superjuan

Similarly Themed Songs: The Postal Service vs. The Human League

2011-12-05T16:49:00.002-05:00

In my last post on similarly themed songs I spoke a bit on stealing. Now, I just want to clear up that I'm not claiming these bands are actually "stealing" these themes. Obviously a theme is a bit subjective since a song and it's lyrics can mean different things to different people. So basically, these songs have similar themes to me, and I'ld be interested in know what the composers/lyricists think about the other songs.

So, on to my next pair of songs:

The Human League's Don't You Want Me and The Postal Service's Nobody Better

The Human League's Don't You Want Me

The Postal Service's Nobody Better

The Bands
Although The Human League is still around today their sound was (and maybe is, I haven't heard any of their newer stuff) the definition of the 80s. In the US, they were essentially a one-hit wonder with their song Don't You Want Me until they released Human to take advantage of that slower, romantic and more soulful version of New Wave which was became popular in the mid 80s.

The Postal Service is a side project for Death Cab for Cutie's lead singer Ben Gibbard and Jimmy Tamborello (aka Dntel). Almost a one-off band (although there is supposedly a second album in the works... slowly in the works) the band was basically born of Dntel's album Life Is Full of Possibilities (2001). Their lone album, Give Up, was released in 2003 and rather quickly became an indie favorite.

The Timeline

These bands and these songs are clearly from different times. Ben Gibbard (born 1976) was five years old when Don't You Want Me (1981) was released. Not sure how old Jimmy Tamborello was, but I doubt he was much older. What is probably most interesting is that the creation of The Postal Service coincided with the "re-birth" of New Wave (The Human League's genre) which occurred in the early to mid 2000s. To reiterate what I said at the beginning, I'm not claiming The Postal Service stole this idea from The Human League, but you've got to think that they were certainly influenced not only by their sound but by the theme of Don't You Want Me when writing Nothing Better.

The Songs
Using unrequited love for the theme of a song is certainly nothing new, however the similarities here go beyond just that. Not only are both electronic music, both are written from the point of view of former (or soon to be former) lovers. Most importantly though, is that both songs are male/female duets between the two lovers who are singing directly to each other. The singers being Philip Oakey and Susan Ann Sulley in Don't You Want Meand Ben Gibbard and Jen Wood in Nothing Better.

They both begin with the male voice lamenting the departure of his lover. Then the female voice comes in to contradict the male's interpretation of what has happened and why they're breaking up, with Sulley singing "I was working as a waitress in a cocktail bar, that much is true" and Wood singing "I feel I must interject here, you're getting carried away feeling sorry for yourself with these revisions and gaps in history". Both even seem to show that they still care for the others ("I still love you!" and "Your heart won't heal right if you keep tearing out the sutures").

Now it may not seem like a lot, but like I mentioned eariler, personally, I don't know too many male/female duets where the singers directly address each other in this sort of back and forth. Maybe I'm just not musically informed enough, but I find interesting enough.

A new series: Similarly Themed Songs

2011-08-13T16:31:00.008-04:00

I could blame my lack of writing on having a child but that would just be wrong. I'd rather blame the new social media formats. What with all the easier ways to get out little bits of information, it's much easier to just write a 140 characters on twitter or facebook than it is spend a few minutes writing out. Well screw it... I'll give it another shot with this new series.

Somewhat obviously, joke stealing in comedy has always been a big no-no. Nowadays it's worse (or should I say better) because it's much easier to expose someone. Anyone with access to a computer and youtube can post and/or find a plethora of videos with pretty damning evidence of stealing. A common defense is "parallel thinking", the claim that you came up with a similar idea on your own.

In music, stealing (and I don't mean attributed sampling) has also been problem. It's usually pretty obvious when someone steals a riff or a distinct bass line, like Vanilla Ice taking Queen and David Bowie's "Under Pressure". But what if it's not stealing the music but stealing the theme. Of course, there a many similar general themes (love, sadness, etc.) to songs but what if the themes start sound really similar. I guess most artists wouldn't really mind as long as you don't copy the music, but when can we attribute it to parallel thinking?

I've got a idea for a few songs that have similar themes... in fact so similar I've decided to write about them. Now, just to make perfectly clear, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just pointing out the similarities. Today I'll start with:

Barenaked Ladies' If I Had $1,000,000 and Bacilos' Mi Primer Millón

Barenaked Ladies - If I Had $1,000,000

Bacilos - Mi Primer Millón

The Bands

While both bands had some success and had somewhat popular singles before each of these songs (Bacilos had Tabaco Y Chanel and Barenaked Ladies had their cover of Bruce Cockburn's Lovers In A Dangerous Time), I think it's safe to say that both became really popular after these songs and (likely before these songs) earned their first million dollars.

Aside from the fact that one band sings in English and the other in Spanish, I think they are pretty similar. Both bands play (or in the case of Bacilos, played) generally popular music. Considering their genres, neither of them stray much from a traditional pop/alternative sound.

The Timeline

Although If I Had $1,000,000 was on tapes released sold by the Barenaked Ladies in the late 80s, I'm pretty sure it wasn't that well known until around 1992 when they released their debut album, Gordon. Bacilos didn't get together until the mid 90s and I can't see anything showing that Mi Primer Millón was around before their 2002 release Caraluna. Either way these songs were popular about 10 years apart.

The Songs

The theme of both songs is fairly simple, earning a lot of money. Interestingly, both chose a million dollars as the mark of riches. While an alternative number (writing about making 1.5 million or 2 million) may seem a bit random, either band could have written about "becoming rich" or "being a millionaire". In fact, many artists have written songs about being rich but most don't spell out a million dollars in their song's name and chorus. Also, unlike both bands, most don't explicitly mention various items they would buy with that first million. Particularly of note both bands mention buying houses, with the Barenaked Ladies adding that they would buy "furniture for you house" and Bacilos making sure that the house was big enough to fit your heart ("una casa grande en donde quepa tu corazón").

Another interesting point, is that both songs are also love songs. The biggest difference, in terms of love songs, is that in If I Had $1,000,000 the couple may not be in love yet. Considering one of the things that would be bought is "your love", it comes off as much more of a love song. In the song, Barenaked Ladies often speak of "us" and "we" and, In fact, the most common starter for a line is "Well, I'd buy you a(n)..."

Both songs are also facetious. Bacilos tries to calm the love interest by saying that while he is hanging out with Paulina Rubio, she's just a friend ("Tranquila querida, Paulina solo es una amiga"). The Barenaked Ladies are even more obvious about it with numerous jokes such as buying John Merrick's remains ("Ooh, all them crazy elephant bones") and making sure not to buy a "real green dress" since that would be cruel (after mentioning that they also wouldn't buy a real fur coat).

Probably the biggest difference between the two songs is that Mi Primer Millón is almost as much about fame as it is about fortune. Actually, If I Had $1,000,000 doesn't make any mention of fame (remember, it's more of a love song) and one of Bacilos repeated goals is to have their songs sung around the world ("desde San Juan hasta Barranquilla, desde Sevilla hasta Nueva York").

I guess when it boils down to it, while obviously the languages are different, these songs are pretty similar because they're both pop/catchy songs about a million dollars and what would be purchased with those million dollars. Unlike Barenaked Ladies, Bacilos does connect fame with the fortune, but a lot of the themes remain similar. Not exactly a unique idea, but still similar enough that I wanted to mention it here.

A final note: Another song that could be put in this comparison is Travie McCoy and Bruno Mars' Billionaire which came out in 2010. However, despite the name, that song really isn't about fortune. It is much more about fame and even ventures into political commentary. It doesn't really speak to what they would buy with the money, it speaks about what they would do with their fame... attaching fame with fortune to an even greater extent than Bacilos did.

2009-09-02T14:39:00.001-04:00

you have to fix everything that's broke
because it'll never leave you alone
-"Money Made You Mean"
Indigo Girls

2007 State Quarters: Montana to Utah

2009-08-06T19:08:00.014-04:00

So once again I've let over a year go by between my reviews. In fact, the 2006 review was a year and a half ago. Anyways, invigorated with the birth of my first child, I'm back!

I read through a few of the other review to make try and keep the grading equal. That is, I want to make sure a D last year is equal to a D this year... does that make sense? Anyways on to the quarters:

Montana - When I first started grading/reviewing the state quarters I realized that I needed to be fair when it came to states like Kansas and Nebraska, which didn't have easily notable features in their state. I gave Kansas a C because, although they had an okay design, they went entirely generic. The Kansas quarter could have easily passed for the Nebraska or South Dakota quarter. On the other hand the Nebraska quarter took a lesser known feature in the state and made a nice quarter out of it. Well, Montana was one of those states I felt I needed to be extra "fair" with (Although they do have the Roosevelt Arch and, in fact, I'm a little surprise it's not included in the alternates). But I guess they did well going with a bison skull, a landscape and the nickname "Big Sky Country." I like the design and particularly the off-center placement of the nickname. However, like the Kansas quarter, it just isn't unique. But, I still like it and for some reason I like it better than the Kansas quarter. Grade: B

Washington - Back when I graded Oregon I gave them an A because they used their most prominent natural feature and did it beautifully and simplistically. Well their neighbors to the north have followed suit with their own prominent natural feature, Mount Rainier (which also appears on their license plates). However they decided to add the king salmon jumping out of the water and the state nickname "The Evergreen State." While I don't particularly dislike the addition of the salmon or the nickname, I think the salmon is a little distracting. Overall though a good design.

I would like to point out one of the other finalists for the Washington quarter: A stylized Native America orca. I've got to admit, that design intrigues me. It would certainly been top 10, and I may have even given it the top spot in my upcoming 1-53 countdown (53 now that DC, Guam and Puerto Rico are getting quarters). Alas, Washington went with Rainier and the salmon which will get them the high grade, but because of my previous points will probably rank low among the other states with that grade. Grade: A

Idaho - The bird you see on the Idaho state quarter is the Peregrine Falcon. Now guess what the state bird of Idaho is? If you said the Peregrine Falcon you would be incorrect! It's actually the Mountain Bluebird. But the Mountain Bluebird seems to be pretty darn boring so Idaho went with its "state raptor", the Peregrine Falcon. Trust me, it doesn't get much better.

Not only is it not their state bird, they picked something that is not unique to Idaho. And while I would love to give Idaho a pass on the "no well-identified feature" point, they actually have a pretty good feature in the Snake River (and the Perrine Bridge). Sure those are not particularly well known features, but neither is the New River Gorge and the New River Bridge and West Virginia pulled it off exceptionally well. (Besides they had a better alternative in the Farmland Tapestry alternative.) Instead they went with the Peregrine Falcon and then made it worse by adding a small outline of the state with a star for the state capital, Boise. Oddly, the only thing I didn't dislike was the motto: "Esto Perpetua". Sadly that wasn't enough to save them from a big fat... Grade: F

Wyoming - This was probably the hardest quarter to grade because every time I think about the Wyoming quarter I feel differently about it. The biggest problem is that Wyoming just has no excuses. They've got three famous National Park sites in Yellowstone (Old Faithful was one of the alternates), the Grand Tetons and Devil's Tower. But they decided to stay true to their cowboy roots and went with the cowboy on a bucking horse which has appeared on practically every license plates they've released (although their latest license plate also has Devil's Tower on it). So while I commend them for going with their tried and true "logo", unfortunately the featureless logo looks bad as a plain outline on a coin. Finally, I'm not sure if the state nickname, "The Equality State", helps (by adding features) or detracts (by distracting from the lone featureless cowboy). I guess it comes down to me being that bad teacher in school: had Wyoming not had other choices I would have given them a B, however since their bar was set higher, the get a Grade: C

Utah - Oh Utah! Ye of many national parks! Why would you go with Golden Spike? Or maybe the better question is: why would you go with such a bland depiction of the 1869 meeting at Promontory Summit. The actual meeting seemed much more exciting. So not only is the image boring (and cut off at the bottom!), they forsook a state motto or nickname for the nickname of Salt Lake City, "Crossroads of the West".

You've lost me, Utah. I don't like it. What makes it all worse is that Utah could have gone with the theme of one of their license plate (Arches National Park or their snow/winter sports) or their seal/state logo (beehive) and easily gotten a B. Oh well, at least the mixed themes (Golden Spike and Salt Lake City) isn't THAT obvious and thus it isn't the worst quarter out there. However, I definitely am feeling generous with the grade. Grade: D

welcome...

2009-07-23T18:59:00.009-04:00

mateo andrew
july 21, 2009
7:23 pm
9 lbs 4 oz
21.75 inches

2009-06-29T23:25:00.003-04:00

but under my feet, baby, grass is growing
it's time to move on, it's time to get going
-"Time To Move On"
Tom Petty

2009-06-20T16:21:00.004-04:00

here it comes, a visible horizon
right where it starts and ends
oh and then we start the end
-"Love Like a Sunset"
Phoenix

2009-06-09T01:29:00.000-04:00

past and present they don't matter
now the future's sorted out
watch her moving in elliptical patterns
think, it's not what you say
what you say is way too complicated
-"1901"
Phoenix

2009-04-15T17:22:00.003-04:00

And I listen for the voice inside my head
Nothing... I'll do this one myself
-"State of Love and Trust"
Pearl Jam

How does your favorite team losing make you feel?

2009-03-13T19:02:00.005-04:00

Well, it's been a month so it's time to write about nothing again.

ESPN had a very interesting poll on their website today asking the question "How do you feel when your favorite team loses a close game in multiple overtimes?" And the two options were: "Proud of the team" and "Devastated."

Overall, and at the time I'm writing this, it was 26% proud and 74% devastated. Most of the country falls fairly close to these numbers but interestingly some areas stand out.

Every state, except for Alaska, has devastated winning with at least a 2 to 1 margin. Alaska, while overwhelmingly "devastated" had the lowest level of devastated answers at 62%. West Virginia and North Dakota tied for second place at 67%. The trend forming here is that each of those states don't have top level professional sports teams. In fact every state who has devastated at 70% or lower doesn't have a top level professional team. (Kansas, at 69%, is the "nearest" with the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals who play across the river in Missouri.)

I guess it makes sense, since in most of those "under 70% devastated" states, college sports is the main draw. So it is understandable that for a young college team the feeling is pride instead if disappointment.

Interestingly, on the other side are those states that come in high on the devastated level. New Jersey and Massachusetts came in at the highest levels of devastation with 78%. In fact, in New England it spread out of Massachusetts into Vermont and New Hampshire which both came in at 77% devastated levels. Now it's a litter harder to explain these but for I'll give it a try.

For one, I'll use my "warm weather sports theory" which essentially states that the warmer the weather is in a state, the less the state tends to care about team sports and, to a greater extent, professional sports (this is evident in my award winning "ESPN's Sports Guy is retarded - Part 2" article where each of the top "Lousy" and "Indefensible" sports cities is in warm weather climates). Additionally, these areas tend to have rabid professional fans (South Jersey is a Philly sports area and New England is Celtics and Red Sox land) while not having any particularly outstanding college sports teams.

Finally, it is interesting to note that the international poll (76%) came in slightly above the overall poll (74%) which makes sense since the overwhelming emphasis in international sports is on professional sports and not collegiate sports.

Stump wins and Beagle comes up

2009-02-11T19:00:00.003-05:00

Last night a new king of dog shows was crowned. Stump a Sussex Spaniel won Best In Show at the Westminster Dog Show. Of course, this decrowns, or retires, or whatever you want to call it, Uno the Beagle as the king of dogs. Graciously Uno did a final tour, he even went to the top of the Empire State Building, before making an appearance at Westminster on Monday night. I guess he wanted to make sure the transition went smoothly.

Oh well, all good things must come to an end and this is no exception. I will borrow an idea from the Vatican, which when the pope died referred to John Paul II as John Paul the Great. Uno the Great it is!

Also, tonight we got to see the debut of Jay Beagle for the Caps. (Yes the Caps lost, but it was in a shootout... against a team that is seemingly built for the shootout... and who has a ridiculous number of wins from the shootout.) Anyways, I'm hoping Beagle does well if only so that I can get Gilligan a jersey.

ESPN's Sports Guy is retarded - Part 2

2009-02-09T13:07:00.011-05:00

I wrote up the first part of this rant soon after the ESPN's Sports Guy (Bill Simmons) absurdly called DC a "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city" but I didn't post it immediately. I rediscovered it this past weekend cleaned it up and posted it today... but I felt like it wasn't complete. I needed to rank, in my opinion, who should be in the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city". (BTW, this may make more sense if you read the first post before reading this one.

So here we go: My thoughts as to who should be considered the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city". First though, we need to establish a few terms and such:

What is a "Major Sports City?"

It seems a bit obvious that we should stick to the traditional "Major Sports" of NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL. (Sorry, MLS I'ld include you but until us soccer fans become more of a force I'm keeping MLS off the list. Take it as incentive to build.) But then how do we define the cities?

Do We Include Cities With Only One Sports Team?

There are various teams that only have one sports team: San Antonio (NBA), Salt Lake City (NBA), Portland (NBA), Jacksonville (NFL), various Canadian NHL cities, etc. Since these cities only have one sports team, competition is less and the following is usually pretty good. And when the following isn't all that good, it's usually a result of suckage on the part of the team and consequently it's too easy to pick on the city. For those reasons I probably won't make much mention of them.

There are, however, cities that only have one team but could be joined with neighboring cities (Orlando to Tampa, San Jose to San Francisco, Green Bay to Milwaukee, Columbus to Cleveland and/or Cincinnati, Raleigh to Charlotte, Memphis to Nashville, etc.)? This is tough because I'm going to have to make a rather arbitrary line. We'll go ahead and put the line at being within approximately a one hour drive. So for the purpose of this evaluation, Orlando is now part of Tampa and San Jose is part of San Francisco. The rest remain by themselves. So cities such as Green Bay, Raleigh, and Memphis won't figure much in this discussion for the reasons listed earlier.

Roughly put, if a city only has one major sport AND we can't combine it with another city... you don't really count as a "Major Sports City".

What about "Major Sports Cities" with two sports?

The way I figure there are 11 cities in this category: Baltimore, Buffalo, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Nashville, New Orleans, San Diego and Seattle. First, and to drive home the point from the previous post: When it comes to NFL fans, none of these cities' fans can match Redskins fans (the Chiefs probably come closest). Of course, Milwaukee doesn't have an NFL team, but no one would believe you if you tried to say that Brewer or Buck fans are as fervent as Skins fans. The only city whose combined sports fans come close to Washington's fans may be Buffalo... but that is only because DC would be pulled down by the lack of Nats fans (like I said, they're still new). And in "defensibility" Buffalo has the upper hand, since they have no Stanley Cup wins and no Super Bowl wins (their last championship win was an AFL Championship in 1965).

To make things interesting, I'm not going to include these cities. That way, it will be even more obvious that Simmons doesn't know what he's talking about.

What about "Major Sports Cities" with three sports?

This is where things get interesting. By my count there are 5 cities which definitely fit this category: Cleveland, Houston, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Toronto. Now if we we're to include these towns, Houston would probably be the only one in consideration for the top side of lousy/indefensible sports cities. Not to say they're definite but Cleveland and Pittsburgh have great football fans, St. Louis has great baseball fans and Toronto has great hockey fans. Houston's best fans are probably their football fans, but they gave up on the Oilers and were given a team most because of the efforts of the city of Cleveland to get their football team back.

The interesting part is how to include San Francisco and Oakland. Each has a NFL and a MLB team but do we put the Warriors under Oakland or San Francisco? Or both? Hard to say, but I won't worry about it since they not making the Top 3.

Dealing with how "Lousy" and "Indefensible" a fan base is.

The tough part of this is to gauge how defensible the lousiness is. (Did that make any sense?) For instance, Nats fans "lousiness" is defensible in that, aside from an interesting overachieving first season which still ended with a .500 record, the team has sucked since it's been here AND they've only been here for 4 years. On the other hand, the Marlin's fans "lousiness" isn't defensible because they have two World Series trophies in the past 11 years AND are last in MLB attendance by a huge margin. Their only defensible point is that they're relatively young at 15 years of existence.

Finally: The Top 3...

Did I say Top 3? Heck, I'll do a Top 5! Here is my list, in no particular order:

I definitely agree that Phoenix deserves to be on the list if only because they had problems selling out the D-Back's (who won a World Series 7 years ago!) playoff games last year. Who knows, maybe they're just more into the ASU Sun Devils than anything else?
Considering Los Angeles has 2 NHL teams, 2 NBA teams and 2 MLB teams, they deserve to be on this list because they don't seem to care about the NFL. Yes, the Lakers and Dodgers have a good fan base, but 2 out of 6 is not good enough for a place with so many professional teams. (BTW, they even have 2 MLS Teams!)
Miami. If I were ranking them, I would almost put Miami above Atlanta. Despite 2 World Series titles in the past 12 years and 1 NBA title (three years ago), the Marlins are last in attendance and the Heat aren't in the top half of attendance percentage.
Tampa Bay/Orlando. They've got a Stanley Cup and Super Bowl trophy in the 2000s and neither fan base is "hefty". I guess it makes sense, since the oldest of their teams is from the 70s, and pretty much sucked until their Super Bowl win. Oh well, I guess if I lived in Florida I wouldn't care as much about sports, aside from football, either.
Atlanta was mentioned by Simmons, but I'm not too sure about their inclusion in the top 3. Their lack of overall support is "defensible" in that, aside from the Braves, they've got no championships. I would put them in the top 5 though, because considering how good the Braves were in the 90s they're barely in the top half in home attendance last year (they're in the bottom half in attendance percentage, i.e. how full their stadium gets).

So of the 14 cities (that doesn't include San Fransisco or Oakland) that have four or more professional teams, those are the top lousy/indefensible 5 cities. And if we include San Fransisco, Oakland, and the 5 "three team cities", we would definitely need to give San Fransisco and Houston a good look before even considering putting DC on that list.

ESPN's "Sports Guy" is official retarded

2009-02-09T13:07:00.004-05:00

Back in the early 2000s I used to read ESPN.com and CNNSI.com all the time, since they were the big time online sources for sports. Particularly, I liked reading Page 2's "The Sports Guy" (formerly "The Boston Sports Guy") because he melded pop culture references, stretching back to the 80s, with sports. And of course it helped that, growing up in a town without a baseball team, I was a Red Sox fan.

His view of things was helped by the fact that, besides the success of the Celtics in the early 80s, Boston was woeful in terms of sports. The Patriots were the laughing stock of the league. Maybe the Pats weren't the Saints or Lions but they were the Buffalo Bills or Minnesota Vikings. The Bruins, aside from getting pummeled twice in the late 80s by the Edmonton Oilers in the Stanley Cup finals, had done nothing since the times of the Original Six. And the Red Sox were... well the pre-2004 Red Sox.

Additionally, it didn't matter that aside from the NBA and to a lesser extent MLB, he was full of it (for example, listen to his recent thoughts about MLB pitcher Troy Percival). He didn't care about soccer and he didn't talk about the NHL, claiming that he "divorced" the Bruins. He spent a lot of time writing about the NFL, but it was pretty obvious that although he knew a lot about the game, he was terrifically wrong with his predictions and saw the league through his newly Patriot colored glasses. You see right as he got big, so did the Patriots and he conveniently avoided the fact that although technically a dynasty (in terms or Super Bowls won over time), the Patriots were anything but dominating. He also ignored the fact that the AFC consisted of only one true threat to the Patriot's dominance (The Colts) and that their Super Bowl wins were a result of last minute field goals and playing against Andy Reid and Donovan McNabb. By the way, do I need to mention the fact that cheating could very easily account for how slightly better the Patriot's coaching seemed to be?

Anyways, I stopped reading mostly because many of his ideas proved to be wrong and his writing became cocky and annoying. I particularly remember his whiny self-pitying article about how he got beat at the WSOP in the first 3 hours. That article was the point when I stopped consistently reading him. He became like a dumbed-down version of Dennis Miller with too many sarcastic analogies and too little actual information.

I would still read his weekly NFL picks, mostly wanting to get to the part where he would pick against the Redskins and all but assure a Skins win that week. Of course, he would finish right around 50% with his picks (in other words no better than a coin flip) and to make matters worse he would lose to his wife (who apparently knew zippy about football). But recently, I starting reading him consistently again... I think the Tom Brady injury brought me back. I guess I felt bad but I also (to be honest with some schadenfreude) wanted to see his reactions.

Unsurprisingly, he was just as lost with his predictions (see how he thought Red Sox were still alive and how he blows off his incorrect NFL rankings by calling it the "goofiest NFL season in six years"). But it all culminated in a "chat" he had a while back where he lumped Washington with Phoenix and LA in something he called the "top-3 lousy/indefensible major sports city."

Once again his lack of NFL knowledge is blatantly obvious since he apparently has no idea of the love this town has for the Redskins. That alone would eliminate DC from this list. Not to mention the fact that the Capitals have a DEVOTED following (just do a search for the various Caps blogs on the internet) in spite of their lack of championships, that the Nats just finished their 4th season here, and that DC United has essentially the biggest and most devoted following in MLS (but like I said he doesn't care about soccer). Now, I'll admit that the Wizards following isn't great considering they've got a championship 30 years ago, but then again it was 30 years ago. So I'll agree that the Wizards following MAY be "lousy/indefensible" but he's insane for suggesting that DC is in general a lousy/indefensible major sports city.

TV: American Idol and Important Things

2009-01-13T00:17:00.002-05:00

This evening marks the return of American Idol for its eighth season. The good news is that I'm taking the adding of Kara DioGuardi as a fourth judge as a step away from the "kinder, gentler" Idol we saw last season. Not only is DioGuardi supposedly a tough judge, I'm hoping they show more of the "not so good" folk... but only the next few days will tell.

