It might sound like sour grapes, but I entirely believe what I am about to say: The Redskins got beat by the ghost of a dead football team owner. The game went as if it were scripted by Wellington Mara himself. And if you don't believe me, just wait until next week when the Redskins play the Eagles. If I were a betting man I would go with the Redskins and I will be ready to eat crow if I am wrong.
Every possible aspect of this game went against the Redskins: offense wasn't working, constant turnovers, defense continued to allow multiple long runs, missed tackles, questionable calls, every penalty going against them, etc. The Redskins just never had a chance: when the Redskins weren't missing a turnover (Eli Manning's fumble), they were turning the ball over, or they were being called for encroachment when it could habe been a false start penalty. In any case, as long as this acts as some sort of cleansing (ie. the Giants exposing the Redskins weaknesses), I'll take it as long as the Redskins do something about it. Remember, I didn't expect them to win this game. In my guess of 11-5 or 10-6, I figured most of their losses would come earlier in the season in weeks 2 (at Dallas), 5 (at Denver), 6 (at Kansas City), and 8 (at NYG). (The sixth loss being in week 17 at Philly) I still expect them to "hold home" and win out their home games. Doing that and beating those teams they should away, should still have them in the playoffs.
Finally, when it comes to the Giants, even though Eli Manning over and underthrowing receivers it didn't make a difference (btw, I still don't see what is so outstanding about him). And, it won't make a difference for the next two weeks considering they'll be playing the 49ers and Vikings next. And Eli can work out any problems in that time. Unlike others (Bill Simmons, for one) I'll wait to pass judgement on Eli after he has played the tough run of Philly, at Seattle, Dallas, at Philly, Kansas City, and at the Redskins.
Sunday, October 30, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Movies: The Weather Man, Jarhead and Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World
I'll probably be going to see The Weather Man this weekend. I guess I really like Nicolas Cage, even though everytime I have seen him interviewed this week he has scared the crap out of me. He looks like a South American drug lord, with his wispy mustache and dyed black hair.
Next week I will certainly be seeing Sam Mendes's Jarhead. As I said a few weeks ago, I have been looking forward to this movie for awhile now. Mendes is probably my favorite director of the past few years... it's between him and M. Night Shyamalan. And although Shyamalan directs a movie about every 2 years, Mendes has about a 3 year gap between his movies. (Although his next directed movie is supposed to come out next year, Sweeney Todd)
My quick thoughts before I see the movie are these: First, I am still not convinced about Jamie Foxx as serious actor. I thought he was excellent in Collateral, but in his Oscar winning performance in Ray, i thought he played Ray Charles too caricature-ish. And in the previews for Jarhead, it looks like he is going to play this character as an imitation of Denzel Washington. The point when he says "hoo-rah" is SPOT ON Denzel. Second, I wasn't feeling Kanye West's "Jesus Walks" for the music in the trailer, but thats really nitpicking. Third, I am interesting in seeing another Gulf War (Desert Storm) movie, since the other two I can think of were both good, but not outstanding, films. (Three Kings and Courage under Fire)
Finally, I'm certainly looking forward to Albert Brooks's new movie Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World. I am a huge fan of Brooks, in particular Lost in America, Defending your Life and The Muse. I get the feeling Brooks would have made a great Seinfeld like TV show.
Next week I will certainly be seeing Sam Mendes's Jarhead. As I said a few weeks ago, I have been looking forward to this movie for awhile now. Mendes is probably my favorite director of the past few years... it's between him and M. Night Shyamalan. And although Shyamalan directs a movie about every 2 years, Mendes has about a 3 year gap between his movies. (Although his next directed movie is supposed to come out next year, Sweeney Todd)
My quick thoughts before I see the movie are these: First, I am still not convinced about Jamie Foxx as serious actor. I thought he was excellent in Collateral, but in his Oscar winning performance in Ray, i thought he played Ray Charles too caricature-ish. And in the previews for Jarhead, it looks like he is going to play this character as an imitation of Denzel Washington. The point when he says "hoo-rah" is SPOT ON Denzel. Second, I wasn't feeling Kanye West's "Jesus Walks" for the music in the trailer, but thats really nitpicking. Third, I am interesting in seeing another Gulf War (Desert Storm) movie, since the other two I can think of were both good, but not outstanding, films. (Three Kings and Courage under Fire)
Finally, I'm certainly looking forward to Albert Brooks's new movie Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World. I am a huge fan of Brooks, in particular Lost in America, Defending your Life and The Muse. I get the feeling Brooks would have made a great Seinfeld like TV show.
