine, until I withdrew my hand holding the scissors from the tangle of branches into which I had also stuck my face and cigar. I caught the back of my hand on the burning ember of the churchill, simultaneously shoving the stick through my teeth into the back of my mouth, tearing the wrapper wide open. Anyone have any other clumsiness to report? Thanks, I've also, twice, burned some of my mustache while trying to relight the last of nub of my cigar.

We've had similar polls about cigar smoking rates. I'm curious about drinking habits. I like to smoke early in the morning, preferably alone before everyone wakes up. So, I like to have water or coffee with my cigar. Sometimes when I get a chance to have a smoke in the evening, I'll have a drink, but I find that I prefer to either concentrate on a cigar or a whisky, it is rare that I can pair them successfully. I am sure most people drink and smoke at the same time. Does anyone else not like drinking when they smoke? I'm thinking of a "drink" as anything that has the equivalent amount of alcohol as a 12oz beer, or glass of wine, something in that range. Thanks,

I like all spirits and whiskies straight or with a few drops of cold water. I must say, though, I'm not a fan of the Zacapa 23. It is overpriced, especially because there are rums I enjoy more for less, and several bourbons that I enjoy much more that are around the same price. Also, I felt a little taken when I realized that "23" means a mix of barrelings aged 23 years or less down to 7 or something. I believe the standard for whisky is that the age statement always refers to the youngest barrel. If it was a whisky it would have to be called Ron Zacapa 7. Obviously, age doesn't correlate all that well to good taste, but nonetheless, I'm not impressed. As far as cigars go, I think it's best to pair rum with cigars you perceive as sweet. My experience is that the sweetness of rum, or bourbon will attenuate your sensitivity of sweetness, and allow you to taste over flavours in the cigar you normally wouldn't perceive.

There isn't a lot of coverage about this issue. I think one of the most important areas of law that relates to this is law governing foreign direct investment, often governed by bilateral investment treaties, BIT's. Most or all of the countries in Africa, for example, have BITs with nations in the EU. The standard BIT gives foreign investors special rights, not granted to domestic businesses. The treaties usually give foreign investors the right to sue the host nation, where the dispute will end up in arbitration, sometimes private. These agreements are usually signed with zero public input. They tend not to be all that popular. No one really likes the idea of giving a foreign business the right to sue their government, even when their own businesses cannot do the same. Canada was taken to arbitration in the early '90's by a foreign company. Canada had tried to ban a neurotoxin (that is banned in the United States), but banning it would have prevented the company from manufacturing the chemical (which was used in gasoline).

Yeah, right. But to know whether something is a failure or a success, you have to know what the goal is. One of the really great things about the U.S. government is its practice of releasing state planning documents. I will just feel like a jerk if I try to do it here, but I think there is a pretty strong case that preventing the spread of international communist aggression was never an important goal, or, to put it an other way, the word "communist" had many different and technical meanings. One interesting way to get into this topic is to look at the sugar quotas that Castro is still harping about today in his blog. I started looking into this when I was studying US antitrust law. It's not the key, or anything crucial, but it really casts a different light on the events that followed Castro's takeover.

He might be. That's probably what I would try. There might be a way to hold the bank liable for putting the transaction at risk. The reports, two that I read above, don't really explain how the transaction was caught. It might have been more egregious than is suggested. So, it is kind of hard to judge, when you don't know the crucial facts.

I don't agree that the embargo has been a failure.

I was pleasantly surprised by a Siglo III I had earlier this evening. I hadn't opened the box for about half of a year, and hadn't tried one of the sticks since before then. First, the remaining cigars gave of a nice odor of red wine. This smell was unlike any I'd noticed before. Th cigar itself was very good. Nothing to get incredibly excited about, but nonetheless, I was definitely taken aback by the new clarity of flavour. I found two things particularly enjoyable: flavour development from start to finish. As a smoker of mainly, overwhelmingly, NC's, this is something I often find lacking. Second, the cigar finished with an increase in peppery sensation, a sudden build up of jalapeño-like pepper and then subtle die down until the cigar went out. I don't usually like to pair cigars with drinks, but I had the 12 year old Bruichladdich, Second Edition tonight. It went well with the smoke, and perhaps even enhanced it. Despite being an Islay, known for the heavily peated Ardbeg et al. of Diageo, this is a lightly peated release with more sweetness than I expect from a scotch. Not sure if I would recommend this one. I have heard better things about the 10 year old, but I can say it wasn't a disappointment. Thanks, Pete

Haven't heard anything particularly good about it. The Malt Maniacs crew rate it as good but not recommendable. There are a lot of other whiskies, scotch and others, I would try instead. For newer independent distilleries the Kicholman stuff is generating a lot of buzz. I don't think they have released a whiskey over five years yet, but even though they apparently know what they are doing. This is what I'm on the look out for, at the moment.

I have to add that I agree Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a good TV series. It isn't in the same league with the Wire. The Wire is the best television show there has ever been by miles. Unlike a lot of fans of the show, I would not describe it as being more realistic than other cop shows. Instead, I think it dramatizes things that no other TV show does, at least in US TV. For example: police making serious mistakes with rotten consequences for all, police acting out of malice, complex portrayal of a union, US's decaying infrastructure, paperwork, city politics, poor kids in public school, small city newspapers, etc. Seeing this kind of subject matter in a TV drama is pretty incredible. Back to Buffy. I'm not quite sure what to make of this series. I saw the entire thing when it was on the air. I was never quite sure if the writing was good, or bad in a way that came out unintentionally good. The show is pretty dark sometimes. It has a depressing air about it, that I think comes partly from the odd jokes which are presented without a laugh track, and delivered without the "right" emphasis. It works. I can't say I would recommend it, because what I like about it is pretty idiosyncratic, but I definitely agree with Ken. It isn't consistent, though. I think the show got much better over its life. Breaking Bad is the only other TV drama, besides the Wire, I have watched and liked.

Sort of yes, sort of no. I can't talk about the politics of the country I know best, in keeping with the rules. However, I don't think it is as easy as you suggest. Even in a dictatorship, people have some say, and some ability to change and otherwise affect their leadership and political structure. In Egypt, people forced out a dictator. The people living in Egypt didn't even have a democracy, and they managed to make a significant change (even if the army still maintains control). So it is true, one can have an effect on the politics of the society they are in. But the fact is, there are obstacles to doing so. Simply blaming the people of Egypt for putting up with a dictator for decades upon decades would seem a little weak. They had to fight and die for years and years just for a relatively small change in the system. In democratic countries the challenges are different, and people rarely face the same threats, but it is as glib as true to say, simply, the politicians we have are those we deserve. I agree. But I would add, while you appreciate that this is a hell of a lot easier for those of us in Western democracies, it is not a walk in park either. There are different challenges that arise, ones that can be quite formidable. Oh yeah, in answer to Mr. Garett's question: they can and do. (Won't provide examples, in order to follow the rules.) Best, Pete

Congratulations! Enjoy the smoke!

http://www.fightlockdown.com/article/295/Fighter_Guide_Weight_Cutting_1_MMA_UFC.html

Congratulations!

Have you considered some of your northern brethren's solutions: Don Pedro's winter herf shack and if you live in Winterpeg.