Hope is most certainly alive though with what I'm calling the best new show I haven't seen: Important Things with Demetri Martin. Like I said, I've yet to see it (it debuts in February) but it's Demetri Martin's show and that is good enough. The guy is seriously hilarious, kind of like a sober Mitch Hedberg. Anyways, I'm looking forward to it and so should you... if you want a taste go ahead and do a quick youtube for his comedy.

2009-01-06T18:20:00.002-05:00

love is watching someone die
so, who's going to watch you die
-"What Sarah Said"
Death Cab For Cutie

2008-12-19T18:59:00.003-05:00

you used to laugh under the covers
maybe not so often now
-"Stay or Leave"
Dave Matthews

2008-12-17T22:54:00.001-05:00

Thanks, Sammy.

Stores with Online Shopping and In-Store Pickup

2008-12-11T17:07:00.005-05:00

A while back I needed to buy a present for someone. It was too late to order it online and have it shipped, and I didn't feel like going to a bunch of different stores to comparing items, prices and stock. So I used Best Buy's in-store pick up system.

Now, these systems aren't perfect (just yesterday I went to pick up 2 DVDs and they only had one ready) but they are nice in a pinch. So, I've decided to start a list of places that have online ordering with In-store pickup. Just to clear things up, these are stores that, through their website, let you see if an item is in stock at your local store, purchase it online, and then pick it up... usually within about an hour.

Note that this is different then stores like Wal-Mart and REI, which allow you to buy something online and ship it to a store for free. Very cool, but with those stores you have to wait about a week or more for those items to arrive. (I should mention that, with REI, you can call a store with an item number to see if they have that item in stock and have them hold the item for you.)

Best Buy - www.bestbuy.com
Sears - www.sears.com
Circuit City - www.circuitcity.com
The Container Store - www.containerstore.com
MicroCenter - www.microcenter.com

Sure it's a short list but I'll keep adding to it when I find/hear about others.

Palin Song

2008-10-31T01:13:00.001-04:00

I don't quite understand why I think this is so funny, but here goes:

2008-10-17T12:22:00.003-04:00

I don't want the world,
I just want your half
-"Ana Ng"
They Might Be Giants

Jim White

2008-10-15T14:33:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite lesser known artists (I least I think he's lesser known) is Jim White. A singer and writer of songs and stories, I first heard of White 10 years ago during the closing credits of the movie Home Fries. The song used was "Heaven of My Heart."

The original version can be had by purchasing his album Wrong-Eyed Jesus. Included in the liner note of that album is a short story written by White called "The Mysterious Tale of How I Shouted Wrong-Eyed Jesus". It's a pretty entertaining story, which makes the CD even better. Equally entertaining is his short story "Blessing and Curses."

2008-10-04T19:00:00.002-04:00

But I could wait and I could waste away
But what comes back is I hear you say we're gone
For all of the times that I go spinning up and down
When all of the things have died between us
Well, we'll still come around
-"Come Around"
Counting Crows

2008-09-28T11:53:00.002-04:00

you're on the road
but you've got no destination
you're in the mud
in the maze of her imagination

-"Beautiful Day"
U2

What Would We Do, Baby, Without us... Sha-na-na-na!

2008-09-21T01:55:00.004-04:00

Without a doubt, the best use of the term "Sha-Na-Na-Na" in a song. Also, extra points for the use of the phrase "ain't no nothing."

My take on ESPN's ranking of the best NFL Teams

2008-09-17T16:46:00.007-04:00

ESPN has gone done it again. They decided to rank the best NFL teams, since the NFL-AFL merger. Now, you may remember when I wrote about how they butchered their list of best Super Bowl teams (and placed the 1991 Redskins at #10). One of my main issues with that list was that it was pretty arbitrary... there was no tangible explanation or formula to their madness.

Well, fortunately this time they gave their list a formula. But, of course, they seem to have butchered the formula this time around. My main issue with this formula is the serious underscoring of Super Bowl championships. I'll elaborate on this as we go along but let's start where they seemed to have started:

Winning percentage: I don't really have a problem with this calculation in which a team gets one point per mill (i.e. .500 = 500 points). The difference between the best (.608) and worst (.333) percentages is 275 points, and that seems like a fair start. However....

Super Bowls: Like I said, they SERIOUSLY underscore a Super Bowl win (50 pts) and they terribly overscore a Super Bowl loss (25 pts). To them, it is better to lose three Super Bowls (75 pts) than it is to win one (50 pts). Now if the ridiculousness of that calculations isn't apparent, just ask any Bills fans if they would trade their four Super Bowl losses (100 pts) for two Super Bowl wins and two AFC championship losses (100 pts). 50 points for a Super Bowl win would start to seem right if a Super Bowl loss was worth nothing, especially considering my next point.

Playoff victories: Ten points per playoff victory seems high. I just can't convince myself that five playoff wins is the same as a Super Bowl win. But even if we agree that 5 playoff wins is the same as a Super Bowl win, this high value is an even stronger argument for making a Super Bowl loss worth nothing.

Put it this way, the loser of NFC or AFC Championship can score as little as ten points (If they had a playoff bye). The winner of that Championship game (who goes on to lose the Super Bowl) can score as many as 55 points. That means that the difference between winning the NFC or AFC Championship can be 45 points, which as you know is almost the same as winning a Super Bowl.

12-win season and Four-win season: First, why 12 and 4 wins? Why not 11 and 5 or 10 and 6? It seems extremely arbitrary and excessive to grant 10 points (remember this is the same as a playoff win or 1/5th of a Super Bowl) for a 12-4 season, but a 11-5 season gets no points.

Additionally, these artificial plateaus don't take in to account strength of schedule. It should come as no surprise that New England's 4 12-plus win seasons have come in the past 5 years. So because the Pats were fortunate enough to have 6 games per season against the lowly Bills, Jets and Dolphins they get an extra 40 points. They essentially get a Super Bowl win because they played in a weak conference.

All-Pros: Now here is where things start getting silly. First, five points is just way too much (that's 1/10th of a Super Bowl!). Second, why only 1st team All-Pros? Why ignore the 2nd team and Pro-Bowl selections? Third, All-Pro selections vary because it's not just the Associated Press making selections. For instance check out the 1987 All-Pro selections in John Elway was 1st team for NEA and Sporting News and Joe Montana was 1st team for the AP, Pro Football Writers, and Pro Football Weekly. So why is one of these organizations selections better than the others?

Besides, what does it matter? All-Pro selections are the epitome of individual achievement and we're talking about the best teams, not the teams with the best individual players. And, yes, I can understand looking for a way to measure "Individual Star Power" but All-Pro selections are not the way to do it. You're just not going to get "star power" from most of the positions... Honestly, who was the last "star" All-Pro center or defensive tackle?

"MNF": MNF, which stands for Monday Night Football appearances... Did I mention how this is getting silly? At least they're not giving this more than one point, but even one point seems excessive.

Coaching changes: Now we're heading back to ridiculous land. So let me get this straight, a coaching change (-10 pts) negates a playoff win? And if that's not dumb enough, they count interim coaches! I don't even know how to respond to how stupid that is. At least the difference between the most (New England with -120) and least (Houston and Jacksonville with -10) coaching changes isn't huge at 110 points, but it still represents the equivalent of more than 2 Super Bowl wins. Are you following me here with the idea that Super Bowls are scored too low.

Crushing postseason defeats: I understand what they're trying to do here, but there are too many problems with the way they did it. First, this is WAY overscored. Two of these and you practically negate a Super Bowl win? Second, why limit this list to only 25 games. Third, I seriously doubt the Music City Miracle which was a Wild Card game, was as crushing a defeat as the Patriots loss to the Giants in the Super Bowl earlier this year. Finally, there are no points for being on the winning end of those games. I'm sure it's even sweeter for Giants fans that they defeated the 17-0 Patriots.

Busts: Here we have landed smack dab in the middle of Dumb-land. First, the 10 points lost here are WAY too much. If we are to believe this, the Chicago Bears' lone Super Bowl is practically 1/2 negated by their two busts. Second, not all busts are the same. As a Redskins fan, I can assure you that wide receiver Michael Westbrook (#50 on the list) wasn't anywhere near as disappointing as quarterback Heath Shuler (#4 on the list). At least we got one respectable season out of Westbrook. But in the eyes of ESPN they were equal. Third, why only count draft busts and not free agent and trade busts?

So with that said, and with much more emphasis on Super Bowl wins allow me to reorder the top 10:

Dallas Cowboys - I can agree with them being first over the 49ers and Steelers for one reason, their 5 Super Bowls are the most evenly spread out.
Pittsburgh Steelers - I put them in front of the 49ers because they have been more consistent than the 49ers and although most of their Super Bowl wins were in the mid to late 70s, they did finally get their fifth a few years ago.
San Francisco 49ers - So far I've agreed with ESPN and that won't change here. As ESPN notes, their glory days span 16 years in the 1980s and early 90s. Aside from that time they have been less than stellar.
Oakland Raiders - Here is the first point I disagree with ESPN. Basically, to me going 3-1 in Super Bowls is better than going 2-3 especially when Oakland's last SB appearance and victory were more recent. Sure the timeline shouldn't matter for the formula (a SB I win is as good as a SB XXX win), but I still think Oakland has a better overall history.
New England Patriots - I can certainly see an argument for putting the Pats before the Raiders, but Oakland has the better overall winning percentage and not as many SB loses. In fact, I think Oakland, New England and the next team area all very close.
Washington Redskins - I was tempted to put the Skins above the Pats but, besides the fact that I could easily make a case for the Skins (better winning percentage, not as many SB loses), I just didn't want to seem like such a homer. But like I said before spots 3-5 could very easily be considered spots 3a, 3b and 3c.

So once again I disagree with where the ESPN ranks the Skins: 5th place at worst for me vs 8th place for ESPN. Well that should be no surprise I guess... since obviously they're wrong.

2008-08-29T01:34:00.001-04:00

And still on a winter's night, they say, when the wind is in the trees,
When the moon is a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas,
When the road is a gypsy's ribbon looping the purple moor,
The highwayman comes riding

-"The Highwayman"
Alfred Noyes

2008-08-20T19:19:00.004-04:00

You touched my hand and you smiled
All the way back you held out your hand
If I hope and If I pray
Ooh well it might work out someday

- "Seven Wonders"
Fleetwood Mac

The 2007-2008 NBA Season: Why I now hate the NBA

2008-06-04T01:46:00.003-04:00

I've mentioned before how I couldn't watch the NBA, mostly because of referees (notice that complaint came a year before the Tim Donaghy Scandal). Well, this year's NBA Finals is just reinforcing my aversion.

The Los Angeles Lakers and the Boston Celtics seem to be everyone's dream final... especially the NBA's dream. Well, it's definitely not mine. Not that I wanted Spurs vs. Pistons, but at least those two teams weren't gift-wrapped trips to the Finals. Both the Celtics and Lakers benefited from ridiculously lopsided trades which virtually guaranteed their conference championships.

The Celtics were first, when former Celtic and current Timberwolves executive Kevin McHale sent Kevin Garnett to Boston. The Timberwolves essentially received the Celtics bleak future of young players. The Lakers on the other hand received Pau Gasol for... well, aside from Kwame Brown I don't even know what they got. Sounds fair doesn't it?

Think about it, a year ago if you could have placed a bet against a Lakers-Celtics final this year you would have taken that in a heartbeat. The Celtics were young and completely unremarkable and the Lakers had ONE good player who didn't even want to play there anymore. Now they're playing each other for the championship. I won't scream NBA conspiracy, but it's enough to make you think.

Gummi Bears! Bouncing Here and There and Everywhere!

2008-05-09T17:45:00.003-04:00

A little while back I linked to the DuckTales opening theme song over at Youtube. I even gave you a bunch of different languages, so you could imagine yourself enjoying DuckTales as a young spanish, slovak... or whatever language speaking youth.

Well here is the Gummi Bears Theme:

This time, instead of Gummi Bears in different languages (which you could conceivably just look up yourself) I'm linking to this interesting Techno version of the Gummi Bears Theme Techno version:

Nat's Attendance Woes

2008-05-02T15:29:00.003-04:00

So much hoopla was made about how the Nats drew a paltry 20,487 fans in their second game at Nationals Park. Yeah, it sucked... but I'm still making excuses and here they are (in order of importance/reason):

Over a week from game 1 to game 2 - These people seem to be missing this fairly important point: The Nats opened Nationals Park with a single game "series", after which they went on a week long road trip. Home Game #1 was on Sunday, March 30th and Home Game #2 came over a week later on Monday, April 7th. Pittsburgh, who was lauded for having 35,045 fans in their game following opening day, had a slightly similar situation. The Pirates had a 3 game series to open PNC Park, and then went on a road trip. When the came back a week later they drew 20,128 fans. And not coincidentally that game was on a...
Monday night - Capital Punishment compared it to other weeknight game #2, but that entirely ignores that it not only was a weeknight, but it was a Monday night. The following game, on a Wednesday, drew 23,340 fans. Sure, not a huge improvement, but definitely an improvement considering the Wizards and DC United also had homes games that night.
The Opponent (Florida Marlins) - Capital Punishment glosses over this point by saying "Want lousy opponents? How 'bout the Brewers?" to which I respond: No, not the Brewers. Consider that the Brewers actually draw fans and the Marlins just don't. They don't even draw fans to their own stadium in Miami.
The Nats don't have a history and just aren't that good - It's just not fair to compare Washington to the rest of the league because the Nats don't have a history here (even if you include the Senators, their last Washington World Series appearance was 1933) and all other recent expansion teams started play in a new stadium, save for the Colorado Rockies who waited only 2 years for Coors Field and were actually a good team that year (they started 7-1, as opposed to the Nats 3-4 record when they returned for the monday night game 2).
It was 50 degrees - Sure, Detroit, Cleveland and Chicago drew more people on similar weather, but all of those are cold weather towns AND those games were the next game following the opening day.
NCAA Final Four - The NCAA College Basketball Final Four was on that same night.
Local Sports competition - The DC sports media was enthralled with the Washington Capitals who had, just that Saturday, made the playoffs with a seven game winning streak to end the season. The Wizards were likewise headed to the playoffs. When you don't have a "time-rooted" following and you've been gone for a week, it helps to have the media pump up game 2 at the new ballpark... which the media absolutely did not.

So sure one or two of these factors and it's not a big deal, but this truly was a "Perfect Storm" against the Nats. Although I think the first factor was the biggest reason, all of those things combined just made for a low turn out.

But not to worry, despite the fact that, until a few nights ago, the Nats had the worst record in the majors, the Nats are doing okay attendance-wise coming in at #15 according to ESPN. And don't forget that every team from #1 to #14 has a real MLB history, except for the Colorado Rockies, who went to the World Series last year. Now I'm not saying Washington will be a great baseball town, but I think we'll do just fine.

Jim White On Tour

2008-04-17T18:08:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite artist, Jim White, will be on tour soon.

Now he's only doing a couple of shows, mostly on the east coast, but if you get the chance to check him out, you should. I'll try my darnedest to make the Annapolis show on May 15th, but Thursday evenings are tough.

For a feel of what his music is like, here is Jim doing a favorite of mine, Heaven of My Heart, on French TV:

Capitals as Stanley Cup Favorites?

2008-04-03T17:22:00.003-04:00

I'm getting ready to watch the Caps vs. the Lightning and they're interviewing Dmitry Chesnokov who writes for SovSports.ru on Washington Post Live. So of course I'm I interested and check the site... but of course it's all in Russian.

Thanks to the google translator, I find this article talking about Alex Ovechkin. I throw it through Google's translator (translate article) and find this interesting nugget at the beginning of the fourth paragraph:

That is why "Washington" in my opinion - one of the Stanley Cup favorites.

.

The argument being that if you extrapolate the Caps record (77 points in 59 games) since Bruce Boudreau took over, they would be the best team in the league with 107 points. A stretch, and probably a "homer" stretch considering the 4 Russian players on the team (Ovechkin, Kozlov, Semin and Federov), but I'm not complaining.

Mount Rushmore in Nevada?

2008-03-12T12:13:00.004-04:00

I'm always curious as to where I rank on google since a lot of people who "stumble upon" this site seem to do so via google. Interestingly, if you think Mount Rushmore is in Nevada, I'll be your first link.

What does that mean? Not much really, besides that I am now the "I'm feeling lucky" result to a search of "Mount Rushmore in Nevada."

American Idol Season 7: Miami, FL

2008-01-31T18:07:00.000-05:00

I guess I forgot to hit publish last night... oops:

We're in Miami tonight and I've got to admit, I definitely liked the opening sequence with "American Idol" in the place of "Miami Vice" in the Miami Vice logo. So of course they also get the crowd in the stadium to sing Gloria Estefan's "The Rhythm is going to get you." Looking good already!

So after a strange interaction between Randy and Simon and Paula, where Simon calls Paula's short dress "very sluty" in a quite creepy voice, we immediately get introduced to Shannon McGough whose parents own a meat market. Of course since it's interesting enough that she "works with meat" she gets a segment. She pretty much yells her entire song and after asking if she can sing something else she gets an immediate "Never" from Simon. Randy, who has been in the "nugget zone" (and yes I just made that up) these past two days drops this goldie: "You almost maybe tone deaf, I don't know." I think I know, Randy.

Next is former "Boybander" (btw, DO NOT forget to check that link especially the "Why We Love Robbie" section) and current "Rocker" Robbie Carrico (who apparently is part of a band named Missing Picket) who isn't bad, but who has a rather undistinguished voice. Of course he's through and I immediately put him as a lock for making the top 12 and getting too far simply because he'll have a large following of preteen girls (ala Ace Young and Constantine Maura-whachamacallit). Don't forget, you heard it here first.

Back from the break we get a montage of guys who would/could have definitely made for good TV had they dedicated more than 5 seconds on each. Just bad auditions in general.

But then we get Ghaleb Emachah who kinda looks and sounds like Antonio Banderas. I'm not a fan of his voice, and Simon says it would sound good if you were drunk... that just can't be good. Paula however likes his voice, Randy gives him a yes, and finally Paula sends him to Hollywood with a yes.

Brittany Wescott and Corliss Smith are up and just from their speaking voices, I'm guessing they're in. Corliss sings first and she's pretty good, really good actually. Brittany is next and she can definitely carry a tune, but her voice is not as unique as Corliss. I'm a bigger fan of Corliss, but they're both darn good. They're both through to Hollywood, and I immediately get the feeling this is going to end up in one of those "Only one of you is getting into the Top 24" situations like Sanajaya Malakar and his sister had a last year.

Suzanne Toon brings us back from the break and we get treated to a "feel good" segment about her and her daughter, which considering how the producers have set things up recently, this could go either way. She sings one of my favorite songs, Bonnie Raitt's "I can't make you love me" , and she just doesn't do it that well. Good but definitely nothing special. However, all three judges like her well enough and so she's through.

Next we have a petite and frail looking Ramiele Malubay who picks a tough, tough song to sing (Aretha Franklin's "Natural Woman") but she's surprisingly good all things considered. She misses a few notes, but she deserves to get through... and she does.

More than half way through tonight's episode and we're off to another break. My immediate thoughts are that we have yet to get a real bad audition with a corresponding contestant breakdown AND Miami definitely made for a better show than Omaha. We can only hope there are more bad auditions to come.

Syesha Mercado brings us back from a break, and she gets a "feel good" segment about her and her father. Maybe this is the feel good story that doesn't get through. She starts singing somewhat well but then gets to screaming a bit too much. All three judges agree with each other, and they send her through.

Natashia Blach is next, with another one of my favorite songs, "At Last." She's good enough to get to Hollywood but not amazing. Predictably she's through.

Ilsy Lorena Pinot follows and is also good. I don't see either contestant making it to the Top 12, but at least they should have fun in Hollywood.

After a break we get a montage of bad auditions featuring Ben Hausbach, Carroy Bethea, Grant Rhea, and Fabienne Hyppolite. Sadly it just serves to remind us of what could have been with this season's Idol, since the montage lasted at most 2 minutes and we weren't treated to any departing tantrums.

A very nasal Richard Valles continues the bad auditions and even gets Randy to do a great imitation of RV (Which I'm convinced would have been his nickname had he gotten to Hollywood.)
Former American Juniors contestant Julie Dubela is next and she's ready to audition in a yellow and neon pink dress straight out of the 80s (perfect for Miami, btw). She acts WAY older than 16, and she seems to move her mouth much more than you would think she would need to when she speaks. Also, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she were high. Anywas, she's not terrible, but she doesn't get through to Hollywood. Not that she really deserved to go but they've sent much worse people to Hollywood this season. Strange I guess.

We're back and we're treated to a young man in an all white suit, who comes in sliding all over the place just like Sandman Sims at the Apollo. His name is Brandon Black and he kinda Boyz II Men's "I'll Make Love to You" while doing a few other strange things. He's so bad Randy and Simon just leave and say from off camera "no, never" when he asks if he's through or not.

And with that we're done.

American Idol Season 7: Omaha, NE

2008-01-29T21:51:00.001-05:00

Have you ever been to Omaha, Nebraska? It's pretty flat, let's hope the contestants aren't. Ha! I know, I know, I should go on the road. Anyways, Idol is in scenic Nebraska and since there isn't much to say about that let's get to it:

We start off promisingly with a fellow named Chris Bernheisel, who comes bearing gifts for the judges. They way he's acting, I'm going to guess he's not so much good. He even starts crying because he's so excited to be on the show... and I'm feeling a tinge bad for just assuming he's going to suck. But then he starts singing and it's just bad. And then in a "feel good" twist Simon encourages the local Fox affiliate to send Chris as their reporter to the AI finale. Not surprisingly, he doesn't get a yellow ticket, but he leaves as if he had. Have I mentioned this is a kinder, gentler American Idol?

As we head into the break, we're teased with Paula's arrival and some pretty bad auditions. I get the feeling they're not going to be as good (i.e. bad auditions combined with crazy breakdowns) as we're led to believe. Have I mentioned this is a kindler, gentler American Idol?

We're back with Jason Rich, who gets a "back story" segment (where they show his home and hometown), but as we've seen this year, that's no guarantee. He's breathy and nervously forgets the words. He even says "when you light the nark" (combining night and dark). When he finally gets to the high notes though, he hits them fairly well. I'm guessing he's in, but in this season, you never know... but he's through to Hollywood with votes from Randy and Simon.

Paula finally shows up and we get a forgotten lyrics montage. All the people in the montage not only forgot their lyrics but they're a little bit horrible. Of course, that's all we get to see of them because the AI producers don't seem to want to harp on the crazy breakdown auditions. Have I mentioned how this is a kindler, gentler American Idol?

Rachael Wicker, who kinda looks like a man (not my original comment, btw), has a relatively deep speaking voice and prepares for her audition by arm wrestling people including Ryan Seacrest. She's a little whiny when she sings, but she has a good voice under the country whine. Randy puts my thoughts perfectly when he asks why country singers tend to yodel. Randy says yes, Simon says no, and then, to no ones surprise, Paula send her to Hollywood. To celebrate, Rachael arm wrestles Paula and ends up ripping Paula's arm off. (Sorry. Does it show that I'm getting a little bored with this season of Idol.)

Back from the break we're introduced to Lady Morgue, aka Sarah Whittaker, who claims to be a former professional wrestler. While waiting her turn outside, she shows off her lungs with a loud cackle. She starts her audition by singing a song that reminds me a strange musical. Randy is on the top of his game as he does a great imitation of her creepy laugh and then drops this nugget: "Noooooo, not... completely not right. wrong." Of course she's leaves without a coveted yellow ticket.

Ryan peeks in following her audition, and ends up trading places with Paula. So we've got our new judge Ryan as Samantha Sidley starts her audition. She's really shy and doesn't seem at all confident... but then she starts singing a Norah Jones song and she can sing. My main complaint is that she seems to be trying to sing too much like Norah Jones and not herself. Randy thinks she needs to work on her performance and as Paula returns she rightfully gets 3 yeses (4 if you count Judge Ryan's yes). I may have to add her to my favorite list, since she's good and doesn't seem to know it.

After Samantha we get treated to 3 pretty good singers who go on to Hollywood: Elizabeth Erkert (who has a good but common voice... lacking some deep tone), Denise Jackson (who has a better voice, but seems to jump around a little too much), and Michael Sanfilippo (who has an Elliot Yamin-type voice).

Angelica Puente gets a "back story" segment centered around her dad. Considering she doesn't seem insane, there was a time when it was a good guess that she would be through. This year? Not so much. She sings a Celine Dion song and continues the trend of people who keep singing songs as if they're trying to imitate the original version. Randy pretty much says as much and even gets Simon to concur. But she's through to Hollywood and AI continues the other trend of this season, not letting on whether the tweeners make it or not.

We get back from another break with a Rocker montage (of course, including many shots of Chris Daughtry). David Cook is one of those "rockers" and he's got a good speaking voice. He does a pretty good version of "Livin on a Prayer" and is through.

A sequin-shirted 17 year old named Johnny Escamilla is up next. And he sings "Shout" with a spastic wide legged tap dancing motion (and that description just doesn't do it justice). Randy's last statement puts it perfectly: "Yeah." Go ahead and take a wild guess as to if he made it through.

We come back from what should be the last break to a montage of really bad versions of "Stuck in the Middle with You." So many of them had crazy breakdown written all over them, but since this is a kindler, gentler American Idol (have I mentioned that?) we get them all compacted into this minute and a half.

Leo Marlowe, who if I'm not mistaken pretty much called himself a homecoming queen, seems to be our last audition of the night. And he's pretty darn good... probably the best developed voice of the night. Of course he's through and thats it for the night.

Well that was relatively uneventful and that works out well since that describes pretty much any visit to Nebraska. In the end, Omaha gave us 19 Hollywood bound contestants and one guy yelling "goodbye!" (yet another possible crazy breakdown that got shortened/ignored).