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
The Best No Pull Harness: Front leash harness
Edit: I have written an update for this post, if want to see it just click here now.
This post will probably be boring if you don't have a dog, and even if you do it might be boring anyways. So don't say I didn't warn you.
First my quick thoughts about having a dog:
1. you quickly find out where all the trash cans in your neighborhood are (near the metrobus stops) so you can throw the poo bags away.
2. it's kinda of awkward talking to someone while your dog is trying to mount their dog.
Anyways the main point of this post is about dogs pulling, and solutions to the problem. There are a bunch of techniques which don't require hardware, but this post will be about leashes, harnesses and collars designed to keep a dog from pulling.
If you haven't guessed already, Gilligan is a puller. Sometimes he's content walking next to me, but some times he puts his nose to the ground and pulls. So I looked around for a solution and found that most pet stores carry two kinds of non-choke solutions: halter collars (Sporn, etc.) and head harnesses (Gentle Leader, Halti, etc.).
Halter collars, are collars that have cables/straps that look alot like a backpack's straps look on people. The leash is connected to these straps, so when the dog pulls, it pulls their legs back instead of their collar. If they pull left, it pulls back on their left shoulder. If they pull right, it pulls back on their right shoulder. Sounds good in theory but in action it's a "leg choke harness." The biggest problems people have with them is that the straps can pull so hard that it can cut off circulation to the legs and/or it can chafe the area. To me it's not much better than a choke collar, so I wasn't trying it on Gilligan.
The first thing I tried was a Halti head harness. A head harness is basically a collar with an attached muzzle cover which controls a dog by controlling it's head. Many dogs, including Gilligan, HATE it. They spend most of the time shaking their heads back and forth. It's pretty easy to understand why since not too many animals are keen on having things wrapped around their mouths and having their head controlled.
Finally I read about "front leash" or "front lead" harnesses. Unlike a regular harness (which clips to a spot behind the dogs neck), these harnesses are leashed in the front, right at a dog's chest. There seems to be a good amount of positive feed back about them, but since they are relatively new they are hard to find. I have been able to find 3 makers. A guy named Wayne Hightower makes one, a company named Softouch Concepts makes the Sense-ation Harness and the Sense-ible Harness, and the folks who make the Gentle Leader Headcollar, (Premier), make the Easy Walk Harness. Premier is the only company that is carried in most pet stores (including Petsmart and Petco), but most stores don't carry the Easy Walk. Fortunately the Petco in Tyson Corner had it.
So I tried it on Gilligan, and it worked immediately and perfectly. The harness works because of two reasons. First, a dog CANNOT pull from the back because it connects in the front, so it will always pull from a side. Second, the harness in essence "pushes" instead of pulls on the dog's shoulders. That is to say when the dog pulls left, it pushes the left shoulder to the right, and vice versa. It is a much nicer contraption because it doesn't squeeze sensitive areas, it forces the shoulders to move away from where they are pulling towards.
Needless to say, I have ordered one (it is about 13 dollars cheaper from Amazon) and am eagerly awaiting it. So if you, or someone you know, need a gentle device to keep a dog from pulling, definitely look into these "front leash" harnesses.
Edit (12/06/06): I have written a new post in essence updating and expanding on information found in this post.
This post will probably be boring if you don't have a dog, and even if you do it might be boring anyways. So don't say I didn't warn you.
First my quick thoughts about having a dog:
1. you quickly find out where all the trash cans in your neighborhood are (near the metrobus stops) so you can throw the poo bags away.
2. it's kinda of awkward talking to someone while your dog is trying to mount their dog.
Anyways the main point of this post is about dogs pulling, and solutions to the problem. There are a bunch of techniques which don't require hardware, but this post will be about leashes, harnesses and collars designed to keep a dog from pulling.
If you haven't guessed already, Gilligan is a puller. Sometimes he's content walking next to me, but some times he puts his nose to the ground and pulls. So I looked around for a solution and found that most pet stores carry two kinds of non-choke solutions: halter collars (Sporn, etc.) and head harnesses (Gentle Leader, Halti, etc.).
Halter collars, are collars that have cables/straps that look alot like a backpack's straps look on people. The leash is connected to these straps, so when the dog pulls, it pulls their legs back instead of their collar. If they pull left, it pulls back on their left shoulder. If they pull right, it pulls back on their right shoulder. Sounds good in theory but in action it's a "leg choke harness." The biggest problems people have with them is that the straps can pull so hard that it can cut off circulation to the legs and/or it can chafe the area. To me it's not much better than a choke collar, so I wasn't trying it on Gilligan.
The first thing I tried was a Halti head harness. A head harness is basically a collar with an attached muzzle cover which controls a dog by controlling it's head. Many dogs, including Gilligan, HATE it. They spend most of the time shaking their heads back and forth. It's pretty easy to understand why since not too many animals are keen on having things wrapped around their mouths and having their head controlled.
Finally I read about "front leash" or "front lead" harnesses. Unlike a regular harness (which clips to a spot behind the dogs neck), these harnesses are leashed in the front, right at a dog's chest. There seems to be a good amount of positive feed back about them, but since they are relatively new they are hard to find. I have been able to find 3 makers. A guy named Wayne Hightower makes one, a company named Softouch Concepts makes the Sense-ation Harness and the Sense-ible Harness, and the folks who make the Gentle Leader Headcollar, (Premier), make the Easy Walk Harness. Premier is the only company that is carried in most pet stores (including Petsmart and Petco), but most stores don't carry the Easy Walk. Fortunately the Petco in Tyson Corner had it.
So I tried it on Gilligan, and it worked immediately and perfectly. The harness works because of two reasons. First, a dog CANNOT pull from the back because it connects in the front, so it will always pull from a side. Second, the harness in essence "pushes" instead of pulls on the dog's shoulders. That is to say when the dog pulls left, it pushes the left shoulder to the right, and vice versa. It is a much nicer contraption because it doesn't squeeze sensitive areas, it forces the shoulders to move away from where they are pulling towards.
Needless to say, I have ordered one (it is about 13 dollars cheaper from Amazon) and am eagerly awaiting it. So if you, or someone you know, need a gentle device to keep a dog from pulling, definitely look into these "front leash" harnesses.
Edit (12/06/06): I have written a new post in essence updating and expanding on information found in this post.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Redskins and the NFL top 15
I'm changing it up a bit this week. I'm putting my Redskins comments and NFL top 15 (which isn't this week... I'll explain later) in the same post.
I was going to write (like Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser did) that the 49ers are terrible. I was going to say that overpraising the Redskins win against the 49ers would be foolish. But I won't harp on those points. I'll just restate the obvious: this is exactly what they needed going into a tough stretch of the schedule. This is a good start... but it's just that, a start.
I found it interesting that in a post game interview, Gregg Williams made it sound like LaVar Arrington wasn't moving in practice as if he were 100% over the knee problems. It sounded like he was implying that his injury/surgery was the reason for not playing him. Not exactly buying it, but as long as he plays him now, I'm good.
Now on to my thoughts. You should know by now that I love complaining about Peter King and his top 15. He has two big problems. First, he overreacts to the past weekends happenings (for instance the Redskins were nowhere on his top 15 last week and this week he has them at #7). Second, he gets favorites (Chargers, Patriots, Eagles, Bill Parcells and therefore the Cowboys) and just won't give up on them. (I also want to point out that he is always biased towards his beloved New York Giants) I realize that I also keep teams ranked high that probably don't deserve being ranked so high (Patriots and Eagles) but at least I can say they both played in and won their conference title games last year.
In my ranking of King, we are going to keep him at "on crack." Nothing too crazy from King this week.
This is my quick reason why the NFC South stinks: the top 3 teams in the NFC South (Bucs, Falcons and Panthers) have a combined 14 wins, of which only ONE is against a team with a winning record (Falcons week 1 win against the Eagles).
I am really not happy with my ranking mainly because after the Colts I think its pretty even. In fact aside from a few changes I would make, I think the ESPN's Week 8 Power Ranking is pretty close. So I will just comment on teams #2-15 on their list.
2. Steelers. Only have two wins of note, against San Diego and Cincinnati, but neither is really that notable.
3. Falcons. One man team with just one impressive win in Week 1 against an Eagles team, who in hindsight isn't so great.
4. Broncos. 5 straight wins (bookended by loses), all against good teams, but I still don't trust Mike Shanahan or Jake Plummer.