Tomorrow: Miami, FL.

American Idol Season 7 Commentary: Charleston, SC

2008-01-24T00:02:00.000-05:00

I spaced and forgot to Tivo last night's American Idol AND I almost forgot to do it today, which makes me miss the first 8 minutes of the show. So let's get to it:

We're in Charleston, SC (I learned this later) and I'm starting halfway through Randy (missed his last name) and Crystal Ortiz's audition. Auditioning Randy (to differentiate him from Judge Randy) sounds like a bad immitation of John Mayer. Crystal doesn't sound like anything specific. Simon though says it was a "complete torture." Not at all surprisingly they don't get through to Hollywood.

Next are brother and sister, Michelle and Jeffrey Lampkin. They start off doing a "bow-chicka-wa-wa" thing, so its not looking good. Jeffrey reminds me of Nipsey Russell and he wore what look like snakeskin boots... you know for Randy. They start singing together and they're not as bad as you would think. They're not Hollywood material but they just might get 2 yeses (of 3) each because they're "interesting." Simon prefers Jeffrey over Michelle and Randy really liked Jeffrey (I guess I was totally off). And although it seemed like they'd get split, Simon ends up sending both to Hollywood. Like I said they probably got through more on charisma than singing ability, so my guess is they don't last long in Hollywood.

Coming back from commercials we get an update on Oliver Highman and his pregnant wife (I guess they were first introduced in the part that I missed) who appear to be on the way to the hospital. We then get treated to a a montage of really bad version of Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats." Of course since Idol has this new "Don't Be So Mean" philosophy, we just get a snippet of how bad these folks were. But at least we got to see a lady who kinda does a weird singing narration of the video.

Amy Catherine Flynn, a 16 year old cheerleader, is up and next and she's says her name is "Amy Catherine, AC, whatevs." Anyhoo, Simon gets her to go on a whole abstinence speech which Simon facetiously said he liked... okely dokely! So, anyways, she starts singing and she's good for a 16 year old, but her voice is just not developed enough. I guess she'll get through. Of course Paula likes her and gives her a yes. Simon says her song was "too big for her" and then adds "a lot of people are going to find you annoying." She reminds of the large number of people who do cover songs on Youtube. Simon says yes tho, making Randy's yes inconsequential. I just don't see how she should get through to the top 24 though.

Back from the break, and Oliver Highman (the guy whose wife went into labor) and his wife finally get to the hospital.

London Weidberg auditions next. She's a pretty face, but she has a strong speaking voice. She does Billie Holliday's "Good Morning Heartache" and she's pretty good, but a bit breathy. Not surprisingly she's through, I can see her definitely making the top 24, maybe even the top 12.

We're told 15 people made it through on day 1, and we're off for more commercials.

Airforce pilot Lindsey Goodman brings us back from the break. They give her a whole segment (where we get to see the C17 she flies) so I just can't see her not making it. She sings "Black Velvet"... not a song I like because it a little to simple. She's okay but nothing special. And surprisingly she doesn't make it. That continues another trend for this season in which they're showcasing a lot of people that could go either way. They're keeping us guessing.

Next is Aretha Codner, who decides to sing Whitney Houston's "I Have Nothing." (And Cindy makes a good suggestion: Maybe I should make a Rule #1a of American Idol: Don't sing Whitney Houston to go along with my Rule #1 of American Idol: Never sing Stevie Wonder) Her voice has potential, but she picked a hard hard song and just didn't do it well enough. Simon calls her out on her "funny blue dress" and "big belt" even getting Paula to whisper "stop." And then surprisingly Simon says the singing was terrible. I wouldn't call it terrible, though. Maybe "common" but not terrible. And Wow, even Paula gives a her No. She thinks she can sing and keeps arguing her case as she leaves.

Joshua Boson wearing bright red pants is up doing "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" which strangely reminds of Jake Gyllenhaal's Saturday Night Live version. You just have to see it. Simon is nice when he says "It wasn't a good audition." Apparently, though, Joshua thinks he can sing and he starts getting agitated. At least he's smart enough to realize he isn't making it and he walks out in the middle of Paula's review. But don't worry he's not looking to be the next American Idol, he's going for "World Idol." Good luck with that!

Tara Smith's "no" audition leads to a bunch of Nos including someone Randy called a "Disney character" and someone Randy said "sounded like a chipmunk." But of course we don't get to actually hear Randy say these things (the auditioners said these things) since this is a kinder, gentler American Idol. Can you tell I'm bitter?

New father Oliver Highman is finally ready to audition and he immediately reminds me of Taylor Hicks. And he's not bad, but he way over does the vibrato thing. Simon says the warbling is too much. And yet another no. Although it's not surprising that he got a no, it's surprising that we keep seeing a bunch of tweener "nos."

And then all of a sudden my Tivo recording is done! So I guess that's it for Charleston which apparently didn't yield too many Hollywood bound contestants.

So what have we learned from this seasons American Idol: We aren't going to see the really crazy people or the judges reaction to them AND we're seeing a lot of tweeners where you just don't know if they're making it through or not. I like the latter but not the former.... I guess you can't win em all.

American Idol Season 7: Dallas Auditions Day 2

2008-01-17T12:24:00.000-05:00

We're heading into the second hour (Day Two) (BTW, you can find my thoughts on Day One here) and my big thoughts are what I've been saying all along: They're toning down the mean, which after the past two seasons is understandable, but still a little disappointing.

BTW, I'm digging the Honda Ridgeline commerical where a weathered Chuck Norris enters a fancy restaurant with just the tagline "Tough meets Classy." I know, I'm easy.

Douglas Davidson brings us into Day 2, and starts off with a warmup, which kind of sounds like he's choking himself. And he does "Livin on a Prayer" as if he's running out of breath the entire time. Simon asks him "What the bloody hell was that?" After a few more warm-ups he keeps singing. He does this by either whispering or singing really loudly while at the same time crossing his arms in an "X" in front of him. He graciously gets escorted out.

Newlywed Angela Reilly is up and sings "Baby Love." There is no way she could be serious especially considering how her husband Chad is there cheering her on rather vibrantly... a little too vibrantly if you ask me. Paula even pulls out this nugget: "Ohhhhh, sweetie pie. Reality check." She's sent home and leaves crying, which now makes me think that she was serious. Oooops.

A break and we're back with Kyle Ensley, who they portray as a politician while playing up how goofy he is. He's starts off badly, but kinda fixes it up towards the end. But he's definitely... as Simon says "Not as a bad as I thought you we're going to be." Simon hands out another mercy "yes", with Randy following up with a reasonable "no." Paula is the deciding vote, and sends him to Hollywood. Another wasted flight, but oh well, maybe they'll turn up the mean in Hollywood.

Tammy Tuzinski follows up Kyle by deadpanning, "The type of singer I would be is R&B/Hip Hop. I will eat your children." (Okay so I made up the second sentence.) Anyways, her audition is "Power of Love" by Celine Dion but she starts singing "If You Ask Me To" in what really looks and sounds like a bad Alanis Morrisette impersonation. Not that it matters since I don't know the difference between the two songs, but it should matter that apparently neither does she. The whole time she seems to be holding back a smile as if she's putting us on. She answers Randy's question of "What do you think we're think?" with a "uhhh, a no." Winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Colton Swon is up and my first guess is that he's heading to Hollywood. He starts singing "Boondocks" (which btw has some dubious grammar going on) and immediately I'm reminded of Bucky Covington. Good voice. Not to my liking/style, but he deserves to go to Hollywood. And we're off to more commercials.

We come back to bunch of men in drag and/or men singing like they were women.

But farmer Drew Poppelreiter, who probably has the thickest southern accent of the night, is up. It almost feels like he's acting, when he sticks a bit hay in his mouth and mentions that he's never been on a plane. His voice is okay. It shouldn't be Hollywood, but I get the feeling he's through because of the whole "Farmer act." And in spite of Simon's "no" he's headed to Hollywood.

Karl Reinneck, who reminds me of a Backstreet Boy and claims to be a rocker, auditions next. He starts singing and he's definitely not rocking. Simon calls it "slightly demonic." So he's got that going for him but not the a trip to Hollywood.

Heading into some more commercials we're teased with a few crazies including a mime and a young Liberace look alike. We can hope can't we?

Coming back from the commercials we get this city's terrible medley, Kelly Clarkson's "Since You've Been Gone." And they continue skipping some good crazies, which of course is disappointing.

Anyways, Nina Shaw, who's from the same town as Kelly Clarkson, is up and she's good but not great. She gets to sing another, and I feel the same way. Randy points out the reason why I'm not sure about her: she's doing the retro jazzy thing, which I'm not sure I like. I agree with Simon, but she still gets a pair of yeses from Randy and Paula.

We're back from the final break, and a fella in a white and silver Pimp/Liberace suit is about to audition. I think he's got some big white wings on his hat, so that's good. Renaldo Lapuz is his name and he's doing his original composition, "Brothers Forever." He starts singing and to be honest, it's not all that funny. Even when Paula and Randy start mockingly lip syncing and dancing along, it doesn't make it any funnier.

And with that we're done for this week and we're headed to San Diego next week. This was definitely disappointing, and I get the feeling it's going to last. Oh well...

American Idol Season 7: Dallas Auditions Day 1

2008-01-16T23:25:00.000-05:00

Man, you people love you some American Idol! I write about Project Runway, the NFL (I know it's been a while but I'm still moping about the Redskins losing), I review the state quarters, but do you people care? Well, some people do... but definitely not as much as you people seem to care about American Idol. Anyways, since you guys love American Idol... here it is:

We're in Dallas tonight, and we can only hope that someone turned up the crazy on this show. Well, we have good start with someone who went into labor at the tryouts and decided to name their child Idol... this is American Idol!

First we start with Jessica Brown a former meth addict. She's got "heartwarmer/feel good" story written all over her. If things hold to form, she'll be good and headed to Hollywood. She picks a good song, "I'll stand by you" by the Pretenders. She's good, not outstanding but good. I still think she'll be through... and she's in.

Next we have Paul Stafford, who tends to a baseball park... kinda like Forrest Gump tended that football field in Greenbo, Alabama. He's a little, check that, a lot goofy. He does Elliot Yamin's "I'll Wait for You" in a nice monotone voice. Like Simon says, he seems like a nice guy... Paula puts it best with her go-to phrase "I don't think this is right for you."

Beth Maddocks is up. She was a singing waitress at a fondue restaurant, so I really have no clue which way this is headed. She's not good and unfortunately she chose to sing "Beautiful Disaster" which of course sets her up for a few obvious jokes.

Esteban Deanada follows with something Simon calls "Atrocious." Victoria Metz and Drucilla Wideman also follow with "nos". And once again it seems like the AI producers are turning down the mean, since we're hurried through the bad auditions.

Alaina Whitaker is up and she's pretty good. Singing a country song, she kinda doesn't stand out, but suddenly hits a few good notes. I like her. After telling her it was a good audition, Simon tells her "I don't think your as good as you think you are." Which she responds with a "shoot!" I've got to admit, she's cute. She's like a smarter and better voiced Kelly Pickler. Of course she's through.

We're back from the break with Gregory and Mia Tobias. I have no clue what they're singing. I don't even think they're singing together, although they might think they are. As Simon silently nods incredulously, they seem to get the hint and leave.

Bruce Dickinson is up and the first thing they mention about him is that he's never been with a woman. Strangely, he explains a "whole my daddy has my heart until my wife takes it" necklace thing, which I obviously don't understand and I think is creepy. Anyways, he's not bad, especially considering the tough song he chose (Ain't No Sunshine). But as Paula even said, his voice isn't R&B-ish. And as you well know, if Paula isn't supporting you, you're probably not going to Hollywood... and neither is Bruce.

Pia "Zpia" Easley kinda looks like Eve, especially with her short hair. And, wow, she can sing, she's can really sing. She's got a nice natural sounding voice. Another one for my favorites list.

Back from another break with Brandon Green who has a bag full of his old fingernail clippings. Wow, that's... um... yeah... disgusting is too weak a word. Okay, now that I've got that stuck in my mind, he starts singing. Good voice. Kinda reminds me of weaker Elliot Yamin. (And remember I REALLY like Elliot Yamin) And he's in with the single "no" coming from Simon.

Kayla Hatfield is up. Her speaking voice is a little high pitched, so this could go either way. A half "feel good" story considering she was in a pretty bad car crash. She sings Janice Joplin and sounds like she's doing an imitation and that's not really a good thing. Strangely Simon says "yes" and Paula says "no". Finally we end with Randy saying yes. I'm thinking it's a wasted trip to Hollywood but at least she is a character.

Erick Mauldin brings us back from the break, and he's gets Simon to say "You sound like you're seven." Charles Markham follow him, and Simon hands out another "Atrocious." Tristan Clements is next and delivers his song, seemingly, without blinking. Simon calls him "creepy." (Obviously, none of these guys are through and, I know I'm beating a dead horse, but the mean is definitely toned down this season.)

A well tanned Kady Malloy is up and she does a pretty good impersonation of Britney Spears singing. She follows that up with what sounds like an imitation of Carrie Underwood doing "Before He Cheats." Simon stops her and asks her to be herself. And she's pretty darn good. Simon even says she's the best so far this year, like Randy I don't agree, but there's no denying she's good.

And Day One is over with 11 people through. On to Day Two.

2006 State Quarters: Nevada to South Dakota

2008-01-16T18:09:00.002-05:00

It's been almost a year since I gave my last State Quarter Design Review! I was facing a problem then because 2008 was the last year for the States, and they hadn't come out yet (BTW, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S Virgin Islands, American Samoa and the Northern Mariana Islands will also be getting quarters.) But never fear, I'm back to the quarters, so I present to you 2006: Nevada to South Dakota.

Nevada - Here's a "trick" I used to remember Nevada's nickname of the Silver State... just think of the easier to remember nickname for California: The Golden State. Too bad there isn't a Bronze State. Anyhoo, Nevada is an interesting state of contrasts (mountains and flats, Mormons and brothels/gambling, etc.) so understandably for it's quarter Nevada couldn't fairly concentrate on it's main draw, Las Vegas. In fact, they never even seemed to consider it. Understandable, because... well what would they put on there, a casino? A blackjack table? So they eschew the unworkable for the more natural: mustangs, sagebrush and a sunrise over the mountains. I like it, because it works well without being too busy. Although, I do wonder why the third mustang (in the background) doesn't seem to be following the other two. It just looks a bit lost. My main gripe with the quarter is a gripe I have with a bunch of quarters, it isn't specific to the individual state. But that won't drop your grade too far, especially if you don't have much of a choice and if your quarter looks good anways... and I can say those two about Nevada. Grade: B

Nebraska - I'll admit that I was probably too harsh with Kansas's quarter in that they really didn't have much to put on their quarter, but here is my explanation: Nebraska's quarter. Now I've never been to Kansas but I hear it's just as boring as Nebraska. If you don't believe me just take this into consideration: Nebraska's quarter features people leaving the state. However, unlike Kansas's quarter, it's an interesting design. Nebraska had to go west in two ways for their design: First, they used westbound settlers on what is presumably the Oregon or California Trail. Second, they went to the far west section of Nebraska (practically in Wyoming) for their defining feature: Chimney Rock. My problems with the quarter are: how they cut off the design at the bottom, that they seem to need to tell you that it's "Chimney Rock" and that the rock formation seems pretty bland (the actual formation has some grass on it). But they get points for not featuring corn and/or Warren Buffett. A good solid Grade: B

Colorado - When I started this I used negatives and positive grades (i.e. A-, A+) to distinguish between grades. I stopped because it was getting too complicated to compare each quarter as I graded it, so i decided to use whole letter grades and just rank the quarters at the end. Here is a case were two quarters will score the same but will be at the opposite ends of the ranking: The Nebraska quarter at the low end of the As and the Colorado quarter at the high end. Anyways, about the Colorado quarter, there really isn't much to say about the quarter except that everything was done perfectly. A great subject (Longs Peak), a great lesser known motto/nickname ("Colorful Colorado") in a great banner to end the design at the bottom. Definitely among the best quarters in the series. Grade: A

North Dakota - So remember how I admitted that I might have been harsh with the Kansas quarter because of the lack of originality. Well here is a quarter with, essentially, the same subject but entirely different outcome. North Dakota, much like it's neighbors to the south (South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma), is pretty plain, but they designed a fairly beautiful quarter which they didn't mess up by trying to stuff in a motto or nickname. A very classic and clean design. Not the best quarter, but probably the best quarter with what they had to work with. Grade: A

South Dakota - South Dakota is a beautiful state with large prairie lands, badlands, and Black Hills. Somewhat unfortunately, they also have Mount Rushmore. Now don't get me wrong: The area around Mount Rushmore is BEAUTIFUL and since they have such an iconic monument in their state, it is certainly understandable that they would want to put it on their quarter. But wow, did they ever mess that up. Not only (as Wikipedia points out) are all three things on their quarter not really native to South Dakota, the design is horrible. The wheat looks weird and the pheasant makes it look like a giant bird is attacking Mount Rushmore. And it's not like they had a good lot to choice from with every proposed quarter having the wheat on it. This quarter would have easily gotten a B if the just did Mount Rushmore. As it is though? Grade: D

Return of the Idol: American Idol Season 7 (Part 2)

2008-01-15T22:57:00.000-05:00

Half way through and we come back to a few nondescript winners and losers. (For my comments on the first hour of the show, scroll down or click here for Part 1)

Angela Martin is our next featured singer. She's another "heartwarming" story, with a daughter with Rett Syndrome (which supposedly is like Cerebral Palsy). Hopefully this ends a little better than Temptress's audition.

She breaks my first rule of American Idol by doing a Stevie Wonder song. She's good, but she's doesn't hold a note, instead doing the whole vibrato thing. Simon mentions that she needs to stop adding "yos" and a few other extra noises. But she's through.

Back from another break, and it's day 2 in Philly. We get a short review of the good, the sad, the bad and the crazy. Well that was fun.

Alyse Wojciechowski is up now and she mentions Eva Cassidy as an influence. You gotta like that. But she starts singing and she's all over the place. Simon is pretty cruel and she's quickly gone. Two more yellers follow her.

Milo Turk, an over-aged balding man with a leopard print vest auditions next with a song called "No Sex Allowed." Although he's over the maximum age, they let him sing. He does the pee-pee dance and stomps his feet as he sings. Sadly his 15 minutes lasted all of about 2 minutes. (Edit: apparently this guy is actually a comedian, so I say "Well done Sir!")

Next we have a horse training, kick-boxing martial artist pretty girl named Kristy Lee Cook. She picks a tough song, "Amazing Graze", but does pretty well. She's not amazing, but she'll get through because she's good looking.

Coming back from the break, we have Ben Haar in a long black cape. His surprise costume, which was under the cape, is Princess Leia's slave costume from Return of the Jedi. They convince him to shave his hairy chest, so we have to wait for him to return.

A few more strange auditions, and it's becoming apparent that they're not letting loose on the bad contestants, at least not on the first night. That is to say, they aren't showing the judges being mean, but they do show a show a bunch of mad contestants. I'm disappointed.

Next we have Paul Marturano who serenades Paula while slowly creeping up to her. He sings about stalking her, "Peter Falk"ing her, and "Caulk"ing her. Not surprisingly they have him escorted out by security.

Beth Stalker is up (get it? first a stalker, now a real stalker? ha! let's move on), and she has a nice jazzy voice. Simon says she wouldn't stand out, but she's through. I'm thinking she might just stand out if she can translate her voice to pop songs. She joins Junot from Bowie in my "I'll be rooting for them" list.

Back from the break and Ben Haar is back with a freshly waxed chest. He gets a half second audition and is out. And no I'm not kidding, half a second. Obviously he was just there for the TV time, but he waxed his entire chest! Yee-ouch.

Chris Watson follows Haar's debacle. He's not great, but as Simon points out he looks like a star. I see him as a candidate for this year's Constantine or Ace Young type.

The last break is up and a bunch of no's go by. 2 ladies are left including a Star Wars fan... just take a wild guess where this is headed. Christina Tolisano (who maybe works at a high school?) is her name and she's not scary bad, but she's definitely not getting through. After being rejected, the last audition begins with her yelling in the background.

Brooke White has a good voice, but I just can't believe that her voice is that much better than a bunch of the people who have been rejected. Also, she's already got a following. She's through though, along with the 28 other people.

They finish with the Star Wars girl pointing out that they keep picking the same kind of people. It feels like they're trying to prove her wrong but she's entirely correct. You could easily pick out a similar looking former contestant from everyone they've picked.

And with that Philly is done. They took it easy on the crazies tonight and concentrated on the heartwarming stories and good singers. Texas is up tomorrow, and they tease it by making it seem like they'll have more crazy contestants. We'll be able to judge better tomorrow, but it does seem like this season might be a nicer Americal Idol tryouts show.... disappointing.

Return of the Idol: American Idol Season 7 (Part 1)

2008-01-15T21:59:00.000-05:00

Ahhhhh, a new year and a new American Idol. Really, what did we do before the internet and American Idol. Do you even remember?

Well here we are at Superjuan Central, starting to watch a Tivo delayed debut of American Idol. (On delay becuase I had to watch the Caps beat the Ottawa Senators 4-2.) Anyways, since we're already delayed, lets get to it:

We start out in beautiful Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A town I like, and a town I expect to get some good contestants... and by good I mean actually good singers and insane people.

Our first contestant is Joey Catalano, a young guy who lost a bunch of weight. Before singing he strikes me as a "Scott Savol"-type if Savol lost some weight. He's got a good speaking voice. He starts singing and it's pretty good. A little too breathy for me but he should get through. And he gets 3 yes's and is through to Hollywood.

Next we have a guy (Alaa "Youka" Youakeem) who "can't stop love America music." Looking good already. "I wanna love a girl from... from the hair to the nipple." Right. Anyways, Youka reminds me of Borat, so take a guess as to where this is headed. His rendition of "Mr. Bee Gee's How Deep is Your Love" was... well interesting. Of course he gets three no's.

Melanie Nyema, who was a backup singer for Taylor Hicks, is next. And she's not bad. I agree with Simon's assessment of "I'm completely neither there or there." She's through though.

Next we have James Lewis, a Philly tour guide who admits to having a "unique voice." That just can't be good. And it isn't.... it really isn't. He sounds like the complete opposite of one of the Chimpmunks. Really, really low pitched, like an extended singing yawn. I don't think I need to tell you what happened.

We come back from a break to bunch of bad singers followed by Junot Joyner from Bowie, MD. Well, I've got my first favorite, because he's from Maryland and he can sing. Of course he's through.

Junot is followed by a couple of good singers going through.

16 year old Temptress Brown, a female middle linebacker, is next. It's a "heartwarming" story with her mom in a wheelchair at the auditions to cheer her on. Sadly, she has mediocre voice. She's definitely not Hollywood material, and Simon tells her about as nicely as you could expect from Simon. Wow... that was a downer. At least Simon wasn't mean. Things finish a bit more on the upside when all three judges walk her out to her family to help her tell them the news that she wasn't through to Hollywood. And we're off to a break.

We're back with a guy who does a "cricket" sound and sings a little strangely. Following his strange audition we have Udgeet "Udi" Sampat who supposedly sounds like Barry Manilow or Frank Sinatra. Who much like the "cricket guy" seems to talk through his audition of "My Way." Simon tells him that he was "tuneless" and he asks for an explanation... and I think I've found it.

Next we get treated to the medley AI producers make by asking everyone to sing the same song. This time it's "I love Rock and Roll." We get glimpses of a few characters, including an Angel and a 50s style Army Girl Trio. I get the feeling we're not going to see as many crazy folk today, since a lot of them seem to be in this medley. And we're back to commercials.

Alexis Cohen, who looks like someone threw a tub of glitter on her, is next. We know she's not making it since every tease leading up to this has her eventually going ape doo doo. She pretty much yells her entire audition. She's not entirely horrible, but she's definitely not good enough. She leaves somewhat mad, and gradually gets worse and worse. Don't worry though since she says she's going into "actressing."

Well, we're half way through today's show so I'm cutting it of here. I'll start a new commentary for the second hour... right now!

07-08 NFL Playoffs: Wild Card Weekend

2008-01-02T17:38:00.001-05:00

4 weeks ago I doubted. I said the Redskins weren't good enough to replicate their 2005 run to the playoffs. I thought the Giants would beat the Redskins and the BTEIAS (Best Team Ever In Any Sport, i.e. New England Patriots) would easily get to 16-0. Well I was partially right, as the Patriots made it to 16-0 but the Redskins made it into the playoffs with a 4 game winning streak.

I'll discuss the BTEIAS later... for now it's all about the Redskins.

Frankly, I wasn't all that surprised that the Redskins beat the Giants and Vikings, but I was a bit worried about the Cowboys. It seemed too easy. The Cowboys had nothing to play for and that just meant the Redskins could have relaxed, enough to lose it in a close one at the end.

I'm willing to believe all of the "Joe Gibbs does his best amid adversity" talk, but I do so for the same reasons as I believe the "Penguins will somehow, someway always best the Caps" idea. It makes no sense to me, but I believe it because I see it.

Movie Review: Juno

2008-01-02T13:03:00.000-05:00

I just saw Juno and unlike, apparently, everyone else in the world, I REALLY didn't like it. The fact that the movie is so overhyped doesn't help, but regardless of that I just found it to be too unbelievable and too contrived. To put it succinctly, I would call it an indy teen version of Knocked Up.