5. Seahawks. Dangerous team, but probably won't be able to finish an important game when it is close (Remember the Packers overtime playoff game when Seattle won the toss and Matt Hasselbeck said "We want the ball and we're going to score!" only to throw the game winning interception for a touchdown? Yeah, Hasselbeck and Mike Holmgren are still there.)
6. Bucs. No impressive wins, (here comes the cliche) their Cadillac is in the shop and they don't seem to travel well.
7. Eagles. Lost too many players, can't and don't even try to run the ball and have two wins against good teams: one because Kansas City just shut it down after going up 17-0 on them, and this weekend after a lucky run back TD after a blocked field goal.
8. Jaguars. A team I like, that lost just 3-10 at Indianapolis in week 2. I am looking forward to their Dec. 11 rematch against the Colts in Jacskonsville.
9. Bengals. In a game they should have shown some mettle they reverted to their old selves against the Steelers. Plus as has been stated before, their record has alot to do with their weak schedule.
10. Giants. Only win of note was this past week's 4th quarter comeback against Denver. Like I said before their defense needs to be more consistent, then I'll believe.
11. Patriots. Still an interesting team because they can still beat teams with their jersey, if you know what I mean. Besides, I am not so sold on Tom Brady, because I believe they'ld have the same record with his backup. He's only been sacked 7 times this year. To me he is in the second tier of QBs behind the likes of Peyton Manning and Michael Vick.
12. Chargers. I wrote of their schizo tendancy last week. They are 3-4! How could you possibly rank them before the 4-2 Panthers, Redskins and Chiefs.
13. Panthers. They don't have a running game and their defense has only held one team (Patriots) under 20 points. No running game and a defense that doesnt scare anyone, isn't exactly a Super Bowl contender. Honestly does anyone on that team scare you?
14. Redskins. You know how I feel about them... their impressive wins were close calls, hopefully this weeks win changes things.
15. Chiefs. One win of note, against the Redskins, which was delivered on plate to them by a 3 to 0 turnover ratio (one for a TD) and a Redskins defense that broke (Priest Holmes's 60 yard TD) when it was trying to just bending. In other words ranked just about right.
I was going to write (like Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser did) that the 49ers are terrible. I was going to say that overpraising the Redskins win against the 49ers would be foolish. But I won't harp on those points. I'll just restate the obvious: this is exactly what they needed going into a tough stretch of the schedule. This is a good start... but it's just that, a start.
I found it interesting that in a post game interview, Gregg Williams made it sound like LaVar Arrington wasn't moving in practice as if he were 100% over the knee problems. It sounded like he was implying that his injury/surgery was the reason for not playing him. Not exactly buying it, but as long as he plays him now, I'm good.
Now on to my thoughts. You should know by now that I love complaining about Peter King and his top 15. He has two big problems. First, he overreacts to the past weekends happenings (for instance the Redskins were nowhere on his top 15 last week and this week he has them at #7). Second, he gets favorites (Chargers, Patriots, Eagles, Bill Parcells and therefore the Cowboys) and just won't give up on them. (I also want to point out that he is always biased towards his beloved New York Giants) I realize that I also keep teams ranked high that probably don't deserve being ranked so high (Patriots and Eagles) but at least I can say they both played in and won their conference title games last year.
In my ranking of King, we are going to keep him at "on crack." Nothing too crazy from King this week.
This is my quick reason why the NFC South stinks: the top 3 teams in the NFC South (Bucs, Falcons and Panthers) have a combined 14 wins, of which only ONE is against a team with a winning record (Falcons week 1 win against the Eagles).
I am really not happy with my ranking mainly because after the Colts I think its pretty even. In fact aside from a few changes I would make, I think the ESPN's Week 8 Power Ranking is pretty close. So I will just comment on teams #2-15 on their list.
2. Steelers. Only have two wins of note, against San Diego and Cincinnati, but neither is really that notable.
3. Falcons. One man team with just one impressive win in Week 1 against an Eagles team, who in hindsight isn't so great.
4. Broncos. 5 straight wins (bookended by loses), all against good teams, but I still don't trust Mike Shanahan or Jake Plummer.
5. Seahawks. Dangerous team, but probably won't be able to finish an important game when it is close (Remember the Packers overtime playoff game when Seattle won the toss and Matt Hasselbeck said "We want the ball and we're going to score!" only to throw the game winning interception for a touchdown? Yeah, Hasselbeck and Mike Holmgren are still there.)
6. Bucs. No impressive wins, (here comes the cliche) their Cadillac is in the shop and they don't seem to travel well.
7. Eagles. Lost too many players, can't and don't even try to run the ball and have two wins against good teams: one because Kansas City just shut it down after going up 17-0 on them, and this weekend after a lucky run back TD after a blocked field goal.
8. Jaguars. A team I like, that lost just 3-10 at Indianapolis in week 2. I am looking forward to their Dec. 11 rematch against the Colts in Jacskonsville.
9. Bengals. In a game they should have shown some mettle they reverted to their old selves against the Steelers. Plus as has been stated before, their record has alot to do with their weak schedule.
10. Giants. Only win of note was this past week's 4th quarter comeback against Denver. Like I said before their defense needs to be more consistent, then I'll believe.
11. Patriots. Still an interesting team because they can still beat teams with their jersey, if you know what I mean. Besides, I am not so sold on Tom Brady, because I believe they'ld have the same record with his backup. He's only been sacked 7 times this year. To me he is in the second tier of QBs behind the likes of Peyton Manning and Michael Vick.
12. Chargers. I wrote of their schizo tendancy last week. They are 3-4! How could you possibly rank them before the 4-2 Panthers, Redskins and Chiefs.
13. Panthers. They don't have a running game and their defense has only held one team (Patriots) under 20 points. No running game and a defense that doesnt scare anyone, isn't exactly a Super Bowl contender. Honestly does anyone on that team scare you?
14. Redskins. You know how I feel about them... their impressive wins were close calls, hopefully this weeks win changes things.
15. Chiefs. One win of note, against the Redskins, which was delivered on plate to them by a 3 to 0 turnover ratio (one for a TD) and a Redskins defense that broke (Priest Holmes's 60 yard TD) when it was trying to just bending. In other words ranked just about right.
Monday, October 24, 2005
San Fran in Jello
So, I'm not so keen on copying links you can find pretty much anywhere else but if I really really like it I will. And I really like these pictures of San Francisco in Jello by Elizabeth Hickok. I liked the pics of Postcard Row, the Painted Ladies or whatever they want to call them, from Alamo Square. (via Fark)
Thursday, October 20, 2005
The Panda Cub and the NFL Top 15
In case you missed it, earlier this week the National Zoo named the new panda Tai Shan. And guess what... that was the name I was in favor of back when they announced the names. So thats a plus for me.
Now on to this crazy thing called the NFL.
So last week when Peter King put Dallas at #8, I immediately thought two things: King is officially insane, and how high could he put them if they beat Giants team that hasn't beaten anyone of note. Well the 'Boys won and King drops them 2 spots to 10. I am stunned and King has been downgraded to "on crack." Oh and his excuse to for putting San Diego at #2, "He really likes them." Well La-de-freaking-da! Apparently being a schizo team, gets you much love from King.
What do I call a schizo team? Well simply, it's an otherwise good team that has a leader (like a coach or QB) or situation (the New Orleans Saints) which can lose a game for you. Which means they can win big or lose to a bad team at anytime. The Chargers have coach Marty, who doesn't really seem to care when he loses or wins, as long as he thinks his system is working. (Kinda reminds me of Gregg Willams and his former Buffalo Bills team) It also works the other way around when a good team has lost so many players that they could still beat anyone, but they could still lose big... like the Patriots. Schizo teams usually don't get very far because winning 3 games in a row against good teams (like in the playoffs and Super Bowl) is obviously not easy.
BTW, as much as the NFL East was described as being "back" I just don't see it. There is more parity, but does that count as being "back." The Eagles are worse than last years team. The Cowboys are so suspect on both sides of the field it's not even funny. The "defensive star" of their team, Roy Williams, gets beat WAY to many times on long passing plays. Sure he can hit hard and cause fumbles, but I'm pretty sure hes worth at least a TD per game for the opposing offense. Put it this way, if Gregg Williams had Roy Williams on his defense, Roy would be riding the bench along with LaVar. The Giants and Redskins are the only teams that are actually intriguing. The Giants offense makes me think of the Redskins defense... they seem good but it seems that when it matters (normally when their counterparts mess up) they aren't there.