I won't act like I'm a great movie reviewer, especially when you can read this well put review, so I'll stick to my beloved lists:

What I didn't like:

The biggest problem, the witty yet shallow dialog. Dialog-wise, everyone one is witty and amusing, save for the extremely unsympathetic, until the end, Vanessa (Jennifer Garner).
The occasional and seemingly capricious use of "visual aids" throughout. (Did we really need watch the transition between a normal chick and a "strange chick"? Also when Juno lists her top 3 bands, did we HAVE to see the photos of Iggy Pop, Patti Smith and the Runaways?)
Similarly, Juno's voice overs are constant in the beginning and end but otherwise sporadic and unnecessary.
The parents never even bring up keeping the child with Juno? It's not like they're an impoverished family.
A forced "Indy" feel, with the animated opening credits, seasons titles, and acoustic guitar soundtrack.
Rather abruptly, the tone of the movie goes from teen pregnancy comedy to teen pregnancy drama. There is a very distinct point in the movie where the witty lines disappear and everything gets serious.
The movie starts with the line "It started with a chair" and seemingly ends with "It ended with a chair" BUT then a happy ending is crammed in after Juno says "It ended with a chair". I know I'm nitpicking... but still!

What I did like:

The dialog, while annoyingly similar for essentially every character, is funny.
A female in the lead of a "witty movie" was a good change, and all things considered, Ellen Page played Juno well.

You'll probably like it if you like:

"Kevin Smith" dialog (Clerks, Dogma)
Nerdy Indy Teen movies (Napoleon Dynamite)
Nerdy Teen movies with "Kevin Smith" dialog (Superbad).
a forced feel good endings

Similar movies I liked:
more: Saved!
more: Superbad
much more: Knocked Up
much more: Election
much much more: Rushmore

Project Runway Season 4: Week 5

2007-12-12T22:59:00.000-05:00

I stopped writing about Project Runway because there were just too many annoying factors:

The winner/loser selection process. Obviously producers have too much input.
Heidi Klum. Very stiff and uncaring... I can't believe Seal hasn't killed himself.
Basic contests rules don't seem to matter. If you say contestants needs to make a dress out of A, and contestant one has an outfit made of 1% of A and contestant two has an outfit made of 50% of A, don't you think contestant two should get some leeway?
Michael Kors and Nina Garcia. They're both annoying, but at least I can see Kors's creations... Garcia doesn't make anyhing!
The Judges. They never seem to have an original idea and they seem to always agree on what is great and what isn't.

Anyways, I'm watching season 4 (I'ld like to think the writer's strike has something to do with that) and I've alread got my favorites, least favorites and predictions. Of course I don't know exactly when someone will leave, since that week's contest has a lot to do with it. But there is obviously a hierarchy to the quality of contestants. This is the way I see it:

The bottomfeeders:
10. Ricky - Relatively boring designs and poor construction.
9. Elisa - Slightly interesting and definitely daring, but too weird and poorly constructed designs.
8. Sweet P - Not interesting, not daring, not boring, not anything really.

The middle:
7. Chris - I like some of his stuff, but then I hate some of his stuff. Kind of a wild card.
6. Jillian - Boring safe stuff but she makes up for it with some great constructor/tailoring.
5. Victorya - Kind of the anti-Jillian. Not a great tailor but at least her designs are more interesting. Because she's female, she's most likely to replace Kit in the top 3 (from my predictions).
4. Christian - Interesting but good (not great) designs. He'll stick around because of his personality, but probably won't make the top 3 because they just can't have an all male top 3.

My predicted top:
3. Kit - Could easily be kicked off before getting to the top 3, but she's daring enough to warrant staying this far.
2. Rami - Great designs and construction, and probably deserves to win, but not my favorite.
1. Kevin - My favorite, great designs and construction and is more daring than Rami. Also he is consistently being screwed by the producers for some reason or another.

My big gripe with this week's show: Christian shouldn't have won and Kevin got screwed. I would be pissed about Steven leaving (because Elisa and her terrible history of designs should be leaving) but I can't deny that Steven's dress was the worst this day, and Elisa will/should leave within the next two weeks.

NFL Football: Week 15 - The two games that matter.

2007-12-12T16:12:00.000-05:00

I haven't written in awhile because I got busy, but mostly because I just never got up to it. The Caps were losing, the Redskins kept losing and then the Sean Taylor murder happened. It just wasn't a great time to write. But of course, the recent victory will get me writing again, so here goes:

When we last left our no luck Redskins, they had just lost to the BTEIAS (Best Team Ever In Any Sport, i.e. New England Patriots) 52-7. I chalked up the huge loss to a fluke, which I think, all things considered, was pretty accurate.

The New England Patriots came back to earth, with two games which they could have very easily lost (Colts and Eagles), and one game (Ravens) that they should have lost. Now they've got a clear path to regular season perfection against the Jets and Dolphins, a combined 3-23, and the Giants. But by that time the Giants should be resting people for the playoffs since the Cowboys already won the division. Not exactly stellar competition, but it could be exciting... but I'll get back to that in a second.

The Redskins, meanwhile, fulfilled my comparison with the 2005 Redskins, by winning the game following the blowout and then losing 4 in a row (although they only lost 3 in row in 2005). Now they just need to complete the rest of my prediction by winning 4 in a row (It was 5 in 2005).

But this year because the NFC stinks, if the Redskins did win out, their 9-7 record (with wins against the Lions, Cardinals, and Vikings) could very likely get them into the playoffs. Sadly that just ain't happening. Too many injuries, too much inconsistency and just too many non-football issues. The comparisons with the 2005 team fails because the 2005 team didn't have so many distractions and the team didn't fail so predictably in the second half.

But... lets say they did win out. And since we're dreaming, let's suppose one more thing: the Giants lose the following weekend on the road to the Buffalo Bills. That scenario would set up a very interesting Week 17. Going in to the final week of the season, the Redskins, Vikings, Lions and either Saints or Cardinals (since they play each other this week) could all be 8-7. The Giants would suddenly be 9-6 and in danger of missing out on the playoffs... and remember who they would be playing? That's right! The assuredly 15-0 Patriots, that's who! The really interesting thing about this scenario, is that the Giants wouldn't know the results of the other games because their game is scheduled for the night before the rest of the league plays (So they couldn't watch one or some of the 8-7 teams lose and know their playoff spot is guaranteed).

Note: BTW, the Redskins don't need to win out for this to happen, the Giants just need to lose 2 in a row, but it would put more teams in the possible 9-7 logjam that could make the Giants vs. Patriots game mean a lot more.

Too bad the Redskins will lose on Sunday, assuring the Giants of a playoff spot and the Patriots of an easy time getting to 16-0. Crazy how all that essentially hinges on 2 games (Redskins vs. Giants and Giants vs. Bills), huh?

UPDATED: Trying to explain the lyrics to Don Edwards's "Coyotes"

2007-11-04T23:38:00.000-05:00

I still get a good amount of emails, comments and feedback for a post from 2 years ago. And because of it, I've had to updated it again.

Schilling's Baker's Dozen

2007-10-31T16:43:00.001-04:00

Curt Schilling wants to play one more year and he has listed 12 teams, in addition to the Red Sox, who he would play for. So in other words, Curt Schilling things the following 13 teams have a chance of winning the World Series next year. Schilling picked every division winner from this year and both 2006 World Series participants. He left off the New York Yankees (somewhat obviously), the Colorado Rockies (does anyone want to pitch in Denver?), the Seattle Mariners (not sure about this one) and the Toronto Blue Jays (pitching against the Sox and Yanks) all of whom had winning records.

Anyways, here are the teams and some comments from me... oh and keep in mind that, although I really enjoy baseball, it's definitely not my strong suit and some of the people I assume will be there next year may not be with those teams. We'll go from worst to best:

13. St. Louis Cardinals (78-84) - The only team with a losing record on the list. Presumably, their World Series win last year and their under-performance this year is what has them on Schilling's list. I wasn't too impressed by the Cards either year (except for their 2006 playoff run), but they would be a good fit since the Cards need some pitching.

12. LA Dodgers (82-80) - A better pitching staff than the Cards, but it seems to me they've got enough highly paid older guys on their team. I guess he could take over David Well's spot, but it still feels like Schilling named the Dodgers more so because they're the Dodgers than because they have a chance. Maybe Joe Torre can turn them around but I have my doubts.

11. Milwaukee Brewers (83-79) - This is where it gets interesting because the Brewers could use someone like Schilling. They have some good young arms and they've got the bats in Milwaukee but there is just something wrong when Jeff Suppan leads your team in wins. Also, who wants to move to Milwaukee?

10. Atlanta Braves (84-78) - Old pitchers leave Atlanta, they don't go to Atlanta. Interesting, but much like Milwaukee, I just don't see them having a chance next year.

9. Chicago Cubs (85-77) - The first in a group of teams that would be good for Schilling mostly because he can apparently unhex (or is it de-hex) your team. Also the Cubs always seem to have a shot at the World Series. A half-hearted approval here.

8. NY Mets (88-74) - Very similar to the Cubs situtation. The Mets are hexed (although nowhere near as long as the Cubs) and he can join up with fellow ex-Red Sox Pedro Martinez. On the other hand the Mets already have a bunch of older pitchers (Martinez, Tom Glavine, Orlando Hernandez, Aaron Sele and Billy Wagner). Maybe he can replace one of them if they leave, but the Mets need more help that Schilling can offer.

7. Detroit Tigers (88-74) - On looking over the Tiger's roster, this team seems like a good fit. They should have a spot in the rotation and their bats should provide adequate run support... but there's something I just don't like about it.

6. San Diego Padres (89-73) - Another team that, like the Tigers, seems like a good fit. I'm "feeling" the Padres more than the Tigers, so this will be the first full "approvals" by me.

5. Philadelphia Phillies (89-73) - The first of two teams (aside from the Red Sox) Schilling has pitched for. Looking over their roster the Phillies seem like a good fit, too bad they're also cursed. I give this a half-hearted approval.

4. Arizona Diamondbacks (90-72) - The other team that Schilling has pitched for. He could rejoin Randy Johnson and try to relive the 2001 season, but doesn't he want some passion with the fans where he pitches. The Diamondbacks struggled to sell playoff tickets! I just think it's a bad idea.

3. LA Angels (94-68) - The Angels seem like a good fit for Schilling because they have only one pitcher over the age of 33. Their bats were a little lacking this year, but they're young so there is definitely room for improvement. I really don't see anything wrong with it... so another approved from me.

2. Cleveland Indians (96-66) - Cursed... just cursed. But then again it wouldn't be the first time he's been part of a curse reversal... Another approval from me.

1. Boston Red Sox (96-66) - Probably the best fit for him. Schilling thinks he's got another year in him and they should bring him back and hope he retires next year with yet another World Series ring.

NFL Week 8 review: Eating Crow

2007-10-29T16:00:00.000-04:00

52-7... Wow, those 16 points seemed like nothing. The Redskins simply stunk up Gillette Stadium and I now sound like an idiot who didn't, couldn't or just wouldn't recognize how great these Patriots are. And you know what? I'm still not convinced about the Patriots (I'll be convince after this Sunday, one way or the other). But about the Redskins, I'm still somewhat intrigued and I feel like I'll be that way all season. I won't belabor the points everyone is making around DC but I will make this correlation:

Two years ago the Redskins stunk up Giant Stadium with a 36-0 loss to the New York Giants. Aside from the Redskins scoring this time and the Giants not running up the score, there are a lot of similarities to 2005. That year they entered that game with a 4-2 record, with 2 close loses, 3 close wins and a blowout victory. Just like this game they couldn't do anything offensively or defensively and in both cases is wasn't entirely because of the opponent (They ended up beating the Giants 35-20 later that season). They just, for one reason or another, simply sucked. Because of this I am not entirely disheartened by this loss. I just can't make a good judgment about the Patriots on this game because the Redskins didn't show up. (Trust me, I'll be fully ready to proclaim them the Best Team Ever In Any Sport if they convincingly beat the Colts this week)

My point in bringing up that game from 2005 was this: The Redskins aren't as bad as last Sunday. But I don't think they're good enough to improve on that 2005 team which won a Wild Card game and gave the Seahawks a good game in the divisional playoffs. Unless they start playing well, and get lucky (much like Pittsburgh did that year) they're doomed to repeat 2005, or worse.

So here is my prediction: they'll win 2 of their remaining 4 conference games and of the remaining 5 games (vs. Jets, Bucs, Bills, Bears, Vikings) they should beat everyone but they'll probably find a way to lose one or two of them. That should leave them at either 9-7 and 10-6, which in the NFC should be just in or out of a Wild Card spot. So that means they're in good shape Wild Card-wise since they beat the Lions and Cardinals. They just NEED to beat the Giants in their rematch and hope the Packers keep getting lucky and win the NFC Central. If they're lucky enough they may even draw the Packers and get some "revenge" for their "fortunate" win in the same way they got revenge on the Bucs in 2005.

Week 8: Skins vs Pats

2007-10-25T14:33:00.000-04:00

Remember about a month ago, when the Redskins beat the Eagles and I was only "somewhat intrigued" by them? Well, sadly, I'm still only "somewhat intrigued." And honestly, it's been that way ever since. They lost 2 games they should have won (Giants and Packers) and almost lost a third game "they should have won" last week against the Cardinals. So here I am, only somewhat intrigued, and they're going into a away game against the Best Team Ever In Any Sport (BTEIAS).

Every one is hyping the Patriots as essentially the best team ever because they seem impossible to stop on offense. And you'ld be a fool to not agree that they have been impressive. However, doesn't anyone care that they're doing it against terrible teams? The Pats have only beaten one team with a winning record, the Dallas Cowboys. And that's not saying much considering the Cowboys have only beaten one team with a winning record themselves (The Cowboys beat the then hapless New Giants in Week 1). The other 6 teams the Pats have beaten have 11 wins between them... not exactly stellar competition.

The Pats have beaten the 28th, 16th, 31st, 29th, 32nd, 7th and 15th ranked defenses. And before you say "Well what about 7th, 15th and 16th?!" I say "Cowboys, 0-7 and Norval Eugene Turner." The Cowboys (7th) are even more suspect than the Pats since they give up a bunch of points (21st in points allowed) and (like I said earlier) they haven't beaten anyone of note. The 0-7 Dolphins (15th) are, well, 0-7! Finally, the Chargers are crippled by their head coach who is the master of beating bad teams and losing to pretty much everyone else.

I could go on and on, even bringing up how the Colts are much better rounded AND they're not running up the score on teams, but we'll leave that discussion for next week. Although, I'm sure that will be discussed to death in the lead up to Week 9's Pats vs Colts game.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Redskins are going to win on Sunday or even that they are as good as either the Pats or Cowboys. But are the Pats really 16 points better? The Pats have been running up the score on teams so, of course, you should expect them to try and score a bunch of points, but they have yet to play a defense anywhere near as good as the Redskins.

All I'm saying is if the Pat's end up not looking like the BTEIAS, please don't pull the "they were looking ahead to the Colts" excuses. Frankly, in almost every case (not just the Pats this year), that is a horrible excuse. So let's all agree that whatever happens we won't make up dumb excuses; We'll agree to take it for what it's worth. And maybe, just maybe, I'll finish this weekend at something a little more than "somewhat intrigued."

Patriots Cheating Games rehashed

2007-09-18T18:42:00.000-04:00

I used to like ESPN2's Bill "The Sports Guy" Simmons' writing. I liked his insightful observances (The "Patrick Ewing" Theory) and his quirky lists (Levels of Losing). I could even get over his unabashed homerness... partially because I was a Red Sox fan. But then something happened about a year and a half ago. The Sports Guy entered the main event at the World Series of Poker and got sucked out on his all-in bet two hours into Day 1.

Go ahead and read it. It's rife with annoying hubris and whiny crybaby comments. Some of my favorite lines include "nobody had trips, I could tell from the body language" (No, he could tell because of hindsight. If he's so good at reading people why isn't he playing professionally?) and "And you know what this nitwit had? A-K. With the odds now significantly in my favor (84.3 percent).." (Yeah, but what was he doing calling a $550 bet, not a small amount 2 hrs in, against 3 other players and K-10 in the first place? His pre-flop odds against just one A-K was at best around 30%.) It was like Bill Simmons was starting to become one of those people he always complained about: a combination of spoiled athlete and a know-it-all sportswriter.

And so last week, when his New England Patriots were caught cheating he and another Boston sports fan (who is also a writer) decided to explain away their favorite team's indiscretions in a article I commented on last week. But I guess that wasn't enough. He's come back with more excuses and whines.

So as Jules Winnfield might say, "Well, allow me to retort."

1. Since practically the first 9 or 10 paragraphs can be compacted into "My team is good. The Chargers aren't as good, but everyone thinks they are and we beat the crap out of them but no one seems to care because of this stupid little cheating thing. Especially YOU NBC!" I can easily respond to that: What in the world were you expecting? Did you really think people were just going to forget that the team that barely won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls was just caught cheating? Trust me, the coverage will/should die down soon enough, seriously, you need to give it at least a few weeks!

Now on to the answers:

And yet, the Patriots videotaped another team's signals for three-fourths of a quarter and everyone reacted like they kidnapped a Jets assistant and tortured him for information or something.

Are you kidding? Do you really think all of this is ONLY about three-fourths of a quarter on September 9th? Sure, it's circumstantial evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless of a pattern of cheating. Or did you really think that this was the only time the Patriots had ever done this?

Is there a chance -- just a chance -- Belichick has gotten a little paranoid in his old age, and since an undermanned Jets team played them closely in all three Pats-Jets games last season, he spent the spring and summer wondering if Mangini had figured out a way to steal their signals, so he decided to tape their coaches in Week 1 to see if that was true? And then he got caught?

Wait, so maybe you do think this is the first time they've done this. Don't you think that's being at least just a little bit naive? It's certainly naive to think that most football fans aren't at least wondering how far back their cheating goes. And considering the many close margins of victory they Patriots have had (especially in the Super Bowls), you don't think this is at all valid?

The Patriots cheated in one game. They got caught, they paid the price.

Wow! So you actually do think it's the only time. STOP being so naive.

But since they've already paid a steep penalty for a one-time indiscretion, can we move on with the 2007 NFL season, please?

Yes, they have, rightfully so, paid a steep price for that single incident, but it's amazing that you would think we should just stop at that. That we should just assume that this is the only time it has happened. The rest of us are moving along with the 2007 season, but that certainly does not preclude us from looking back.

We live in a world in which... So save me the moral indignation about CameraGate.

Save you the moral indignation? How about saving the rest of us from your pathetic melodramatic diversion. Yeah, the world is messed up and there are a bunch of stuff more important that CameraGate, but these people get paid to write and talk about FOOTBALL, not all of those other things. And in the world of football, aside from someone getting hurt, cheating is probably the biggest deal. Now I'll grant you that Kevin Everett is by far a much more important story, but there's only so much to it: We all wish him and his family the best and we love hearing the improving updates, but it pretty much ends at that. It's a wait and see thing with him, because we can't hurry his recovery. However, there are still many unknowns about CameraGate... as much as you would love it to only be about Sept 9th, 2007, we're all wondering about February 3, 2002, February 4, 2004 and February 6, 2005 and a few other important dates.

Finally, you know what? You're right. Just like every Redskins fan, you and we both knew that Norv Turner would sink San Diego's up-and-coming ship. And it seems to be happening. But let's assume for a second that next year the Chargers go 11-5 and win the Super Bowl. And then 2 years later they win it again, and then the following year they win it yet again. All of them by 3 points and all of them with Norv Turner at the helm. And let's say that about 6 years from now, they find out that Norv Turner had allowed his defensive coordinator to steal an opposing teams playbook, in a week 1 matchup. Wouldn't it make you at least wonder a bit? Wouldn't you think back to today, when Norv is a punchline to a coaching joke?

You see, thats what we are all facing. Bill Belichick, was once Norv Turner, a hapless, go-nowhere coach and now he's headed to Canton. Just a little bit weird... don't you think?

NFL Week 2: Redskins beat Eagles, 20-12

2007-09-17T23:53:00.000-04:00

Last week I said I would wait until this week to see if I knock the "somewhat" off of my Redskins assessment of "Somewhat intrigued." Well, I'm not doing it. I'm still only "somewhat intrigued."

The Bad: Jason Campbell overthrew a wide open Santana Moss on a sure touchdown, which would have sealed the game. The defensive line gets no pressure on the quarterback, their sacks this week were all essentially coverage sacks. They did not force any turnovers. The Skins were helped by terrible passes and even worse play calling.

The Good: Just about everything else Jason Campbell did. The Redskins beat a conference opponent on the road... and not in overtime. The Redskins gave up no touchdowns and have given up only one touchdown in two games. The secondary played much better than last year week.

So it stays at "somewhat intrigued." Now if the Skins could get a good pass rush we'll start talking, because I'm not too worried about most of the other stuff.

NFL: Patriots Cheating Games

2007-09-13T09:40:00.000-04:00

(Don't you just love cheesy headlines like that?)

I haven't write much about the NFL this season mostly because I wasn't all that excited about the Redskins prospects this year and after their first game, I'm still not exactly excited. I'm somewhat intrigued, but definitely not excited. We'll have to wait until after Monday night's game to see if I remove the "somewhat" from that statement.

Anyways, what prompted me to write was the news that the New England Patriots cheated in their game against the New York Jets last weekend. Well, not exactly. What actually prompted me to write was this ESPN article written by a couple of Pats fans, who happen to also be sports writers.

In case you want to save yourself from reading their pitiful, excuse-laden banter, here is their response/excuses in a nutshell:

1. Their advantage from cheating was minor
2. Everyone, past and present, cheats

Well, excuse the rest of us for questioning the situation. Yes, we should all just assume that this and the Green Bay game were the only ones in which the Pats cheated. Oh and we shouldn't worry because they were blowouts anyways, so there was no real advantage. Sorry, I just don't think that makes any sense.

The response to the first point is quite obvious: the Pats margin of winning, and essentially superiority, was also minor. Each of their Super Bowls was won by a margin of 3 points, 2 of them on last second field goals. In their Super Bowl runs, aside from games against the Colts and a rookie quarterback (Ben Roethlisberger), they have never won a playoff game by more than 7 points. Is anyone going to claim that this kind of cheating isn't worth a lone touchdown?

The quick response to the second point is fairly simple: Not everyone is stealing signals and using radios on defense. So when the teams that has won 3 of the last 6 Super Bowls is caught cheating it makes you wonder. Besides, no one cares if the losers are cheating as long as the winners aren't cheating. That's why they put the emphasis on testing the top finishers in most sports (Olympics, cycling, horse racing, etc).

Their other sporadic points are also easy to answer:

If they caught Tampa Bay doing this, would people be suggesting that the Bucs' 2002 championship was tainted?

Ummm... YES! Of course!

if you're videotaping an opponent's signals, common sense dictates this advantage couldn't be realized until the second half of a game, following a halftime in which these signals would be broken down the same way you'd break down a country's radio frequency during a war or something.

Why would anyone wait until halftime to "break down" the signals? Do you think Belichick is doing the "decoding" himself? Also, don't you think that teams reuse codes? NFL players aren't computers. Steal them once and it's very likely that they'll use them again next time you play them. In fact, I think the reason the Pats were doing it this time WAS for their next game. The Jets probably changed signals and they needed to learn the new ones.

If we're going to stick an asterisk next to the '01, '03 and '04 Pats, don't stop there -- it needs to extend to Elway's Broncos (cap cheaters), DeBartolo's Niners (cap cheaters), the '90s Cowboys (drugs and hookers), the '86 Giants (coke), the '85 Bears (Tony Eason was on the other team), the '70s Steelers (steroids) and pretty much everyone who ever won a Super Bowl.

I can't speak specifically about the '70s Steelers and Jim Haslett (who is brought up later admitting to steroid use), but mentioning steroids is a weak excuse because it's an individual thing. You'll always have a few players on every team cheating (Shawne Merriman and Herm Edwards), but stealing signals and using radios on defense (notice they didn't mention that) is an advantage for the entire team.

The Tony Eason comment is obviously a joke but "drugs, hookers and coke" is also a joke. Those things are certainly stupid and illegal but they're not cheating.

Cap cheating is another matter. As Aaron Schatz states, it's probably the best analogy. But Schatz even says it himself: "However, fiddling with the salary cap didn't hand them the championship." To a certain extent I agree, especially considering the Broncos won their Super Bowls by more than 3 points each. But, there is a big difference between fiddling with the salary cap (which every team does to a certain extent) and signal stealing and using radios on defense (which most teams don't seem to be doing).

You see that's where the problem lies, the Pats were cheating, doing things most teams didn't do AND they were winning by close margins. You seem to think it is jealousy and "hatred" but it's nothing more than "testing" the winners because they won. It just aggravates the situation considering they won by so little of a margin. In this case, it feels like if they cheated in the playoffs and Super Bowls it would certainly have "handed them" at least 2 of the 3 championships. Is there anything wrong with looking back to see if there was evidence of cheating at the Super Bowl?

About what should be done, I just don't know at this point. The NFL should investigate and disclose to fans what was found, but I doubt that's going to happen. But there is a hope that this won't just get brushed under the carpet, because Roger Goodell has been cracking down on players, so why should it stop there? I disagree that they should be banned from post season for 2 years for the same reason as stated in the article (You're essentially telling a large group of fans to stop watching for two years), but I also disagree that this is in the past and "there's nothing we can do about it." For the losers of those games maybe there isn't, but for the integrity of the game taking away Super Bowl and Conference title trophies is an option.

Until now, I have, without reservation, considered the Pats a dynasty. Certainly not an intimidating and dominating dynasty, but a dynasty nonetheless. So to use the same words as Bill Simmons when he questioned Game 3 of Spurs-Suns series in 2007 NBA playoffs that was refereed by Tim Donaghy: "Now? I'm not so sure."

Harry Potter Spoiler revisted...