There wasn't much shuffling to do this week since I was pretty satisfied with the ranking. I was just dumb for putting the Steelers so high considering I haven't believed in them all year, and I'm droppinig Tampa Bay because they just lost their QB, and after their bye and game against the 49ers, their schedule is getting hard. The Redskins didn't make it because they just don't deserve it... Read here as to why. Trust me I want to get them back in there, but the only way that is happening is if the defense actually does something besides the "bend but don't break, but let the other team win anyways" scheme and the offense scores more than 30 points OR numbers 10-15 just start stinking.
Finally on to the top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Denver Broncos
3. Cincinnati Bengals
4. Atlanta Falcons
5. Tampa Bay Bucs
6. Philadelphia Eagles
7. Jacksonville Jaguars
8. New England Patriots
9. Pittsburgh Steelers
10. Kansas City Chiefs
11. Seattle Seahawks
12. San Diego Chargers
13. Carolina Panthers
14. Dallas Cowboys
15. New York Giants
Now on to this crazy thing called the NFL.
So last week when Peter King put Dallas at #8, I immediately thought two things: King is officially insane, and how high could he put them if they beat Giants team that hasn't beaten anyone of note. Well the 'Boys won and King drops them 2 spots to 10. I am stunned and King has been downgraded to "on crack." Oh and his excuse to for putting San Diego at #2, "He really likes them." Well La-de-freaking-da! Apparently being a schizo team, gets you much love from King.
What do I call a schizo team? Well simply, it's an otherwise good team that has a leader (like a coach or QB) or situation (the New Orleans Saints) which can lose a game for you. Which means they can win big or lose to a bad team at anytime. The Chargers have coach Marty, who doesn't really seem to care when he loses or wins, as long as he thinks his system is working. (Kinda reminds me of Gregg Willams and his former Buffalo Bills team) It also works the other way around when a good team has lost so many players that they could still beat anyone, but they could still lose big... like the Patriots. Schizo teams usually don't get very far because winning 3 games in a row against good teams (like in the playoffs and Super Bowl) is obviously not easy.
BTW, as much as the NFL East was described as being "back" I just don't see it. There is more parity, but does that count as being "back." The Eagles are worse than last years team. The Cowboys are so suspect on both sides of the field it's not even funny. The "defensive star" of their team, Roy Williams, gets beat WAY to many times on long passing plays. Sure he can hit hard and cause fumbles, but I'm pretty sure hes worth at least a TD per game for the opposing offense. Put it this way, if Gregg Williams had Roy Williams on his defense, Roy would be riding the bench along with LaVar. The Giants and Redskins are the only teams that are actually intriguing. The Giants offense makes me think of the Redskins defense... they seem good but it seems that when it matters (normally when their counterparts mess up) they aren't there.
There wasn't much shuffling to do this week since I was pretty satisfied with the ranking. I was just dumb for putting the Steelers so high considering I haven't believed in them all year, and I'm droppinig Tampa Bay because they just lost their QB, and after their bye and game against the 49ers, their schedule is getting hard. The Redskins didn't make it because they just don't deserve it... Read here as to why. Trust me I want to get them back in there, but the only way that is happening is if the defense actually does something besides the "bend but don't break, but let the other team win anyways" scheme and the offense scores more than 30 points OR numbers 10-15 just start stinking.
Finally on to the top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Denver Broncos
3. Cincinnati Bengals
4. Atlanta Falcons
5. Tampa Bay Bucs
6. Philadelphia Eagles
7. Jacksonville Jaguars
8. New England Patriots
9. Pittsburgh Steelers
10. Kansas City Chiefs
11. Seattle Seahawks
12. San Diego Chargers
13. Carolina Panthers
14. Dallas Cowboys
15. New York Giants
Monday, October 17, 2005
Meet Gilligan
A few weeks ago I bad talked the Washington Humane Society for their de facto "first come, first serve" adoption policy. Although I understand the policy (and in essence agree with it), I was very unhappy about the way it was presented to me.
Well last tuesday we visited the Washington Animal Rescue League. It is an excellent shelter, with a very helpful group of employees and volunteers. Alas, it's going through a remodeling which brought the amount of animals it can hold to a minimum. But we did meet a group of beagles who had spent most of their lives in cages with wire floors in a puppy mill. They seemed to be very kind, extremely shy, not housebroken, and probably in need of more work and patience than we could truly give one of them. Plus, splitting them up seemed just didn't feel right. So we sadly left. With a better understanding of their policy, we headed back to the Washington Humane Society.