2007-07-17T16:53:00.001-04:00

So I actually started reading the images on that site and noticed a few things that happen 19 years later:

Harry Potter is married to Ginny and has a son named Albus Severus (so Snape is good?), a son named James and a daughter named Lily
Ron, or someone else by that name, is alive and well and married to Hermoine with a daughter named Rose and boy named Hugo
And the final sentence is "The scar had not pained Harry for nineteen years. All was well."

Dear Harry Potter Fans... don't read the following:

2007-07-17T16:45:00.001-04:00

Sorry, I just can't help myself.

~~Ron dies~~.
Lupin dies.
~~Percy dies~~.
Voldemort dies.
Snape dies.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows has been spoiled... believably this time. The above link has enough photo evidence to convince me.

Update: I guess I wrote too soon about the spoiler.

Terrible Editing by the Post and a Another Panda?

2007-06-07T23:32:00.000-04:00

So Mei Xiang might be pregnant again which if you live in the DC area you probably already know because this town LOVES it's pandas. So this means that once again DC will go into possible panda mode (a precursor to the frightening new born panda mode) but really all that doesn't matter because I've got something else to complain about that happens way too often:

There is a pretty big editing mistake in this article. Go ahead and read it and the come back... you back? Good, now tell me who "Gibbons" is. You'll see that four times "Gibbons said" something, but at no point did they bother to explain WHO Gibbons is. I'll go ahead and assume they're talking about the zoo's spokesman John Gibbons, but come on you might want to mention his full name at some point! Editors seem to love to cut content but they don't bother to check to see if they're removing the first instance of a name? Just my beef because this happen really often... we'll see how long it takes to fix.

Update: It was finally fixed for the "print" version.

Life is like a hurricane, here in Duckburg!

2007-06-01T15:39:00.000-04:00

If you're anywhere near my age you probably grew up watching and loving DuckTales. Well, here's a bit of nostalgia mixed in with some wierdness. Just in case you want to hear people sing "Woo Woo" in different languages, here are some DuckTales intros from around the world:

You just gotta love YouTube!

a long time coming

2007-02-27T21:54:00.000-05:00

I know, I've been lax here for awhile but its for a good reason: Cindy and I are buying a house. We're closing this Thursday, so after that you can expect to see even less of me. Well probably not but we'll be working at the house a lot, in the mean time. Anyways, here are my quick thoughts of the events of the last few weeks:

The PGA Tour is bringing a real tournament to DC and not only is it going to be bigger and better than the Kemper Open/Booz Allen Classic (which was always screwed by being so close to the US Open), it will be a charity event for The Tiger Woods Foundation... which means Tiger will probably be here for many a July 4th weekends to come. Sweet.
The Cowboys passed on Norv Turner (not good Skins fans), and decided to go with Wade Phillips (good for Skins fans) as their head coach. Phillips is marginally better than Turner so it's basically a wash for Skins fans.
I entirely agreed with the San Diego Chargers letting go Marty Schottenheimer. Except that he was fired too late and for an entirely different reason (because of conflicts with the Charger's GM, A.J. Smith) then I thought he should have been fired for: he was not going to get the Chargers farther than where they got this year, and that should be unacceptable for the Chargers and their fans.
The second season of Top Chef ended with the entirely unlikeable Marcel losing to the "I still don't know how to feel about him"-guy, Ilan. Needless to say this season sucked. You really couldn't get behind anyone because they either had a terrible personality (who wants to root for a jerk) or they just weren't that good a chef (why root for someone you know is going to be gone in a week). And to make matters worse, Top Design sucks as well.
Finally, yes I've entirely spaced on American Idol. I can only name a few contestants off the top of my head: AJ, Chris (the Jack Osbourne look alike), Doolittle, Sundance and Antonella. Those are the only ones i remember. I'll probably start caring again when we get to the top 12.

Quick, All-over-the-place Thoughts

2007-01-31T23:11:00.001-05:00

I watched Idol as I was making dinner tonight (yes, I know it was late) so I have no comments but to say: It seemed to be one of those episodes rife with deluded Idol wannabes.
Last night, the Caps closed the gap, to 3-2, but they could not get a win. The game was a microcosm of their season: they got off to a rough start and fell behind early. They improved, even showing signs of brilliance, but ultimately were unable to pull out a win/playoff appearance.
Yesterday the Recording Academy announced that the Police will open this year's Grammy Awards. Just one step closer to an all out reunion tour. I am seriously giddy.
Speaking of giddy, as a Redskins fan, I can't tell you how excited I am that Norv Turner is the front runner for the head coaching job in Dallas. I almost didn't want to post this so I wouldn't jinx it OR in extremely unlikely event that Jerry Jones runs across this blog and thinks "Hmmmm, this random guy is right. Norval Eugene Turner is not the man for the Cowboys." Don't get me wrong, Norv is a great guy but he's an awful head coach. Exactly who or what will keep Terrell Owens from running roughshod all over him. I just don't see Turner pulling a "Bill Belichick" by making a few good decisions and getting lucky for about 5 years. But don't worry Cowboy fans, it's possible, extremely unlikely, but possible.

American Idol Season 6: Birmingham Auditions (with a Caps bonus)

2007-01-30T21:05:00.000-05:00

Tough night tonight because I'll be switching between the Caps game and American Idol.

I'm a bit late turning on the Caps and they're already down 1-0. Minutes later Ottawa gets a lucky deflection and it's 2-0. I switch to Idol and its not back. Going back to the Caps... and, CRAP! Ottawa gets a power play. Looks like it's going to be one of those nights...

8:14 pm
American Idol is in Birmingham, Alabama. First we have Tatiana McConnico and she great... great personality, not cocky, and great voice. You just couldn't ask for better. Holy crap shes good, and she's 17! Obviously she's through, and I'm betting she makes it to the final 24, at least.

Diana Walker is up next and she is a toss up... really could go either way, but her speaking voice is slightly promising. She's not horrible, but definitely not good. She leaves golden ticketless, but certainly she won't be the worst they'll show.

8:21 pm
Caps update: The first intermission is on and the Caps seem to have survived the power play. So we switch to Fox: Idol comes back with Bernard Williams singing Michael Jackson's "Rock With You" He's good, but I'm sure they've heard a bunch of voices like that. Surprisingly Simon says yes and PAULA, of all people, says no. I agree with Paula (wow I can't believe I typed that), but Bernard is through.

Margaret "Big Bird" Fowler, is up next and she seems obsessed with showing her gut... repeatedly. riiight. Of course, her voice is, well, not good to put it nicely. But I do like that her name is Fowler and she's dressed like a giant bird. You gotta love this show!

8:27 pm
The Caps intermission, shows that the first goal was also on a deflection. Sheesh! I can't wait til the Cap's defensemen get a little more experience.

8:30 pm
Back to AI and we see a bunch of people who make it to hollywood, but apparently they're not interesting enough to introduce. Finally we get to this year's version of Kellie Pickler, Jamie Lynn Ward. She's even from North Carolina! And she has a horrific story about her father shooting his cheating wife and then shooting himself... wow that was kind of a downer. Anyways, her voice is okay. But I'm betting she's getting through because of the Pickler aspect. She get's through easily.

Next we have Chris Sligh, who looks much more like Jack Osbourne than Jack Black or Christina Aguilera. He pulls a funny line when asked why he's auditioning saying "I want to make David Hasselhoff cry." Good one Sligh! His voice is good but he would be entirely generic if it weren't for his interesting look. I'm pulling for him though, mainly because he's funny. He's got a myspace page and a blog, if you're interested.

8:41 pm
Day two starts with Cousin It look-a-like, Victoria Watson. She dresses uniquely... pretty much to match her 6 foot long hair. She's not bad, but she's not better than "alright". Understandably she doesn't make it to Hollywood, but at least her family is there to console her.

Lakia Hill is next and her singing voice matches her squeaky speaking voice. She's all over the place, even pulling a "What the hell was that?" from Simon. Her audition leads into another barrage of rejections, all with people seeming to take it pretty well.

8:48 pm
Caps are 4-on-4 and Ovechkin SCORES! It's 2-1. Alex tried a pass but it was blocked, he get the puck back and wrists it high. Nice goal! Of course, minutes later the refs feel that the Senators need a power play...

8:50 pm
Back to Idol, and we're introduced to something called "Team Nicole." Nicole Gatzman seems to have a good speaking voice... and her voice is somewhat promising. But they don't invite her back to Hollywood, mainly because her voice is just not developed enough.

Next we have a contestant who has been in teasers all night, Brandy Patterson. She's a breakdown just waiting to happen as she just butchers Madonna's "Like a Virgin." She even takes off her sweater half way through. She's stunned that Simon says "Everything about that was wrong." She says "maybe it was the floor or something." Simon gets her to sing on the carpet... you know... Just in case. She thinks she sang better on the carpet, but Simon puts it well when he says, "That'll be a Never."

Best part, though? When she calls Simon out for trying the wrong door (something Simon has been doing to contestants)... pretty funny actually.

This episode is coming to a close and we fade out to "Sweet Home Alabama." Hollywood is tomorrow... but for auditions. The crazy auditions seem promising, so I'll be sure to be watching tomorrow night.

BTW, the Caps must have given up the goal on the power play because as I got back it was 3-1. They get seriously unlucky as they fail to capitalize on a 5-on-3 (with a bunch of good chances). Of course that's a bad sign since it seems the Caps defense won't be able to keep up. The Second Intermission arrives and the Caps are still down 3-1.

Ranking the Super Bowl Teams: or how the 1991 Redskins get no love

2007-01-25T23:29:00.008-05:00

There is a prevalent gimmick used today by sports writers, sports TV shows, sports website, and by yours truly: Ranking. Ranking the NFL teams, the best NBA dunks of all time, the best outfield catch in a World Series, the best defenseman of the 80s who never played in a Stanley Cup finals... you get the idea.

Rankings will always have a good amount (some more than others) of personal opinion in them, but I feel it's important to establish some empirical and measurable aspect to them. For instance, in my state quarter review, I established that in every instance "cutting off" the bottom of the design is bad ( i.e. negative points). Of course there are levels of bad, but you get the point.

I bring this up because ESPN has made a ranking of the Super Bowl teams (winners and losers) from Super Bowl I to Super Bowl XL, and boy do they lack this measurable aspect. Oh, they claim they had a methodology but I don't think they really used it. They seemed to throw the "team" aspect of the ranking out, in favor of big names (I'll elaborate on this later... just look for the names Lawrence Taylor and Mark Rypien.)

Anyways, here is my biggest gripe about this ranking: The 1991 Washington Redskins are ranked #10. Granted, they admit there is reason for Redskins fans to be upset AND they admit the 91 Skins might the best team of all time... but I'm still complaining! First thing, they already called the 91 Skins the 4th best team of all time. Second, they give a pair of terrible excuses:

Excuse #1: they say their running game wasn't all that good because their average yards per carry was ranked 18th (never mind that #9 Patriots were also ranked 18th in yards per carry). That reasoning is a load of crap considering the #1 (89 49ers) and #4 (92 Cowboys) teams (both teams with good running offenses) were both ranked 9th in yards per carry (The 49ers were tied with seven teams, making them tied for spots number 9 through 16). A main reason for a low yards per carry is that when you're a great team you tend to build a big lead and then you run the ball A LOT in the second half to run out the time. Obviously the opposing team is aware of this and they play to stop the run. Besides, comparing a stat like that is useless because what does it matter that your yards per carry are high if you're going to lose the game. (As an example: the team with the highest yards per carry that year was the San Diego Chargers, who went 4-12!)

Excuse #2: I'll just quote the ridiculous excuse: "And while Mark Rypien didn't have exactly a fluke season, he certainly had a career year. And we're having a little trouble getting past ranking a team with Rypien higher than 10th." The problem with that is that, save for 1989 and maybe 1992, it was a fluke season. Rypien became Joe Montana for 2 or 3 years. In fact, he had a better season than Montana's #1 ranked season, Jim McMahon's #2, Terry Bradshaw's #3, Troy Aikman's #4, Bob Griese's #7, and Phil Simms' #8. Remember, according to their methodology you line up the teams and players as they were that year... so pretty please, with sugar on top, stop being enamored with a name (or lack of a "name") and realize that for 2 seasons Mark Rypien was, if not the best quarterback in the league, among the Top 3 quarterbacks in the league. Aside from all that, one man should not make or break a team's ranking.

Now allow me to explain why they should rank higher than most of the teams ranked above them. First, we'll go ahead and give the 78 Steelers and the 72 Dolphins a pass since I never saw them play.

Second, we'll just start with the "easy pickins", that is to say the teams they were obviously better than:

9 - 2004 Patriots. Does this even need to be discussed? The Patriots barely beat the Eagles in the Super Bowl, beat the horribly overrated Steelers in the AFC championship, and beat a team who they absolutely OWNED until this year. Thats not exactly as impressive as they make it out to be. ESPN also dropped this nugget: "they were 9-1 against .500 or better teams." Excuse me, but didn't they go 14-2? Doesn't that mean they lost a game to a team with a losing record?! Exactly how is that impressive? A good team should NEVER lose to a bad team because thats the definition of being good! And that one loss to a .500 or better team? It was by two touchdowns! I have to move on because this is just too easy and it could take all day.

8 - 1986 Giants. This choice is equally baffling. And ESPN's explanation? "Lawrence Taylor." No doubt a great player, but ESPECIALLY in the NFL, a player does not make a team. LT didn't even "make" the defense, but even if you want to claim that he did, how do you explain ranking them higher when the Giants defense allowed 12 more points over the season (against an easier schedule!) than the 91 Skins. This team also lost to a team with a losing record. And do we even need to point out how crummy the offense (ranked 8th in points and 10th in yards during the season) was? Let's just leave it at this: the Giants scored 371 points all season, which puts them last in, not only the Top 10 but, the Top 20, behind even the 72 Dolphins... who played in only 14 games! (The Giants played 16)

Next are the "not as easy, but definitely there for the pickins" teams. In other words, teams that they were better than but you could convince me that the gap wasn't as big:

6 - 1996 Packers. This conversation should begin and end here: with practically identical strengths of schedule (.504 vs .508) the Skins went 14-2 and the Packers went 13-3. If thats not enough how bout these apples: In those 2 loses the Redskins lost by a total of 5 points, the Packers 3 loses were by a total of 15 points... an AVERAGE of 5 points a loss. The Skins scored more points than the Packers (485 vs. 456) AND had a better point differential (+261 vs. +256). In the playoffs the Redskins scored more points (102 vs.100) AND allowed less points (41 vs. 48) so, obviously, they had a better point differential (+61 vs. +52) there. Finally the Redskins win the coaches battle (Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Holmgren) hands down, and barely lose the QB battle (91 Rypien vs. 96 Brett Favre) mostly because Favre threw for so many TDs because their running game wasn't all that good.

5 - 1984 49ers. I think this team is ranked almost right, except that I would have ranked them above the 92 Cowboys (we'll talk about them soon enough). First we'll address the only thing that I think could warrant ranking the 84 49ers higher than the 91 Skins: their records, the Niners went 15-1 and the Skins went 14-2. But consider the following: First, the Skins strength of schedule was harder than the 49ers (.504 vs .457). To go along with that, the Skins played in the strong NFC East (where in 1991, three teams had double digit wins and only the Phoenix Cardinals had a losing record) and the 49ers play in the perennially weak NFC West (where half the teams had losing records in 1984). Second, both of the the Skin's losses were close games to division rivals AND the last loss was in the final game of the season (when you're apt to rest your best players to not risk injury for the playoffs), on the road against a division rival who went 10-6 and barely missed the playoffs. Oh and it was on a last second field goal! Had the Redskins played an easier schedule (or just in the NFC West) I'm certain they would have gone at least 14-2. So if you null out the difference in records, you have to measure them statistically, and these teams are either equal or the Skins are better there.

4 - 1992 Cowboys. The discrepancy between this team being ranked #4 and the 91 Skins being ranked #10 is probably the biggest travesty in this ranking. Why? Because, for all intents and purposes, these teams played each other! Not surprisingly these teams split their series in 1991 and then again in 1992. So what do you do when teams are equal head-to-head? You go to a tiebreaker, which means comparing statistics and comparing how the teams did against other teams. In both cases the 91 Skins come out on top. The Skins had a better record (14-2 vs. 13-3), and a much harder strength of schedule (.504 vs. .426). The Redskins also DIDN'T lose to a 6-10 team at home in the middle of season, like the Cowboys did. Statistically they were pretty even on defense, the Skins allowed more yards but the Cowboys allowed more points. On offense, though, the Skins were without a doubt better. The Skins scored more points (485 vs. 409), had more yards (5820 vs. 5718), scored more TD (rushing, 21 vs 20; AND passing, 30 vs. 23), and threw less interceptions (11 vs. 15). Sure the Cowboys had the "Triplets", but obviously the Redskins "no name Quadruplets" (of Rypien, Earnest Byner, Art Monk and Gary Clark) were better (sure the "Triplets" sustained their greatness, but, once again, this isn't a comparison of who was better over their careers but at that particular point in time).

The final two teams, the 1989 49ers and the 1985 Bears, are tough to compare against the 91 Skins and so it's hard to conclusively determine who was better.

2 - 1985 Bears. It is always tough to compare any team to the 85 Bears because this team has to be the most hyped team in Super Bowl history. Not that they didn't deserve it but every other team in the top 10 deserved that kind of hype and (except for the 72 Dolphins and 78 Steelers) I'm sure none of them received it. So any team being compared to the 85 Bears starts at a disadvantage (As proof: lots of people seem to think that team had the best defense ever, ignoring that the 72 Dolphins, 78 Steelers, and 00 Ravens, all of whom had better defenses, by points allowed). When you boil it all down these guys were mirror images: the Redskins almost had the best offense ever and the Bears almost had the best defense ever. On the other sides, the Redskins had an excellent defense and the Bears had an excellent offense. To an unbiased observer who doesn't fall for the hype, it's truly a tough call.

1 - 1989 49ers. The 89 49ers and the 91 Redskins were only 2 years apart, so you might want to consider the head-to-head matchup between the two teams in 1990. The 49ers beat the Redskins in the playoffs in San Francisco that year, but that just isn't a good comparison. The 49ers were still at their peak (just barely losing to the Giants the following week in the NFC championship) but the Skins were definitely not the 91 Skins, with Rypien hurt for half the season and Gerald Riggs splitting time with Earnest Byner. Otherwise, these teams are were very similar, with the same record, 14-2, (although the Skins had a tougher schedule) and the same margin of losing: both by a total of 5 points. Statistically, you really can't beat the 49ers offense (although the 91 Skins come close), but the 91 Skins had a better defense. So pretty much the Redskins had the more "well rounded" team.

So that's my argument... even if you put the 72 Dolphins, 78 Steelers, 85 Bears and the 89 49ers ahead of the 91 Skins, that puts them at least in the Top 5. And ever since then there hasn't been a team as good as the 1991 Redskins... and with free agency and the salary cap, there just may never be such a great team.

American Idol Season 6: Memphis

2007-01-23T21:10:00.000-05:00

8:00 pm
Here we are in Memphis and they start by making it look like the city was empty, implying everyone was auditioning for Idol. Anyhoo, the lame joke finally done, we start with Frank Byers Jr., a cheerleader from Southern Adventist University. He gets a montage, making me think he's in since he doesn't look crazy. And the kicker? His nickname is "Frank & Beans"... yeah he'll need to change that. Except that he's not that good... and he's not making it, getting 3 nos. But the band and cheerleaders don't seem to care about that and start playing and chanting "Franks & Beans."

8:09 pm
Timika Simms from Chicago is next and since we've already been treated to a bit of her audition, we know this is doomed from the start. She's auditioning with her backpack on, which just can't bee good. The best part of her audition is her conversation with Simon where she tries to say she could be like "Amaya" and Simon keeps asking "A Mayor?". Her voice is nasally and she just keeps at it after repeated rejections from all three judges.

Chris Rivera, with some "Awesome 80s" style jeans, continues the barage of umm... lets say interesting singers. Finally, we have Alexis Partee with her bracelets sounding like a tambourine as she sings... Randy put its well when he says "it was a little strange for me." Do I even need to tell you that none of these people make it?

Next, we have a fella with a good speaking voice named "Sundance." His real name is, Jason Head, and he is humble (saying something to the effect of, "they'll hate me and I'll be on TV leaving the show") enough so I'm pulling for him. And he starts singing with a great voice. He's definitely this seasons Scott Savol: a big guy with a voice, except that he's even better than Savol. And of course good ole Sundance Head is through.

8:20 pm
Coming back from the break we have Wandera Hitchye, with an interesting hairdo and a good voice. The judges say she's too generic... and give her three nos. She breaks down as she leaves, and this leads into a barrage of rejections and cruel comments. We finish with Travis (missed the last name) doing a crazy breathy rap/singing thing. Of course, he's headed home though.

Danielle McCulloch is up and she has a good voice, like Wandera. Unlike Wandera, though, she's got some personality while singing so she'll probably make it through. Randy says no, Paula says yes and finally Simon puts her through. I think Randy is right in that she'll be gone pretty quick.

8:30 pm
Day two in Memphis starts with Christopher "Topher" McCain, a big fan of Paula Abdul. A sad story, since his cheating wife left him and he thinks when he becomes the next American Idol she'll want him back... but he says he's not taking her back. He gets a little vengeful when Simon asks her about his wife, calling her something that got bleeped out (probably "b*tch"). His voice isn't terrible, but certainly not good. And he's fairly quickly rejected.

Janita Burks is next, and she almost falls out of her top... like Topher she isn't terrible but, once again, not good. Until she tries to sing again... her second shot was terrible.

Sean Michel, a Fidel Castro look-a-like who already has 2300+ friends on myspace, is next and he's got a pretty good voice. I'm sure a bunch of guys have as a good a voice but he'll probably make it because of the look. He gets three yeses and Randy gives him his first "You can blow!"

8:43 pm
Melinda Doolittle, a professional background singer with a good speaking voice, is next. But she picks Stevie Wonder's "For Once In My Life" (breaking my first rule of American Idol) and she does pretty darn well but she doesn't do anything special/different with it. She definitely deserves to go to Hollywood though, and... she through with a "One Million Percent Yes!" from Simon.

Robert Lee Holmes comes up and says he sounds just like Elvis. Hmmm, we'll see... he's going to sing "Burning Love." Entirely expectedly, he sounds nothing like Elvis and his rejection leads into a montage of people singing "Burning Love" with a bunch of people who have already been rejected.

8:54 pm
We enter the last break (Idol gets truncated by the State of the Union address tonight) with Philip Stacy, a new father. He starts off a little sharp but he cleans it up. He's got a Taylor Hicks quality to him... and Simon points out that he starts off his songs a little rough. 22 contestants make it out of Memphis and tomorrow we'll be in New York tomorrow, so you know you can expect a bunch of weird stuff.

George comes to Washington

2007-01-22T22:42:00.000-05:00

I had always thought that the best radio station would be one that did not stick to a set genres (just rock, just R&B, or just pop) and formula (playing the billboard top 50 in those genres). I thought if I ever owned a radio station it would play everything... well maybe not classical or "hard" country (those genres just belong by themselves).

So I was excited a while back when I first heard about "Jack FM." Sure, it wasn't exactly my ideal since they stuck to the popular Billboard 100 songs of the past 40 years, but it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, though, the only Jack FM radio station around here was 102.7 WQSR out of Baltimore, which didn't reach DC all that well. But finally today, DC has it's own Jack FM... sorta: The local classical station has switched to a Jack FM-like station called George 104.1.

It happened at 3 pm today... and in case you were wondering the last song played by 104.1 WGMS was Bach's "In Tears of Grief from the St. Matthew Passion." And the first song played by 104.1 WXGG? Fittingly, it was Sheryl Crow's "A Change Would Do You Good." If you were a fan of the classical WGMS... do not fret: Bonneville donated WGMS's 15k disc library to WETA, down at 90.9. And then at 8 pm WETA switched to classical. And their first song? A triumphant "Concerto for Two Trumpets" by Vivaldi.

And why the name George? Well according to the Jack FM article at Wikipedia, most Jack FMs are CBS radio stations (George is Bonneville) and the name Jack FM is licensed from Big Sticks Broadcasting. So, like BEN-FM in Philly, George in DC has to have a slightly different slogan ("70s, 80s and whatever we want") then Jack's "playing what we want."

So I'm listening... and the best part of it all? It will be commercial free for the first 104 days, which means no ads until May 7 of this year. As Borat would say, "nice!"

NFL is lacking and Super Bowl XLI

2007-01-21T12:50:00.000-05:00

ESPN has already called it the Colts O vs. the Bears D. To me that means two big things: There is no need to watch (unless you enjoy bad football) while the Bears are on offense and the quality of play is sadly lacking in today's NFL. Allow me to explain:

Back when I was young there were imposing, dominating giants in the NFL. It was a time when the NFC had a span of 13 straight Super Bowl wins of which the NFC East won 7 and the San Francisco 49ers won 4. It was a time of memorably great teams and coaches such as Bill Walsh, Joe Gibbs and Bill Parcells. It was a time of good offenses with great defenses or good defenses with good offenses.

And it wasn't like the AFC didn't have it's own giants, they were just slightly lacking (the Denver Broncos) or they got unlucky (the Buffalo Bills and "wide right"). When the AFC finally turned it around, it was one of those giants, the Broncos, that broke through.

Then in 2000 something happened. The St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl with a imposing offense but a defense which was not horrible but certainly lacking. The following year the Ravens were NFL Champs with a great defense but with a horrendous offense. All of a sudden, it became alright to have glaring weaknesses because everyone else had them too. So, as long as you had a good offense or defense, you just needed some luck and that would be enough for a Super Bowl win. Just remember, the Titans were a yard and a few seconds short of beating the Rams, and the Giants/Ravens game was close until the 3 back-to-back touchdowns in the third period.

They called it parity and it was in full effect in 2002 when the all-around mediocre New England Patriots beat the one-sided Rams on a last second field goal. In case you needed hard proof of the parity (or the "Putrid Mediocrity" or "Putrid Parity", as I've heard it called) the "Super Bowl MVP", Tom Brady, threw for all of 145 yards. I thought Adam Vinatieri deserved the MVP, but that would have been an all out admission of mediocrity. And the mediocrity has just lingered and even strengthened in the past few years:

2003, BOTH Super Bowl teams from 2002 (Patriots and Rams) failed to make the playoffs and the "defense only" Tampa Bay Buccaneers (with their 24th ranked offense) beat the "offense only" Raiders in the Super Bowl.
2004, Once again both Super Bowl teams from the previous year failed to make the playoffs (the Bucs went 7-9 and the Raiders were 4-12), and the Patriots won their second Super Bowl on another last second field goal, this time against the Carolina Panthers.
2005, The Panthers (last year's Super Bowl runner-ups) fail to make the playoffs. In the Super Bowl, the Patriots barely beat the Eagles who, like all of the Patriot's Super Bowl opponents, fail to make the following year's playoffs (with a 6-10 record).
2006, We reach an undeniable apex of parity when the generally mediocre Pittsburgh Steelers beat the slightly better (but not on that night) Seattle Seahawks. At least the Seahawks made the playoffs the following year, but not surprisingly the Steelers didn't.

Now what does that tell you about the quality of the league? It stinks, and we get to watch playoffs and Super Bowls with mediocre teams and sub par quality of play. We end up with games in which luck is too big a factor (e.g. a botched hold, Cowboys vs. Seahawks, 3 weeks ago; a fumbled fumble recover, Pats vs. Chargers last week; two TDs by linesmen on fumble recoveries, Pats vs. Colts today;). Frankly, I'm tired of thinking "Wow, that was lucky!"

So with that I'll go ahead and give my early pick for the Super Bowl. I'm going against my instincts and going with the recent trend when a good/great defense (i.e. Ravens, Bucs) plays against a good offense... I'm picking the good defense, the Bears.

That is of course unless the Colts get lucky!

2005 State Quarters: California to West Virginia

2007-01-20T01:47:00.000-05:00

I took a break off reviewing the state quarter designs when the football season started, but I'm back baby! So without further ado, here are the 2005 quarters: California through West Virginia:

California - One of my biggest gripes with a quarter's design is when they try to put too much on it. That idea, in itself, isn't bad but what usually ends up happening is pretty ugly. The quarter ends up having about 4 different things/themes that have very little to do with each other, so it looks incoherent (I'm looking at you South Carolina, Louisiana, and Arkansas... and don't think you're off the hook Wisconsin, Florida and Illinois). At least California, like Tennessee and Ohio, tried to make an overall theme about it. Tennessee had the best idea (three instruments for the three sections of the state), but in practice none of them finished the design cleanly. California tried to go the outdoors/nature route including John Muir, a California Condor, and Half Dome (and thus Yosemite Valley). But the quarter looks too cluttered with the condor flying right at Muir's head and Muir looking bigger than everything else just looks wierd (remember aerial perspective doesn't work too well on a coin). But probably the biggest issue I have with the quarter is them feeling the need to explain with text that this is "John Muir" and "Yosemite Valley." In fact, if you take the condor and "John Muir" out, this quarter could EASILY be a B and might even contend for an A. As it is, this is one of those middle grade coins smack dab between a B and a... Grade: C

Minnesota - I don't acutely remember holding a Minnesota quarter. I'm pretty certain I have, I just don't remember it all that well and that's not a good thing... most of the time. It's, in general, an unspectacular coin. The duck and the fisherman don't really have much to do with the state but it does bring together the one thing the state has a lot of.... Lakes. So it makes sense that they went with a lake. However they decided to throw a "top grade killer" wrench in the works by putting the state outline and the words "Land of 10,000 Lakes" on the quarter. Really those two things are the quarters only flaw... the state's outline is not very interesting (the southwest corner, which is a real corner, definitely doesn't help) and the text is off center (too high) and almost unreadable. Sorry, Minnesota, you just missed. Grade: B

Oregon - I like Oregon, as a state. Actually, I like it a lot. And I like it because it's, for lack of a better word, subtle. Oregon is like the forgotten/middle child of the Pacific Northwest (With California, technically Northern California, being the successful older mature brother and Washington and British Columbia being the younger, hipper brothers). But Oregon pulls off the "lesser known", but therefore "cooler", middle child/state role well. And they pulled off their quarter well. A great image of Crater Lake (along with Wizard Island) and the just the words "Crater Lake" added. Perfect really. Grade: A

Kansas - Kansas, like a few other states struggled because it doesn't have a single, well-identified feature to put on it's quarter. So it went fairly generic and simply put a buffalo (or bison if you will) and the Kansas state flower, the sunflower, on the quarter. And thats it. No text (aside from the usual State Name, Year it became a state, Year the quarter was released and "E Pluribus Unum"), no nothing besides a buffalo, 3 flowers and some grass. And I like that. However I just can't get over how unoriginal it is. It helps that the Kansas state song is "Home on the Range" (which has the line "Where the buffalo roam") but even their alternate designs were pretty boring. So, it might be a product of their lack of features, or maybe I'm just being harsh, but they definitely could have tried harder. Grade: C

West Virginia - West Virginia's quarter is almost perfect. If you've read my other review you can probably guess why I say "almost." Yup, it's because of the cut-off bottom. At least in this case it doesn't ruin the quarter, it just makes it slightly "uncomfortable." The other negative mark is that the text ("New River Gorge") is hard to read where it is placed. A shame really, because it could have contended for the best quarter... but do not fret, Mountaineer State. You still get a high mark. Grade:A

AI Season 6: Seattle Tryouts

2007-01-17T23:07:00.000-05:00

So I'm watching Idol and I just can't help myself. At least for posterity, and in case they are bored out of their minds, I'm continuing with the comments:

8:30-ish
First thing that stands out is that there is no guest judge. Jewel added minimally to yesterdays show, so I guess we're not missing much. The first contestant I see is Blake Lewis who does a great beat box, but he decides to do Seal's "Crazy." Not bad actually, but not outstanding. Good enough to get to Hollywood out of the dearth of "American Idol"-worthy talent that is Seattle.

8:47 pm
We come back and Ryan Seacrest steals my "'fill-in-the-blank-with-a-bad-thing' that is Seattle" line. We get a short montage of people pretty much yelling and doing some good impersonations of William Hung, with the likes of Michael Bustamante and David Mills.

That however leads to a brother and sister who wisely forego a "Donny and Marie" gimmick by auditioning separately.

First is the sister, Shyamali Malakar, who has a nice soft voice. And with two yeses (Simon doesn't actually say no, though) she's through to Hollywood. I think she's got a lot of potential because she's humble and cute... but she'll need to stand out to get far.

Next is her brother, Sanjaya Malakar. And he starts off by breaking my #1 American Idol rule: Never sing Stevie Wonder. Much like his sister though, he has a good voice, but he doesn't stand out because it's pretty darn hard to stand out singing Stevie Wonder. Otherwise, he's a lot like his sister.

9:00 pm
Back from the break: we start off with a software engineer, Nicholas Zitzmann, from Midvale, Utah who interestingly points out that Midvale is not only near the Salt Lake area but actually IN the Salt Lake area. He also likes to talk with his eyes closed, I think you can see where this is going. As Nick sings "Unchained Melody" he sways back and forth while staring at a spot about 10 feet above the judges. He's predictably awful, but they let him thoroughly butcher Simon's favorite song. Eventually, Simon stops him and says "What the bloody hell was that?" Rather depressingly Nick takes him seriously by answering, "It was me." Oh boy. Finally, following his exit interview which involved a strange interaction with Ryan Seacrest, in which they kinda silently stare at each other, Nick drops the great Forrest Gump line, "That's all I have to say about that."

9:07 pm
Rodolfo "Rudy" Cardenas finishes off day one by singing a tough, tough songs: "Open Arms" by Journey. He's okay, but he probably would have done better by picking an easier song to sing. Simon immediately says no, but Rudy is saved by yeses from Paula and Randy.

9:15 pm
Day 2 starts with news that Simon pummeled the Seattle contestants in the newspaper. And we get a few examples of why Simon said what he said: Up first is Kenneth Briggs who says he's like Justin Timberlake and Lance (Cindy tells me they're speaking of Lance from N'Snyc)... and he's not entirely tone deaf like some previous contestants but he's certainly terrible. At least he's got the boy band dancing straight. Simon stops him and drops the "massive eyes" comment which was in yesterdays teaser/preview. He continues by elaborating on the comment by calling him a bush baby... yesterday, I though he was talking about a tarsier.

Jonathan Jayne follows Kenneth and we get a glimpse of where this is headed when we hear his speaking voice. He sings "God Bless America" and although he doesn't miss every note, he's all over the place. They both leave without a much of a tantrum. Oh well we've got at least another half hour.

9:28 pm
Eric Chapman, a hairdresser who kinda sorta looks like Taylor Hicks, is up next and he entirely over does the Taylor Hicks/Soul Patrol thing. But unlike Taylor he's not AI material and he sings with an awful pained look on his face. Of course, he gets a chorus of nos and ooooh we get our first view of security as Eric is ushered out of the room after he heads for Simon with some hair gel... good times!

9:33 pm
At 6' 3", Anna Kearns, is up next singing the overdone classic "Respect." Of course, she doesn't really add anything to the song, but shes isn't not too bad. They might keep her because she can sing (although not outstandingly) and undoubtedly because of her height... and she's through without Simon's approval (but also without a "no" from our favorite judge).

9:42 pm
16 year old Jordin Sparks brings out of the break and she's pretty darn good. She's also guaranteed to get through because of the great voice and not just a combination of age and an okay voice (like a few other 16 year olds). Randy and Paula love her. Simon isn't as convinced, but she is off to Hollywood. Jordan even drops the fact that she is the daughter of former NFL cornerback Phillippi Duane Starks, making her this season's Nikko Smith. (Added after the show: while checking facts and finding links I found out that Jordin is already pretty well known. She even already has her own entry at Wikipedia)

9:46 pm
And finally we get the montage where they obviously asked everyone who auditioned to sing a particular song, even if they don't know it. This time it's the Pussycat Dolls' "Don't Cha." The perfect song for such a gimmick, but it's getting old, isn't it? They leave us by setting up a guy they dub "Big Red" for the last break.

9:53 pm
The last break is here and they introduce a red-headed fella wearing a bright red guayabera with red flames named Steven Thoen. In a falsetto/head voice he sings "Bohemian Rhapsody" while Paula and Randy just crack up. He eventually stops and says he sings country as well. Hmmm okay. As he leaves he seems very pissed and they play a Exorcist/Tubular Bells-like song... I wonder why?

And with that we're done! Next week: Memphis! The teaser/preview gives some hope for Elvis' town, including a short clip of a Scott Savol-like big man with a voice.

Which do you like better?

2007-01-17T20:28:00.000-05:00

Gilligan was sick (a case of the runny butt) this evening, so I walked him and I missed the start of the Wednesday American Idol. I'm watching it now and but I won't be commenting, although it looks like Seattle is going to be a good one. Instead, I'll give you a cool little website: LikeBetter.com.

I don't remember if I have mentioned it before, but it's pretty cool and it's funded by Y Combinator (a pretty cool/slick venture capital firm). Actually, I probably have mentioned it before but I'm too lazy to go back and check... besides they've improved the site since I last visited (which was probably around October or November of last year).

American Idol: Season 6 Part 2

2007-01-16T22:09:00.000-05:00

Hour 2.

So far we have only had a couple of good voices, a bunch of terrible ones, and a single crazy breakdown.

And now we have some lady doing a weird Lion from the Wizard of Oz impersonation. She doesn't break down but it's still a memorable performance with a lot of growling.

Next is Stephen Horst (a vocal coach), who looks like a member of the Backstreet Boys. And he's all over the place doing Aerosmith's "I don't want to miss a thing." Paula cracks up at Randy breaking this terrible performance down... and Simon eggs Stephen on. I see a breakdown coming, but there is nothing from our good vocal coach.

Michelle Steingas is up and this is the first contestant I'm betting will make it to the final 24. She's got the look, the personality, and a good enough voice. She reminds me of a not so airheaded Kellie Pickler. Except that she's quitting her job... I hope it's at Burger King and not one of Fortune's 100 best places to work.

Our next contestant, Dayna Dooley, got flown out by her boss to Minneapolis. And boy, did he waste his money. She can belt it out, but trust me, that's not a good thing. Finally, she's headed home without a yellow sheet. Even Jewel couldn't say yes.

Next we've got Matt Sato doing a half crooning, half rocking version of "California Dreamin'." He reminds me of that 16 year old crooner from last season (Will Makar, I had to look him up). I don't like Matt, but everyone gives him a "yes." It sounds like his age, 16, helped.

Rachel Jenkins brings us back from the break, and immediately I'm thinking she's in because of the feel good story they played. Her face reminds me of chubbier Kelly Clarkson. She's not bad but she was a bit off key. And Rachel is in.

Sarah Krueger comes out and her answers seem way too prim and planned. She starts singing and does very well... picking a perfect song for her voice ("Somewhere over the Rainbow"), even adding a few nice interesting changes. Simon puts it well when he said "You have a lot of control over your voice." She definitely has a good chance of making it into the top 24, if not the top 12.

Next we've got a pair of guaranteed breakdowns: Jason Anderson (a singing juggler) and Brenna Kyner (the American Idol superfan).

Jason goes first singing and juggling a devil stick while sporting a creepy stare. As he is being rejected he drops this nugget: "I also dance." After doing a weird tap dance thing, he comes out cursing up a storm like a 3 year old with an adult vocabulary throwing a tantrum. Obviously his mother encourages his delusion by telling him, "You're going to be famous." Riiiiight... maybe if he goes to the top of some watchtower and picks off a few people with a high powered rifle he'll be famous.

Brenna is next and she's awesome singing "Under Pressure." I'm sorry, replace "awesome" with "horrible" in that sentence. Let's just say her 10 years of training and her "degree in vocal performance" have... well... umm... not helped.

And another montage... this time singing Prince's classic "Kiss." Even, our Hollywood bound Perla (the Charo clone) made it into the montage.

Next we've got, Josh Flom, whose dad claims he can "sing like a bird." We'll see about that Pops. Doing a horrible karaoke-like performance of "Had a Bad Day" by Fuel, he seems to think being a rocker means singing with a gruff voice. Randy, even makes a great impersonation of this "rocker-style" voice. He impresses me by quickly learning "Dancing Queen" and doing a great, if short, version of "Copacabana." Finally, Jewel cracks me up by saying "I'm a little worried that you're voice is going to get hurt."

Of course, Josh doesn't make it, but I certainly see his point about singing like Chris Daughtry. Chris' voice was definitely better than Josh's but they both have a lack of "diversity"... a lack which Simon mocked by having Josh sing ABBA's "Dancing Queen."

And with that our first night of American Idol is over!

Of course, we get a classic quote from Simon, about a contestant in the next city, Seattle. I'll just leave you with that:

"You look like one of those creatures that live in the jungle with those massive eyes."

American Idol: Season 6 Part 1

2007-01-16T21:10:00.001-05:00

So here we go again with another year of American Idol and I'm still lovin' it. This time I'll be doing running commentary.

We start in Minneapolis:

First up is Jennifer, and it's not looking good. She's akward and doesn't have a good speaking voice... and her singing is so labored and awful. Randy drops this classic line, "No... the singing, no."

Next is Troy "Urban Amish" Benham, a surefire "winner" if you know what I mean. And he seems to be melodically chanting his "song." And he admits he isn't familiar with the show or the judges. The first in a row of butchers.

Leading to: Jesse Holloway doing a great tone deaf version of Celine Dion's Titanic song, and he decides to take a break half way through. Half way through he even gets Paula to say "I can't do this." I'm feeling ya Paula. Finally, he gets the benevolent Jewel to say "Not a chance."

Charles "Apollo Creed" Moody, comes in a boxing getup and sings pretty badly... but not terribly compared to what we've seen so far. Alas, he get's KO'ed.

Now we've got a self described "crack baby," and her speaking voice is promising. Denise Jackson, finally someone worthy of Hollywood. And she's in! She's pretty good vocally, but she would probably need a more confident and affable personality.

And here we have the first AI "montage" and this one is of forgotten lyrics. The epitome of forgotten lyrics is Tashawn Moore, who starts it off with a flat trembling voice. Eventually she just repeats the lines and even ends up whispers the song. And after about a minute or two I just figured out she's singing Prince's "Kiss."

Our next contestant is Perla Meneses who I think has made it this far simply because of her looks and her frighteningly Charo-like personality. She sounds horrible singing Blondie's "Call Me" and she doesn't improve after singing "Hips Don't Lie." Stunningly, everyone gives her a yes, and she's through. She seems destined to be one of those contestants which makes everyone wonder "how did she/he get to Hollywood?" in a few weeks (except that I'm thinking it now.)

Next we have "Flair and Pizzazz"-filled Matthew Volna killing the Johnny Cash classic, "Folsom Prison Blues." So far (and they're pointing it out) there have been no worthy male vocalists. Except that they used that front to setup a Navy seaman, Jarrod Fowler, for success... and he's pretty good. Jewel and Randy, make a good point of telling him to watch out for his "pitchyness." Personally, i feel pitchyness is sign of an untrained, or simply bad, voice trying to hide the fact that they can't keep a note. We'll see which one (untrained voice or bad voice) Jarrod is.

And that's the first hour...

A Reunion among the Top 5?

2007-01-15T23:35:00.000-05:00

Back on my old site (before I moved it to blogspot) I wrote about my "Top 5" (technically 4, but I'll explain that later) favorite bands: the Police, Led Zeppelin, Bob Marley (and the Wailers) and the Talking Heads. I never saw any of these bands in person and my chances of seeing any of them (in their original lineups) was slim to none. John Bonham and Bob Marley died when I was four; And the Police and the Talking Heads had arrogant head cases for lead singers (Sting and David Byrne) who did pretty well as solo acts and both had made it fairly clear they had no interest in reuniting.

The closest I would get to seeing any of these bands would be Robert Plant and Jimmy Page collaborating a few years ago (and not even giving John Paul Jones a call) and the Talking Heads and the Police doing short sets at their respective Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductions.

Well, rumors now abound of a Police reunion, and I'm giddy as a school girl. Now, I know they'll be a shell of their former selves and Sting will probably want to "jazz up" or, as I like to call it, butcher a few of their classics by bringing in Chris Botti. (In case you don't know who Chris Botti is, think Kenny G with a trumpet... and Sting has used him on tour before.)

Well no matter, I'm desperately looking forward to this.

Off to Chile

2006-12-16T04:55:00.000-05:00

I haven't posted anything in awhile because I am off to the motherland this weekend and things have been hectic. (And if you didn't know I wasn't from the US of A... well now you know.) I'll be gone until next year (January 6th to be exact), so I probably won't be writing all that often,but you might as well check to see if I update this thing. You can of course email me to your hearts content, and I'll be happy to quickly delete them. Joking of course... I'll give it a glance before I delete.

Ovechkin fined for hit on Briere

2006-12-04T23:49:00.000-05:00

I stated Sunday morning that I thought Alexander Ovechkin's hit on the Sabre's Daniel Briere, although warranting a penalty (because it was boarding), did not deserve additional action by the league. Well the league decided it deserved a $1000 fine. That kinda confuses me.

First thing, $1000 really is nothing. It seems like it's only meant to appease the Sabres while at the same time not be rediculously unreasonable. But it really makes no sense. The way I see it, the league should either say it was a "dirty" hit (i.e. a hit that intended to injure) and fine AND suspend him or you say it was an illegal but "clean" hit (i.e. warranting a penalty but not intended to hurt).

Ovechkin even says the league recognized that it wasn't a dirty hit... so what's the deal? If it's not dirty why fine him? The league certainly doesn't fine EVERY player who gets called for boarding, charging, or crosschecking (all penalties which could be considered "dirty" by the team taking the penalty). So what was so special about this hit?

If you watch the video you'll see that Ovechkin picks up a lot of speed and chases Briere out of the Caps defensive zone. Right after Briere dumps the puck, Ovechkin turn to check Briere (an entirely legal check since Briere just had possession of the puck). Right after Ovechkin turns Briere heads to the bench (turning his back to Ovechkin), and Ovechkin hits him with his shoulder in the back. Just a normal shoulder check, no charging, no follow through... simply nothing which someone could reasonably consider dirty.

Granted, I'ld be pissed if this had happened to a Cap, but I'ld have to be reasonable about it, all things considered. It was an unfortunate sequence, but I just don't see what the league expects Ovechkin to do if presented with the same situation. So the league fines Ovechkin a meager $1,000, and the Sabres are still going to retaliate in their next game. I just hope the fine for retaliation is much more than $1k...

No Pull Harness Review: Part 2 - Reviewing the Easy Walk Harness

2006-12-04T01:22:00.001-05:00

I've gotten a good amount of hits looking at my post on No-Pull Harnesses/Front lead harnesses from last year. So here is the update:

First thing, last year I commented on how most big chain pet stores (and most of the smaller local stores, as well) didn't carry front lead harnesses. Well, the first update is that practically every PetSmart and Petco I have been too seems to now carry the Easy Walk harness by Premier (the same one I got for Gilligan (my dog... technically a "beagle mix", but he looks just like a slightly taller than average beagle). This, of course, is understandable since Premier is a big name in leashes, harnesses, etc and is already carried by both mega-retailers. However, none of the chain stores seem to carry Wayne Hightower's harness or any of the Softouch Concepts harnesses. A shame I guess since I'm not going to shell out the cash to try those harnesses, so I can really only comment on the Easy Walk Harness.

On that note, here is my quick review of the Easy Walk Harness:

The harness took some getting used to for Gilligan. He still tries to chew at it when it first goes on, but once we get outside it's normally not a big deal.

Pros: It works. It doesn't choke him (like a choke collar) or his legs (like a sporn harness). The materials (webbing, clasps, etc.) are good quality and well constructed. A different color webbing is used for the strap which goes under the dogs chest, making it easier to put on correctly.

Cons: Although the differnt color webbing helps, it is still a little complicated to put on, especially when your dog isn't looking to put on the harness. Additionally, it takes more time and effort to put on then to just click the leash to the collar. The harness seems to loosen easily if slightly (that is, not enough to come off but enough to require more adjusting than you may want to deal with); I think this problem happens because of the smooth metal buckles it uses and I think it comes up more often when you set it "small."

The first con (the harness is not easy to put on) is one that I think, unfortunately, is a result of design that will be found in all front lead harnesses, and maybe even harnesses in general. The second con (the harness loosens) may be a result of the choice of buckles, which may not be an issue on the other harnesses. In general, I am happy with the harness, but to be honest I don't use it that often. Mostly because of the time required to put the harness on and but when I do use it... I enjoy it.

College Hoops and The Caps beat the best

2006-12-03T08:08:00.000-05:00

A few interesting happenings from last night in the world of sports:

First, check out this D-III college basketball score. Thats right... Lincoln University beat Ohio State Marion, 201-78. Thats more than 5 points a minute scored by Lincoln. I also thought it was weird that apparently there is a school named Borat. ("The previous largest margin of victory in a Division III game was 112 points, set by Eureka College in a 149-37 victory over Borat on Nov. 29, 1989.")
The Caps beat the "Eastern Conference leading" (Comcast SportsNet drove that point into the ground) Buffalo Sabres, 7-4. The Caps started well by scoring 3 goals in the first eight minutes. Buffalo's first goal came with about 5 minutes left in the first period. In a fluke play, Olie Kolzig went to fall on the puck with his catching glove and, instead of covering it, he squeezed it (like a watermelon seed) into the net.

Alex Ovechkin was ejected in the second period for a hit on Daniel Briere, which sent Briere head first into the boards. However, unlike Sabres coach Lindy Ruff, I don't think the hit deserves "disciplinary action." Briere had just passed the puck and Alex hit him square on his back, with Briere about 5 feet away from the boards. It was a perfect distance for Briere to fall and take the brunt of the fall with his head on the boards. It was a scary hit but I fail to see how this should result in any action by the league.

In fact, I was even surprised to see Oveckin ejected. Most boarding penalties come as a result of a hit in which the player hits his head on the boards. Most of the time they are so close to the boards they can brace themselves enough to take some of the fall with their arms (since they put their arms up on the boards). Briere, however, was at such a distance that he really could not prevent his head from hitting first and doubt Ovechkin planned anything more than just a check to the back. But I guess we'll see if the league sees it otherwise.

Ranking the DC Sports Newscasts

2006-12-01T17:13:00.000-05:00

Back when there was a movie theatre on the corner of Wisconsin Ave. and Van Ness St. (where AU's Greenberg Theatre is now), I went to see a sneak preview of Jetsons: The Movie. I found the best spot in theatre: two seats hidden by themselves on the right side aisle which were practically in the middle. The theatre had a weird slanted wall that cut what would be the right rear half of the theatre off.

So I was sitting there and this guy comes walking right up to the seats and when he gets there (it was already dark by then) he seemed a little shocked to see me. He says something to the effect of "Ahh! Those are my favorite seats." And then walked away a little sad I guess but not at all mad (at least he didn't seem mad). Anyways, that was my one time run-in with Arch Campbell. Seemed like an alright fella, but he still creeps me out when his teaser (always ending with an overenthusiastic "NEXT!") and his wide-eyed reviews which I frequently disagree with.

This week I found out he's joining George Michael in leaving NBC 4. I was even surprised to find out that Susan Kidd and I.J. Hudson were leaving. Sad really. Not that I particularly liked them, but I grew up on them.

Well in light of this I've decided to rank the DC sports newscasts with my two cents on each:

4. WRC Channel 4 / NBC - With George Michael leaving this group is left floundering with Lindsay Czarniak and Dan Hellie. If you read my ramblings you know how I feel about Czarniak. Put it this way, there's a reason why I have "Czarniak's quote of the Day/Week/Etc" and its not because she's witty. Hellie is not bad, but he's a little too proper and doesn't seem to do much more than just read copy. In fact, I think he would do much better as an anchorman.

3. WJLA Channel 7 / ABC - I don't know what else to say but this: Vanilla. Not bad, but certainly not outstanding. Tim Brandt is fairly unanimated, but at least he knows his stuff. Greg Toland is serviceable but you're not winning a Super Bowl with him. He's a more animated but less "pretty boy" version of Hellie. And sometimes channel 7 throws a screwball by pulling crazyman Glenn Harris out of his crypt. (Mostly though, I see him on his Newschannel 8 show... is that even still on?!) These guys really took a tumble after Rene Knott left.

2. WTTG Channel 5 / Fox - I've always thought Dave Feldman is a better sportscaster than he is a soccer play-by-play man. (Maybe it's because I'm not a fan of his "It's in the net!" goal call.) Not that his play-by-play is bad, but he's got a very good personality for sportscasting. Lou Holder is good. He's a slightly more enjoyable newscaster than Toland. Finally, I'm not 100% sure how I feel about Dave Ross so we'll give him a solid C.

1. WUSA Channel 9 / CBS - Brett Haber used to be on ESPN's SportsCenter and he still announces like it. Most of those guys have "it" (what it takes to be a good sportscaster), but unlike a lot of those guys he doesn't come off sounding like such a tool. Levan Reid is stiff but has a good delivery and comes off seeming genuine. Sarah Walsh is also a very good sportscaster and, I think, earned her spot for her abilities instead of her looks (I'm looking at you Channel 4!).

Skins, Caps, Wizards and Terps Predictions

2006-11-29T23:48:00.000-05:00

Almost 3 weeks ago I was ready to talk up the Caps. I was entirely ready to use the overused and obviously premature "if the playoffs ended today" line by pointing out that the Caps would be in. So that day I went to write and lo and behold, I was surprised to find that good ole' Teddy L. beat me to the punch (oddly enough it was in his 500th post). So I didn't post, but the braggadocio karma still hit. The bottom of my "slurpie cup of happiness" busted... 6 losses in a row, including two loses to the lowly Bruins.

So not only were the Redskins catatonic and the Wizards not up to last years par, the Caps offense just couldn't make up for the defense. (The Caps were outscored 9-25 during those 6 games) Even the Terps football tanked losing to Boston College, getting a reprieve when Miami beat BC, and losing to Wake Forest at home this past week. My only solace comes in the surprisingly good Terps basketball team (currently undefeated and the only 8 win team in the nation).

But then the Redskins win (although they looked kinda like a newborn horse trying to stand up in the process), the Caps beat a southeast conference foe who have had their number recently (Tampa Bay, although that could be said about the Trashers and Canes as well), and the Wiz... well, they squeaked by the Hawks... we'll just leave it at that.

So what does all this mean? Here is my "if the season ended today"-ish predicitons:

Redskins: I've already spoken here... they're dead... i.e. good for another 2 wins. Maybe we can hope for a good draft pick.

Caps: Very intriguing. Alexander Semin returns and the teams looks like an offensive powerhouse against a very good team. I'll say 7th place in the East, giving their first round opponents a scare, but losing in 6.

Wizards: Basketball, especially the NBA, is one of those games which I can't watch sometimes because I seriously get too mad. The referees have TOO much control of the game and in the NBA it's compounded by how much they protect their star players. Unfortunately Gilbert Arenas isn't star enough... oh yeah and they don't play any defense. They might get by a first round series, but will lose whenever they play the Cavs or Heat.

Terps Football: They're supposedly going to play Navy (in the Meineke Car Care Bowl) or Purdue (in the Champs Sports Bowl). I feel good about the Terps chances against either opponent... but I would think the Mieneke Car Care Bowl would prefer to have the Terps there to get themselves a bona fide "Crab Bowl."

Terps Basketball: Shhhhh, I don't want to talk about it.... karma is listening.

Redskins Pyrite

2006-11-26T17:44:00.000-05:00

I had resigned myself to not writing about the woeful Redskins, who had truly become among the worst teams in the NFL. But I just can't help myself because driving home from FedEx today, I was listening to the Redskins post game show and heard ridiculous optimism from Redskins fans who dared use the term "win out." The Redskins at 9-7? How insane is that? Did they even watch today's game? Or did they only watch Chris Cooley's touchdown and Sean Taylor's interception?

The Redskins are still a bad team, it's just that today the defense tackled and play more like last years defense. But after changing QBs, Al Saunder's complicated offense is still not clicking. Mark Brunell would have been the winning QB had he still been the starter because Campbell did nothing extremely out of the ordinary.

Don't get me wrong, I think Jason Campbell has got huge potential, but take away that 66 yard touchdown to Cooley and Campbell has a grand total of 52 yards passing. And he threw 2 interceptions, one of which was negated by a roughing the passer penalty. Don't be fooled, the defense won this game, but only because they played slightly better. Remember, last week (like this week) the Redskins scored 17 points, it's just that this week the defense didn't give up the second touchdown, keeping the Panthers to 13 points (instead of the 20 they gave up to the Bucs).

There are 5 more games left in the season and I would put a 2.5 on the over/under. I seriously doubt they win a game on the road (New Orleans and St. Louis), they seem positively listless away from home. They probably lose one more at home (maybe the Giants game), and that would put them at 6-10 (7-9 if they're lucky and pull an away win or win out at home). Yup, right about where I think this team deserves to be.

Gillers in Shenandoah NP and Zoomr

2006-11-09T12:52:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago we went for a short afternoon hike with Gilligan in Shenandoah NP. He loved it and smelled everything on the way in and out. This is him at an overlook along the AT. A few seconds after this picture he got a tick on his leg... Cindy pulled that little bastard off quick!

oh and this picture is hosted by Zooomr.com (btw, remember the extra "o" in Zooomr), a sweet (and free) photo hosting service... like flickr, but better. And in case you wondering, yes the reason i posted this is so i could upgrade to a pro account.

Go bake a cake.

2006-11-06T11:49:00.000-05:00

This probably only applies to you if:

1. You live in the DC area (or near a Safeway, Vons, etc.)
AND
2. You want to bake a cake at some point.

So here's the deal. Safeway currently has a Buy One Get One (BOGO) free deal for Betty Crocker's Super Moist Cake Mix. (They sell for about $2) But they are also having a deal that if you buy 10 Betty Crocker items you get $10 off. SOOOO if you take 10 cake mixes up to the register, they should come out to between -$0.70 and $2.00 total for 10 cake mixes.

The Math: 5 boxes (plus 5 free boxes) x $2 = $10 - $10 (for getting 10 Betty Crocker items) = some where around $0, depending on how much one box sells for. Kinda complicated, I know, but it's worth a try... to see how it has worked for others check out the SlickDeals thread on the deal.

Which photo do you LikeBetter.com

2006-10-26T20:13:00.000-04:00

So a little while back I wrote about the 20 questions site. Cool site but it would be wrong every so often. Well, now check out LikeBetter.com.

Sort of the same concept, except it guesses things about you after you tell it which picture (of two) you like better. Interesting concept....

Did you need a new pair of shoes? Footlocker Sale this weekend.

2006-10-26T10:14:00.000-04:00

This weekend (Oct 26 to Oct 28) Footlocker (which also owns Champs, and Footaction) is having their Friends & Family sale, which means you get 30% off (and an additional 10% if it's over $100) by using these codes:

FF6TV345 at FootLocker
FF6TVL66 at Champs
FF6TVPL6 at Footaction.

Online, though, they seem to share the same inventory. If want to walk into the stores check out this SlickDeals' post for printable coupons.

NFL Rankings - Week 8

2006-10-25T19:07:00.000-04:00

Three weeks ago I lost my internet connection right before the weekend, which made it nearly impossible for me to post my entirely useless (to you) rankings. The past few weeks I just didn't feel like. But then last week I saw this post over at ArmchairGM.com.

The user (DNL) did a BCS like ranking of the NFL (yes I don't like the BCS system either, but there is some merit to it when it comes to ranking). I liked the idea a lot, except for one problem: DNL used only the ESPN ranking to act as the human element. So I decided to do the same thing but instead I included human rankings from FoxSports (Peter Schrager), and CBS Sportsline (Pete Prisco). I wanted to add CNNSI's (Dr. Z) NFL power ranking, but that doesn't get released until midweek (tomorrow I'll add it and see how much of a difference it makes.

I also left out one "computer" from DNL's list (the one done by an ArmchairGM user) because I don't know if it will be consistently posted. I did the BCS thing, where all the human rankings are equally balanced and the computer average constitute a "5th human ranking."
And, like with the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking from the computers are dropped from the average (just to keep crazy computer stuff a in check).

I also ran a "straight-up" average where every ranking is taken equally and no ranking (i.e. high/low) is dropped. That way I could see where the computer or human bias was.

Here are the more humanized "BCS-style" rankings (with "straight-up" ranking in parenthesis):

1. Chicago Bears (1)
2. Indianapolis Colts (2)
3. New England Patriots (3)
4. Denver Broncos (5)
5. New Orleans Saints (6)
6. New York Giants (4)
7. San Diego Chargers (7)
8. Baltimore Ravens (8)
9. Atlanta Falcons (9)
10. Cincinnati Bengals (10)
11. Carolina Panthers (13)
12. Seattle Seahawks (14)
13. Minnesota Vikings (12)
14. Philadelphia Eagles (11)
15. St. Louis Rams (15)
16. Jacksonville Jaguars (16)
17. Dallas Cowboys (17)
18. Pittsburgh Steelers (18)
19. Kansas City Chiefs (19)
19. New York Jets (20)
21. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (21)
22. Washington Redskins (22)
23. Green Bay Packers (23)
24. Buffalo Bills (24)
25. San Francisco 49ers (26)
26. Cleveland Browns (25)
26. Houston Texans (27)
28. Tennessee Titans (31)
29. Detroit Lions (28)
30. Miami Dolphins (29)
31. Oakland Raiders (32)
32. Arizona Cardinals (30)

A few thoughts:

The "straight-up" ranking pretty much follows the "BCS-style" ranking except for towards the end (where the teams are pretty much equally bad) and with a few teams, Giants, Eagles and to a lesser extent Vikings. We'll discuss that in a second.
Although, all the humans like the Broncos (#3 in every human ranking) more than the Patriots (#4 in every human ranking), the computers prefer the Pats. In fact, the computer prefer the Pats so much more that it was enough to drop the Broncos (averaging #8 in computer rankings) behind the Pats in the "BCS-style" ranking.
As I mentioned the "straight-up" and "BCS-style" rankings pretty much agree. Well, except when it comes to the Giants and Eagles, and to a lesser extent the Vikings. The Giants (#6 "BCS-Style") average a #3 ranking with computers and the Eagles (#14 "BCS-Style") average #11 (when removing high and low) and #9 (without removing high and low) with the computer rankings. That means the computers seem to like the Giants and Eagles (and Vikings) more than the humans. My guess is that the computers give more credit for the Giants' strength of schedule and the humans don't give enough credit for close games (which accounts for all of the Eagles' losses).

Lindsay Czarniak Quote of the Week

2006-10-22T23:32:00.000-04:00

"He's running so fast, he falls out of his shoe."

Describing Hines Ward's reception for a touchdown where he loses a shoe about 30 yards away from the end zone and runs the rest of the way missing a shoe. At no point during the whole play (even once he gets into the end zone) does he fall.

Project Runway 3 Finale: Jeffrey wins

2006-10-19T00:28:00.000-04:00

Although I haven't mentioned it, I have been following the 3rd season of Project Runway. I had tried to avoid watching since I was really turned away by the fact that the producers have a say in the results. In fact, if you remember from earlier this year, I completely hated how season 2 ended. I even had an imaginary back-and-forth with the "winner", Chloe.

Anyways, following that farce and the fact that, as a whole, I didn't particularly like this bunch of designers (personality-wise), I tried not to follow the show. But I succumbed and followed it by proxy (that is, Cindy watched it consistently, and I watched for the final pieces and who was eliminated). I grew to like the designs of Bonnie, Allison, Michael, Uli and Jeffrey. Bonnie and Allison were eliminated relatively early, but Michael, Uli and Jeffrey made it to the finals (Laura also made the finals, but I thought, although she was good, she was never really innovative).

So I was happy to see those three in the finale. I felt Michael and Uli were consistently good but never entirely outstanding. Jeffery, though, was much more daring... he really swung for the fences on every piece. Sometimes he struck out and sometimes he hit a homerun. And on his final collection he hit more homers than the competition, so I agree that he deserved to win. So I guess things have come around in the Project Runway world... now let see if Top Chef is worth it this year.

Back on the Hook: Heroes

2006-10-17T08:32:00.000-04:00

The 2000s should probably come to be known as the point where television became like the movies. I think 2 television shows can take most of that credit, 24 and CSI. 24 truly borrowed from movie making, first by taking a "movie star" in the lead role and second by using the shoot-em-up/explosions you used to only find in theatres. The CSI series doesn't concentrated on that aspect, but it added movie-like special effects to the police/investigative genre (remade popular in the 90s by NYPD Blue and Law and Order). So although, CSI made it okay to have episodes like "Code Black" on Grey's Anatomy, 24 really paved the way for shows like Lost and the already canceled, Heist (although those are ensemble casts instead of a "movie star"-led series).

I never got into 24 but I was looking forward to Lost when I first heard about it, but I missed the premier and then just never followed up on it. I never thought I would get into these kind of shows. I mostly didn't like the hype around the shows but I also didn't like how a plot, which would work better as a movie, would be put into a television series because a TV series NEEDS to draw out the story line. So I was thinking I was immune to these shows... until this season: I am all about Heroes.

I'm stupidly into it even though I fully realize there is no chance this is ending well. One of three things is going to happen, and all them are bad: 1. They're going to cancel the show; 2. It'll start to suck; or 3. They're going to draw the story out over 8 season, and I'm going to spend each summers with a "cliffhanger" looking forward to another season of entirely unlikely twists and pseudo-resolutions to current plots.

Oh well... if you'd like to join me just click on that link up there (or this one one), get caught up, and watch monday nights at 8 pm on NBC! God, I'm retarded!

Redskins hit bottom

2006-10-15T16:57:00.000-04:00

The Redskins can official go no lower. Sure, they could lose 45-0 at home against the Raiders... but they're not playing them this year. Losing to the lowly Titans and their awful rookie quarterback at FedEx Field on Sunday will have to substitute for "rock bottom." We knew the offense wasn't clicking, and that the secondary was bad, but at least the run defense was good. Well, at least until these last two games.

I could give you figures like, the Redskins have allowed a 100-yard rushers in each of the past two weeks or that the Redskins have 5 takeaways (only the Houston Texans have less with 3), but nothing really explains it better than this: The offense is struggling like the end of last year and the defense is nowhere near as effective as last year.

Well let me restate that: The defense is alot like last year except that they aren't forcing turnovers or scaring anyone. Last year the Redskins seemed to always get a turnover when they needed it and this year they're giving up too many 3rd and longs for first downs.

So I'm glad they lost because one of three things was going to happen this week: 1. The Redskins win big and they actually get better the next few weeks. (The ideal situation, which apparently had no chance of happening.) 2. The Redskins have a close win and get a reason to become complacent (Probably the worst situation, becuase they would continue to barely beat scrubs and losing to the games that matter.) and 3. The Redskins lose.

The reason #3 is better than #2 is because this forces the Redskins to make changes they need to make. In essence, it makes them desperate. These past two games actually remind me of last season when the Redskins lost 2 straight home games (to the Raiders and Chargers) to drop to 5-6. They went on to win 5 straight to finish 10-6... We'll see if they can do something similar this year. Considering next week they're going to play the Colts in Indy, I seriously doubt it.

Singing Rabbit Skittles Commercial

2006-10-14T00:24:00.000-04:00

I realize I am WAY late for the party, but I just love that Skittles Commerical with the singing rabbit. It just gets stupid funnier everytime I watch it.

TACA Keeps it Real

2006-10-06T16:15:00.000-04:00

I'm going to Chile for the Christmas/New Years holidays and the cheapest flight I could find was on TACA, an El Salvadorean airline. So I was checking their baggage policy and found an interesting tidbit under "Carry-on baggage." Go ahead and read the policy and making note of the 7th item down on the list of permitted additional carry-on. (Don't forget to come back when you are done.)

Okay, so if you are too lazy to go read it, this is what it says:

A fully collapsible invalid’s wheelchair or any other orthopedic device of passenger’s use provided that passenger is dependent upon them.

Yup! Out of nowhere TACA gets nasty with the handicap.

In all fairness, invalido is an acceptable term in Spanish... but really, no one caught this? Or am I crazy for thinking that is kinda wrong? (And who decided invalid, in this case, is pronounced with the emphasis on "LID" instead of "VA"? This also reminds me of how I hate that there can be different pronounciations for words that are spelled alike... like "Live from New York" and "Live Free or Die")

NFL Week 4 Rankings

2006-09-30T00:17:00.000-04:00

I like being right. So, I enjoyed how my rankings panned out. Granted, I waited until 2 weekends had gone by, but I think that is a much better way of evaluating teams as opposed to, in essence, guessing at it in the preseason.

Anyways, this week I'll try and remember to include the Carolina Panthers (who would have been ranked with the other "Bad" 0-2 teams last week). I realize that the bottom categories are overloaded (I only have 11 teams, or 34%, above "The Middle") but that will even itself out once teams establish themselves better. For now, not many teams seem worth of being called "good teams."

I'll also explain a few things: First, there should be little to no reason to drastically move teams, so teams will/can, almost without exception, only move one category each week (i.e. no team should go from "Bad" to "Step Away" in one week.); Second, for the sake of space I probably won't discuss teams coming off their bye week. And third, teams that have moved up will be bolded and teams that have dropped will be italicized. Now on to the ranking:

The Best (Indianapolis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Seattle) - Everyone stays the same here. While San Diego sat at home this weekend, the rest of these teams came out and beat formidable opponents (Maybe excepting Seattle, who beat a NY Giants team I don't entirely respect).

The Questionable Best (Chicago, Baltimore, Jacksonville) - Chicago and Baltimore stay here by barely beating teams they should have pummeled if they wanted to be among The Best. Jacksonville played Indy close, but they could drop if they lose to the Redskins (probably not happening).

Step Away (New Orleans, Atlanta, New England, Denver) - New Orleans stays here because of their questionable competition and their emotional win on Monday night. Atlanta and New England drop because of entirely different losses. (New England was uninspired and Atlanta was, practically, beaten by a nation.) Denver joins this group by being the only "Middle" team to win.

The Middle (Dallas, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, NY Jets) - Remember how last week I put Philly and the Jets in the "Not So Good" category? Well, they still deserve to be there, since they beat the lowly 49ers and Bills this week. But they get moved up because of their records. (Philly, will most likely stay here for a while, as it continues its early creampuff schedule next week against the Packers, but the Jets should come back to earth against the Colts and then the Jaguars.) Pittsburgh drops because they're beginning to show their true mediocre colors. In fact, Bill Simmons writes about a theory (which he discounts) about how Pittsburgh is going through the "Super Bowl Loser Curse" because they were supposed to lose the Super Bowl (as the lesser team) but since the refs intervened, they ended up winning. I don't think it's all that crazy.

The Not So Good (Kansas City, St. Louis, NY Giants, Buffalo, Carolina) - Buffalo and New York begin what I predict to be a season long oscillation between the "Middle" and the "Bad" for each team. I moved up Carolina, for beating a conference rival on the road, but they looked really bad doing it. Once again... I really don't respect the NFL South.

The Bad (Washington, Miami, San Francisco, Arizona) - Washington stays here because they only slightly improved against Houston. Too many penalties, the defensive line looked bad and the pass defense looked worse. The rest of the teams stay here because they lost, but not bad enough to be dropped to "No Chance".

No Chance (Tampa Bay, Oakland, Detroit, Houston, Green Bay, Tennessee, Cleveland) - Everyone stays put and welcome their new friend, Tampa Bay. Tampa Bay drops mostly because of the Chris Simms injury. Now I have never thought Chris Simms was a good quarterback (he certainly hadn't shown me any reason to change my mind this year) but his team liked him. And that has to mess with them. m seemed to trust him.

New NBA Ball

2006-09-29T16:24:00.000-04:00

So this came out awhile ago, and I noticed I had started the post but never uploaded it... here it is:

I'm looking forward to seeing the NBA play with their new ball. Not that I'm expecting anything different, I just think it looks snazzy. Oh and if you want one, you can order it from the NBA Store... It's a mere $100.

My first NFL ranking of 2006

2006-09-24T12:34:00.000-04:00

Needless to say, I haven't been very happy with how the NFL season has panned out so far. The Redskins are bad. The offense looks like it did at the end of last year but this year the defense is matching them in ineptness. (In particular they're not getting any production from the defensive line allowing the opposing QB all day to throw.)

Anyways, I've taken it upon myself to rank the teams again this year. But this time I'm doing it a little different. This year I am making 7 categories and putting teams into those categories.

So anyways, here are the categories/rankings:

The Best: Indianapolis, San Diego, Cincinnati, Seattle
These are the undoubted best teams in the league. The only team I really question is Seattle, but since they were in the Super Bowl last year and are currently 2-0, I have to put them here.

The Questionable Best: Chicago, Baltimore, Jacksonville, Atlanta, New England
These teams are very good but I question their records because of who they have played (Chicago and Baltimore) or how they have played (Jacksonville, New England). When it comes to Atlanta, I just don't trust their system.

Step Away - Minnesota, New Orleans, Pittsburgh
These teams are a step away in that they're good teams but they have some glaring issues. They are a step away from showing their true colors or from stepping up to "very good" status. Minnesota was given a win by their two opponents with a missed field goal (Washington) and stupid attempted lateral (Carolina). In essence, New Orleans has barely beaten the two worst teams in the league. To be quite honest, those two teams are here because they each have a pair of fortunate wins. Pittsburgh was fortunate to beat Miami in the opening weekend and they were blanked by the Jaguars on Monday night. However, of the three, they're the most respectable.

The Middle - Dallas, New York, Denver, Buffalo
The name says it all. I have to respect each of these teams but I don't trust any of them... In particular I don't trust any of these team's wins. Dallas beat an anemic Washington team. New York got lucky when Philly decided not to play the 4th quarter. Denver lost to a not very good St. Louis team and barely beat Kansas City in OT. Buffalo is it's own beast in this group in that they beat a questionable team (Miami) but they played well in their loss against New England.

The Not So Good - Philadelphia, NY Jets, Kansas City, St. Louis
These teams are on the brink. Like the "Step Away" and "The Middle" teams they could easily go either way. Philly and the Jets are down here because their lone wins were absolutely unimpressive (against Houston and Tennessee). Kansas City is here because of their 0-2 record, they just haven't played bad enough be ranked farther down. St. Louis is the real question mark of this bunch: they beat Denver and then lose to the 49ers.

The Bad - Washington, Miami, Tampa Bay, San Francisco, Arizona
These teams are bad. Washington, Miami and Tampa Bay are all 0-2 but at least they have a lot of potential... they just need to show up. Arizona has some potential but in the end they have a history of losing to overcome... just like San Fran (at least recently).

No Chance - Oakland, Detroit, Houston, Green Bay, Tennessee, Cleveland
The name really says it all. These teams are just bad and there is no reason think any of them is doing anything this year. Oakland, Detroit and Houston had some reason to dream, but they definitely haven't done anything so far this season to keep dreaming. Green Bay and Tennessee are equally bad, but there isn't any reason be hopeful there. I'll guess that Cleveland is probasbly the closest to doing something interesting.

Juan's Rule O' Thumb: Wash your rice... not you pasta

2006-09-14T14:45:00.000-04:00

So, I was reading WashingtonPost.com and came across Kim O'Donnel's Food Blog and I got stupid giddy when I found out that there's a new Trader Joe's opened right down M Street from me. Now I don't have to go all the way out to Virginia or Maryland to go to Trader Joes.

But the big reason for this post is this: apparantly, this Kim O'Donnel character didn't wash his/her rice. What kinda food blogger doesn't wash their rice?! Next thing I know she'll say that she washes her pasta after draining it. (BTW, if you wash your pasta after draining it, we need to talk.)

WRC4 Sports coverage makes me cry

2006-09-11T00:28:00.000-04:00

Channel 4's (WRC-TV) sports coverage is KILLING ME!

First thing, I've never been a fan of how they add crowd noise to highlights. The worst is when they add cheering to a highlight, when the away team scores or does something cheer worthy... umm, exactly why would the home crowd cheer their team being scored on?

Then they replaced Wally Bruckner with Dan Hellie. Now, I'm not saying I don't like Hellie, but it wasn't exactly an upgrade. According to the Reliable Source Bruckner was getting to expensive... but I just don't buy it. Especially with the recent addition of the worst sports reporter I've seen in a while: Lindsay Czarniak.

Where should I start on the things that bother me about her? Maybe it's the "deer in the headlight" eyes. Maybe it's the creepy, fake looking and never changing smile. I think mostly it's her copy and commentary, though. She drops cliches and says things at the entirely wrong time. For instance, on tonight's Sports Machine she said "Watch this catch!" on a pass to a receiver who was jogging (not running), because he was all by himself, and caught the ball in stride. An undeniably unspectacular catch.

Another one of her gems from tonight while describing a win streak: "back-to-back, three wins in a row." um, last time I checked back-to-back was only 2 wins in a row, but whatever right?!

Anyways, I've decided to do a Lindsay Czarniak quote of the day/week/month everytime I hear one of those bits of wisdom from her.

F U Pluto!

2006-08-24T15:09:00.000-04:00

You've probably heard it already... but for some reason I find this funny.

State Quarters 2004: Michigan to Wisconsin

2006-08-15T19:32:00.000-04:00

This time no long useless rant... just Quarters!

Michigan - You've got to hand it to Michigan: They just put their state, the great lakes and "Great Lakes State" on their quarter... and that's it. It's as if the entire state just said, "Eh... Let's not put anything memorable on our quarter." Okay, so that's a little overstating it, especially since the design "Voted #1" (according to QuarterDesign.com) had a bunch of little Michigan "trinkets" on it. But, the Mint must have decided that the trinkets (which included the Model T and the Mackinac Bridge) were too small, not coinable or just looked bad. I would agree with that and considering the other four trinkets were not Michigan specific (a star, a lighthouse, a tree and a canoe), I definitely like that those things were left off. But then the quarter was left looking like an almost featureless map. They probably deserve a C for not ENTIRELY baking the dog on this one, but I'm not feeling charitable... Grade: D

Florida - Florida is a beautiful place... but it sure is all kinds of messed up. The state is an amalgam of entirely different cultures living in a hot place, kinda like a nicer version of Iraq. You've got the Bible Belt folks in the north and panhandle, who are really south Georgians and Alabamans, along with the younger, hipper types in the more densely populated south and along the coasts. (Not to mention all the retirees scatter throughout.)
The state is a mess, so it should come as no surprise that their quarter is a mess as well. They've got a spanish galleon, the space shuttle and a beach with palm trees. Doesn't make a lot of sense until they add the "Gateway to Discovery" motto. But then that doesn't make much sense either because, if Florida is the gateway to North America (something it IS part of) how can it also be the gateway to space (something it's not part of). Plus the design is horrible, with out of proportion subjects and too much white space. Good try Florida, but NO that's not gonna fly! You should have just gone with the Everglades or St. Augustine quarter... Grade: D

Texas - I've got to admit, I've never been much of a fan of Texas. I just don't like the whole "Don't mess with Texas" ideal (and, yes, I know it's an anti-littering campaign, but its also a "better than you" attitude). And that's strange because, I've liked practically everyone I've met from Texas and I've enjoyed myself each time I have visited. So I'm on the fence with Texas... and their quarter. First a couple of things I like: I REALLY like that a rope was used on the edge, which is very reminiscent of cowboy's lasso. I also liked that Texas didn't feel the need to throw a crapload of things on their quarter. They just went with the "Lone Star" and their very recognizable state outline (probably the only time I can condone it's use). However, I really don't like the font used for the text "The Lone Star State" which makes it stick out horribly. And I would rather something more interesting than just a star and an outline, but it's not awful. Grade: C

Iowa - I like Iowa for all the reasons I don't like Texas. They are a fairly unassuming state and, of whom I've met, people. So really, I wanted them to do well with their quarter... and they did... sort of. Not having much in the way of memorable monuments and natural features (aside from their farms and rolling hills) they used a painting, Arbor Day, by Iowan Grant Wood for their design. Pretty darn smart, for a few reasons. First, since anything they used (a farm, a field, a schoolhouse, etc.) would most likely lack a unique Iowan theme, they connected it to Iowa by using a painting by Grant Wood. Second, in using Wood's painting they borrowed his distinct style, which was captured especially well in the hills on the quarter. What knocks the design down a few notches, is the lack of smooth area on the quarter, since the "painting" takes up most of the quarter. The other thing that was annoying was the "Foundations in Education" text which looks like it was shoved into the space between "1846" text and the schoolhouse. Now, granted, Iowa has reason to be proud of their history of education (you can read more in the link at the beginning of this paragraph) but the text messes with the balance and simplicity of the design. They should have stopped while they were ahead. Finally, and I've said this before, cutting off the design at the bottom simply looks bad. Sure, it's an interpretation of a painting, but it's not an actual painting... its a coin. Well, at least the harsh line is tempered by the "Grant Wood" text, but that and all the other positives can't bring it up to the ultimate grade. Grade: B

Wisconsin - If you read the U.S. Mint's quarter pages (I link to them from the state name), you'll notice how the Mint really stretches it when explaining the features on some quarters (like Arkansas's creek, duck and rice ). Wisconsin's ear of corn (which caused a bit of news on it's own if you remember) is one of those overexplained features. Sure, Wisconsin makes a lot of corn (they lead the nation in "corn silage production" but not "corn for grain", whatever that means) but corn is certainly not unique to Wisconsin. So placing it on the quarter is a stretch. I can see how the cow and cheese relate, but in essence they both represent the same thing, dairy. Which wouldn't be all that bad had they not put the ear of corn in there. So really the only thing I like is how they "enhanced" the text, Wisconsin's state motto: "Forward", by placing it on a banner. Well, good for you, Wisconsin! But your quarter is mediocre. Grade: C

State Quarters 2003: Illinois to Arkansas

2006-08-06T23:54:00.000-04:00

Two things: First, I'm obviously stupid for not knowing (or at least not looking it up) that the state nickname of Indianapolis actually IS "Crossroads of America." Second, I'm well aware that the individual states did not actually pick the designs on their quarters. Each state submitted designs to the U.S. Mint and the Mint, not the state, made the final choice and design. So my picking on the states might seem a bit misguided, but I think I have a good reason for putting the blame or praise on the states. First, any fault in subject is obviously the states fault... since they picked the subject (like South Carolina deciding to see how many different things they could fit on the quarter). The other issue would be a "bad design" issue, in that the design submitted came out different when implemented. But this should also be the states fault, since it shouldn't take too much work or money to have a numismatician tell you if the design you're submitting will work or not. (See the next paragraph) So anyways, as the radio stations back in the 80s used to say: "More Rock... Less Talk!"

Illinois - If I had a time machine, I would go back in time and change a few things. (Actually, I wouldn't... but go ahead and play with me for a bit.) Among the least important things I would set out to do, would be to go back to 2001or 2002 and start a campaign to keep Illinois from making the disaster of coin that they did. An absolute train crash of a coin, this is a good example of a not so bad idea gone horribly awry. Illinois submitted a coin design that looked good on paper, but just doesn't work on a coin. First, the shadowed city and farm skyline doesn't translate to a coin. Second, the beveled edge to the state outline would make it hard to put Lincoln (and another layer of depth) on top of the outline. Finally, the statue of Lincoln is just too small to make out well. So they used really boring outlines for the skylines and made things worse by not having them level (the farm is higher than Chicago). Then they blew up/zoomed in on Lincoln and cut him off with that ugly state outline, which made it look like he was missing his right leg and left foot. And the icing? Using one of the state nickname (Land of Lincoln) and a bad wordplay (21st State/Century). Grade: F

Alabama - Remember that kid in school who tried hard and never got an A, at least not with a good teacher? The bad teachers would give them an A, just to make them feel better, but really they deserved a C or sometimes a B. You did your homework in the class right before that one and they complained about spending three hours on it the previous night. Well that's how I feel about Alabama's quarter. (Or really that's how Mississippi should feel about Alabama.) However, the home of Forrest Gump gave it a good try. I definitely like that they went with Helen Keller and that they were daring enough to depict her reading a book. I don't think I need to point out, though, that an image of someone reading a book is pretty boring. I also like her name in braille on the quarter and putting the text "Spirit and Courage" on a banner. But they really threw the balance off on the coin by putting her in a chair and also by using two entirely different plants (longleaf pine and magnolia) along the edge. Cutting off Keller's legs doesn't help either, but that almost became a necessity after placing her in a chair. Anyways, I'm very torn by this coin and this is definitely one of those middle grade coins (smack dab between a B and a C). I'm feeling charitable though... much like that not so good teacher. Grade: B

Maine - There are 10 U.S. states I have never laid foot on. (In fact, Here is a map of the States I have visited... The grey states have not had the pleasure of me.) If I had to list them from "Most want to visit" to "Least want to visit", Maine would be competing with Colorado for 3rd place. (BTW, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine/Colorado, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Kansas would be the list.) That might not sound like much, but trust me, it is. I have always liked Maine because I have this idealized view of it as an easy-going and unassuming state. Maine's quarter certainly upholds this notion. It is a very simple and elegant image of a schooner and the Pemaquid Point Lighthouse. The rather random schooner (a generic sailboat would have sufficed) might have touches of subtle pretentiousness, but that is tempered by the lack of a tacky slogan or nickname. Maine wisely left off "Vacationland" (which is fine for a license plate, but not a quarter) and "The Pine Tree State" from their quarter. In all, a very good design but among the lesser quarters in this grade... Grade: A

Missouri - Remember how I started this post by mentioning that the states submitted "design ideas" to the U.S. Mint, but ultimately, it was the Mint that designed the quarter? Well, apparently, this didn't sit well with the guy who made the original design for the Missouri quarter. He claims that the Mint said his coin was not coinable and that his design was then "dumbed down." He even had a private mint coin his design and now he calls the whole debacle "Quartergate." Well, I hate to break it to him, but his design was hardly any better (you can see the private mint coin from that link). The shadow (of the trees and boat), although an admirable idea, looks terrible with that big line through the middle of the quarter. The text in the trees just makes everything worse, by making it hard to recognize that those things are trees. His design has the same problem as the final one in that the Gateway Arch seems to span the Mississippi River. The only, thing that looks better in the original is the boat. The final designs boat looks like a big carved stone but at least the trees look more like trees. Either way, the original design was bad and the final implementation was bad... no matter how you look at, it's just not a good design. Grade: D

Arkansas - What do diamonds, rice, a lake and a duck have in common? Arkansas, of course! (I think you can tell where this is going...) I'll start by commending Arkansas who, like Maine, decided not to put any slogan, nickname or motto on their quarter... unfortunately that's where the praise ends. The most egregious items on this quarter have to be the lake, the duck and rice. I mean, really, who doesn't have lakes and ducks and why would they be special to Arkansas? And isn't rice grown throughout the south? And it's such a shame because Arkansas is a beautiful place which deserves the nickname "The Natural State" since almost ever interesting attraction the state has is a natural attraction. Hot Springs National Park is an awesome place. Crater of Diamonds might be the only diamond mine open to the public. So they really dropped the ball on this one by stuffing 4 things, 3 of which could hardly be identified, in any unique sense, to the state. Grade: F

Last words on the World Cup and the 2002 Quarters

2006-07-23T22:37:00.000-04:00

I had a whole post about my feelings on the FIFA World Cup 2006 final, but I'm not gonna put it up. Mainly because it is now untimely but also because I can explain it in two sentences: I hate that a World Cup final can end on penalties and it's even worse when (like in this case) neither keeper makes a difference. AND Although Italy was lucky in getting to the finals, you can chalk this one up to the "football/soccer gods," as compensation for the time they were on the losing side of these ridiculous final game penalty shootout in the 1994 World Cup.

Anyways, all this has delayed my extremely important rating of State Quarters... so, once again, and without further ado: here is 2002: Tennessee to Mississippi.

Tennessee - I want to like Tennessee's quarter... I really do. I certainly like the idea of using music as the theme, but there are too many things that went wrong. I like placing the words "Musical Heritage" on a ribbon/banner, but it's pretty much downhill from there. The concept of 3 stars and 3 instruments for the 3 geographic areas (and corresponding types of music) of Tennessee is a hardy idea, but when executed, it doesn't look good or make sense. The east and Appalachian music is represented by a fiddle, the middle (Nashville) and country music is represented by the guitar and the west (Memphis) and Blues is represented by a trumpet. My first problem is with the repeating of symbols/numbers... why 3 stars AND 3 instruments? Second, using instrument representations really muddles the distinctions they are trying to make. The guitar is used in each one of those genres and, if anything, deserves to be attached to blues before anything else (I don't recall Muddy Waters, Robert Johnson or BB King playing the trumpet). Country music is much better defined by it's vocal twang (I'm hardly a fan, but I'll recognize a Patsy Cline or Hank Williams song by the voice not the instruments). The trumpet is much more representative of Jazz than Blues. The fiddle is probably the only instrument that is well placed with Appalachian music, even though it strongly defines country music as well. Finally, the music book just breaks up the groups of three. A bad implementation in my view, but I'll give points for effort and trying to give a deeper meaning to their quarter. Grade: C

Ohio - You might already know that Ohio and North Carolina had a disagreement about being the "Birthplace of Aviation" and "First in Flight". (Each have that written on their respective license plates.) The U.S. House, doing what it does best, wasted it's time and our money by passing a resolution which named Dayton, Ohio as the "Birthplace of Aviation." Of course all of this is pretty ridiculous considering "Aviation" was hardly born in Ohio or North Carolina (see gliders, hot air balloons, etc.). Perhaps because of this fact, but also to include Ohioan astronauts John Glenn and Neil Armstrong, Ohio used "Birthplace of Aviation Pioneers" on its quarter. (Interestingly, that disqualifies Wilbur Wright since he was born in Indiana.) Anyways, you really can't have much of an issue with that term since, there are at least a thousand people who could be considered "Aviation Pioneers" (a vague term in itself) and each region where they were born could claim to be a birthplace of an aviation pioneer. So if you have two pioneers, you've got yourself the title "Birthplace of Aviation Pioneers." So take that meaningless phrase, add the the Wright Flyer, a spacesuit and that dreaded ubiquitous state outline and you've got yourself a pretty bland quarter. Grade: D

Louisiana - If you're saying to yourself "Wow, he really didn't like the Ohio quarter" just hold on, because Louisiana really baked the dog on this one. Louisiana had such a great opportunity to make a beautiful quarter by going with one of their rich and distinctive features like Jazz or their Cajun heritage. But they decided to go with a horrible conglomeration that even makes South Carolina's quarter look like a good idea. A pelican, a trumpet (with musical notes, in case you didn't know what a trumpet was for), the Louisiana Purchase and that goofy outline. We'll take it one by one: First the outline. Well, you know how i feel about those outlines but Louisiana one-uped everyone and put an outline of the ENTIRE country! Why? Well because they needed to put another outline of the Louisiana Purchase, of course. But the only unique connection between Louisiana and the Louisiana Purchase was the name, since a bunch of states (including Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, etc.) were part of the purchase. They then give one of their biggest contributions to the world (Jazz) a cursory nod with a trumpet that looks entirely out of place. Finally, the state bird (Brown Pelican) is the only thing that looks respectable but it's not enough to save the quarter. Grade: F

Indiana - I'll be honest, Indiana might not be getting as high a grade as they should because they didn't go with the Little Turtle design. I have to give them credit, however, for sticking with one theme instead of some of the other designs which had the car racing and basketball on the same design. All in all, it is a good, if not spectacular quarter. An outline is used, but at least they used the more interesting "filled-in" outline used by New York and Massachusetts. The stars (which in this, and on most, quarters indicates the ordinal number of entry into the union) are smartly aligned in a circle, which serves a few purposes: visually more appealing, filling in white space and reminiscent of circular race track. The Indy car is not overbearing on the design and I certainly like the use of something besides the state nickname ("Crossroads of America") on the design. (Although you could argue they lifted the idea from the New Jersey quarter which says "Crossroads of the Revolution") A better design than most in the same grade but still not a great quarter. Grade: C

Mississippi - I LOVE the Mississippi quarter. Just love it and it will certainly contend for the top spot in my 1 to 50 countdown. The design is simple and elegant. It reminds me of that stunning magnolia painting by Martin Johnson Heade that appeared on a stamp awhile back. I'm not a big fan of using the state nickname as text on the designs, but it makes sense to explain the large magnolia on the quarter. The font, although not my favorite, yells "Mississippi." I really don't know what else to say but: an all around great design. Grade: A

World Cup 2006: now what?

2006-07-05T23:29:00.000-04:00

My World Cup picks have come down in flames. Brazil was knocked out over the weekend by a French team that really knows how to play them. France exploited Brazil's offside trap perfectly. France had tried a few times and were caught by the trap but Zinedine Zidane's perfect cross got to an unmanned Thierry Henry on the far post for a beautifully executed goal.

What surprised me, after the goal, was Brazil's lack of urgency. I fully assumed Brazil would come back to tie and it seemed like the Brazilian players felt the same way. It would seem, though, that most of them expected it but didn't act on it. I guess that's how you end up out of the World Cup as a favorite.

And at the same time, that is how the 1998 champion is reborn. I was definitely surprised by France's play, and in particular Zinedine Zidane. Zizou seems determined to makeup for France's unspectacular World Cup title defense in 2002. Plus I'm sure he'ld like to retire with another World Cup title.

I have to admit, I slept on France. Originally, I had them doing well but losing to Italy in the quarterfinals. However, after a pair of lackluster draws against Switzerland and South Korea, I lost my mettle. I then picked them to lose against Spain (and I readily admit to stupidly falling for Spain's paper tiger 3-0 group record).

Then yesterday Germany loses to Italy. Nowhere near as shock as Brazil losing, especially considering the Germans had only played one game in which I thought they played well (A regular and overtime tie which they won on penalties against Argentina). But, for the most part, Italy dominated the game. So really the shock should have been that the game was 2 minutes from penalties before the Italians scored.

But, regardless of how Italy played the Germans, I'm picking France to win it all. In fact, I'm going against the bookies and popular opinion. And if I were a betting man I would definitely take France because Italy is a bigger paper tiger than Spain. They beat tied a very bad team (U.S.) and beat two sub par teams in Ghana and the Czech Republic. Then they were gifted a win by the referee against Australia and finally they had an easy time against the worst team to get into the knockout rounds. Not exactly stellar.

But, of course, Italy has a very good chance of pulling, what in my mind would be, an upset if they get a lucky bounce, a favorable call (again) or if France just didnt play up to their ability. And it wouldn't be the first time the best team didn't win. (See this year's Super Bowl for example... in fact I have a whole story on that later.) So I'm thinking Zidane really steps it up and France wins 2-0 with goals from Zidane and Henry.

World Cup Quarterfinals

2006-07-01T14:04:00.000-04:00

I'll apologize in advance for being so smug, but I did a pretty good job of calling the the round of 16 games. Pick-wise I only went 6-2, missing on France beating Spain and Ukraine beating Switzerland. I missed BADLY on the Ukraine-Switzerland, saying that Switzerland should have an easy time: The game went to penalties and Ukraine advanced after the Swiss missed all their tries. In the other game, I was spot on talking down Spain for their lack of competition (although that's not their fault) and when I said that the game should be hard for the Spanish.

I was also right in calling the two most interesting games in Argentina-Mexico (Argentina won, 2-1, on an amazing goal in overtime) and Portugal-Netherlands (Portugal held on 1-0 after being down to 9 men in a hard fought game). I also called the difficult game for Italy over Australia, where Italy was given a 1-0 win with a penalty shot on a questionable foul in the second half extra time. In all fairness tho: I didn't say much about the England-Ecuador game, but I have to admit I was slightly surprised by how well Ecuador played in the 1-0 game. And of course the Brazil game (a 3-0 win overmatched Ghanian team) was a no brainer.

I haven't made picks in the quarterfinals of the World Cup because I would have picked my original final four to get through: Germany, Italy, Argentina and Brazil. As it worked out, though, two of those teams (Germany and Argentina) played each other. (And yes I would have picked Germany over Argentina, expecially considering I have them in my final game). Today Portugal took Argentina's "spot" beating England. And since I would have picked England in this game, I would have gotten the pick wrong anways.

So I'll go ahead and stick with my final of Germany (who should beat an Italian team that has had a easy and lucky time so far) losing to Brazil (who should avenge their World Cup loss to France 8 years ago and then beat Portugal on Wednesday).

2006 World Cup Knockout Rounds Begin - Reviewing my Picks

2006-06-24T13:35:00.000-04:00

I ended up doing pretty well in the "Top Half" of my bracket, correctly predicting all the qualifying teams from groups A through D. I got groups A and B exactly and Groups C and D backwards (although pointswise there was a tie at the top of group C). Since the winner of groups C and D play each other I don't have to re-pick those because the same teams will be playing each other. The biggest surprise to me was how well Portugal played, living up to their runner up position at Euro 2004 and a marked improvement over their last world cup. I still have them beating the Netherlands but I was slightly surprised by the Oranje's play as well. Although I am more interested in the Argentina-Mexico match, the Portugal-Netherlands match should be awesome. The other two games are/were easy to call as Germany already beat Sweden 2-0 and England should be able to handle Ecuador.

The Groups E through H were a slightly different story. All my first place teams (Italy, Brazil, France and Spain) qualified, although France finished second in their group. Conversely, all my second place teams (U.S., Croatia, South Korea and Tunisia) failed to qualify with Ghana, Australia, Ukraine and Switzerland (who finished first in their group) qualifying. So, I'll stick with my top picks to win: Brazil over Ghana, with the Ghanans finally having a taste of a real offense in Brazil. Italy over Australia, with the Australians giving, a weaker than I expected, Italy a good game. Spain over France, in a game that should be a lot harder than it looks for the Spanish who breezed through the group rounds against subpar competition. Finally in the game I totally missed, I'll predict what should be the EASIEST game of the round of 16 (and that takes into account Germany's cakewalk against Sweden today) for Switzerland against Ukraine.

State Quarters Design Review: 2001 (New York to Kentucky)

2006-06-21T01:21:00.000-04:00

A note on my grading: When I stated grading the coins I used +/- to distinguish between coins that were pretty close. I'm stopping that now because it makes me overthink the grades especially when comparing coins (and I'm going back to change Georgia from a A- to a B). This will make things a bit hard because there will be a few coins (like today's North Carolina and Rhode Island) that I'll want to rank inbetween grades. So to make things easier to understand here are my grade explanations: A - An outstanding excellent coin. B - A great to very good coin, that for one small reason or another just couldn't be an A. C - A very good to good coin that has some issues. D A sub par coin that could have been done better. F - just a bad design all around. In the end, to better differentiate between coins, I'll just rank them straight up 1-40. So, anyways, here are the quarters of 2001:

New York - New York played it safe and went with a full body view of Statue of Liberty. I'm not saying it's a bad choice but its clichéd. I might have gone with Niagara Falls, the Empire state building (considering they're the Empire State) or something else. But I guess it was better to go the "safe route" then the entirely obscure route (Victory at Saratoga? Did they mean the Travers Stakes at the race track?) Also, they fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you see it, didn't go with the World Trade Center Towers, which were knocked down about 9 months after the coin was released. So with another statue on a quarter, this coin ends up looking like a blatant rip-off of the Massachusetts coin (granted, with a much better known statue). The layout, however, is worse as the text is slightly muddled by the state map (at least they didn't use an outline). I like that the Hudson River and Erie Canal are shown and I also like the phrase "Gateway to Freedom" which is a nice change from an overused state nickname. Grade: C

North Carolina - I like that North Carolina didn't play around. They were either going with "First in Flight" or the Hatteras Lighthouse. They went with the same design as their license plate, and I think they did well. However, they made the same mistake as Virginia. Instead of designing for a coin it looks like they made a design and then "cut" it into the coin, as both have a harsh line drawn at the bottom of the design. A few other states (West Virginia, Iowa) did the same thing and I think it just doesn't look good. (Actually, the next few coins give a good example of how to "end" a design on a coin.) But besides that one problem, I like the North Carolina quarter. I'ld even grade it higher if it were a bit more original. Grade: B

Rhode Island - Last week I talked about how Connecticut could have gone with a sailing coin had they not done the Charter Oak quarter. If they had, they would have beaten Rhode Island to the "sailing" quarter simply by virtue of ratified the Constitution two years earlier (btw, Rhode Island was the last of the original 13 states to join the Union). Maryland could have also laid claim to the "sailing" quarter (ratifying a month after Connecticut) but in the end things worked out just fine... especially considering Rhode Island's nickname is "The Ocean State." So along with the sailboat, Rhode Island used the Newport Bridge and the state nickname in a very nice design. And as I mentioned earlier, Rhode Island's design perfectly avoids a straight line to define the end of the design (water). Grade: A

Vermont - I'm not sure if there is a rule against using things along state borders, like Lake Champlain between New York and Vermont. Not that Lake Champlain would have been better then a guy collecting maple syrup sap though. Oh and tucked away behind the dude and the trees is Camel's Hump Mountain, which I wouldn't have known had I not looked it up. In all, a very good coin but basically a regular coin. But at least they did two obvious things which saved it from being a bad quarter: First they didn't end the design by "cutting it" along the bottom. Second, they were creative enough to use the phrase "Freedom and Unity." Not that I'm against state nicknames, but in this case their nickname is pretty obvious (especially if you speak french): "The Green Mountain State." So we'll give Vermont a middle of the road grade. Grade: C

Kentucky - I should say that I like Vermont and Kentucky's quarters, it's just that they are average coins. They both went with things they are really known for (which coins like MA and VA missed on) so I feel bad giving them middle of the road... but I promise to rank them higher than those coins in the final ranking. Their problem is that they picked rather calm scenes that would have looked much better on a photo or travel poster. Kentucky went with a thoroughbred and another entity which requires looking up: The Federal Hill Mansion which looks like any other home/mansion. But, like Vermont, Kentucky should get points for not ending the design by "cutting it" at the bottom and for using "My Old Kentucky Home." (Although, that makes for a weird happening in that "Kentucky" appears twice on the quarter.) Finally, the alternate/proposed designs weren't any better in Kentucky's case, but I would have gone with a depiction of either Mammoth Cave or the stretch run of the Kentucky Derby. Grade: C

Next Time: Tennessee, Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, and Mississippi