Earlier that day I had seen, on their website, a cute 5 month old beagle that had been given up because his owner could no longer take care of him. His name was Dallas. We arrived and found him, by himself chilling in his bed. When you would put your hand in the cage, he would come over, lick you, and then once he realized he couldn't play, go back to his bed. I wanted to meet him. The first thing he did was thoroughly lick my face. He had me the second he calmed down and laid his head on my arm after holding him for a few seconds.
After asking how many applications there were on him (and getting an honest, although not what I was looking for, answer: "We can't say.") we decided to apply and not get our hopes up. Surprisingly, we recieved a call the next day, Wednesday. They wanted to start the process, and we had to wait for a volunteer to conduct a home visit. On Thursday, a very nice lady called and asked when we could conduct the visit... we of course said anytimes, and she said "how about tonight." That night she came over, in the rain, and went over the process and gave us some advice... she ended the interview by saying he could be picked up as soon as possible. Amazingly we recieved a call the next day from the adoption coordinator saying we could pick him that day... and at about 6 pm that evening we left the shelter with our new puppy.
We had thought of three names: Archibald, Optimus Prime and Gilligan (of course Optimus was my idea). Only Gilligan truly fit him. He's mischievous and cute. He's somewhat housebroken and has very little problem with his crate. He even buries his bone.
BTW, that picture is from the shelter but I'll soon be putting up his pictures over on flickr.
Sunday, October 16, 2005
Redskins: 3-2, now what?
I am officially fed up with the Redskins, and I blame the coaching staff. This is yet another game in which the Redskins should have won, but the Redskins found a way to lose. Kansas City won this game because of short fields (turnovers) and Redskins penalties at key moments (3rd downs). The once vaunted defensive scheme now does two things: give up no yards or give up long TDs. Not a single turnover in the past FOREVER games. The worst part? Even though their problems are fixable, the coaching staff will most likely do nothing different.
First problem: The offense is turning the ball over too much and (at least for this game) I blame the offensive line. Although they have improved their Red Zone scoring, turnovers will kill any improvement. Second problem: The defense is not causing any turnovers and, frankly, I don't think they scare anyone.
They have two players who can scare you on defense, and one of them spends the game sitting on the bench. Sean Taylor has two or three hits a game which, I'm sure make the ball carrier think twice about his ability to hold on. LaVar Arrington would account for at least another 2. Do the coaches think hard hits don't affect a player. Do they think that Arrington is so undisciplined that he's not worth those hard hits?
I am now officially on the "LaVar Arrington is being screwed" bandwagon. I am on it now because I believe a playmaker like Arrington could have made a difference in the past two games. I thought it was unwise to not play him, but while they were winning there was no reason to change. But now after two consecutive loses... really, why not play him?
But I think the sad part is that next week the defense will play well against a bad 49ers offense, and all will seem fine. Gregg Williams will seem vindicated. The two horrible losses will feel like eons ago. But in truth they will still be the team that lost the last two weeks because of turnovers (and lack of turnovers) and a defense that really doesn't stop anyone when it counts.
First problem: The offense is turning the ball over too much and (at least for this game) I blame the offensive line. Although they have improved their Red Zone scoring, turnovers will kill any improvement. Second problem: The defense is not causing any turnovers and, frankly, I don't think they scare anyone.
They have two players who can scare you on defense, and one of them spends the game sitting on the bench. Sean Taylor has two or three hits a game which, I'm sure make the ball carrier think twice about his ability to hold on. LaVar Arrington would account for at least another 2. Do the coaches think hard hits don't affect a player. Do they think that Arrington is so undisciplined that he's not worth those hard hits?
I am now officially on the "LaVar Arrington is being screwed" bandwagon. I am on it now because I believe a playmaker like Arrington could have made a difference in the past two games. I thought it was unwise to not play him, but while they were winning there was no reason to change. But now after two consecutive loses... really, why not play him?
But I think the sad part is that next week the defense will play well against a bad 49ers offense, and all will seem fine. Gregg Williams will seem vindicated. The two horrible losses will feel like eons ago. But in truth they will still be the team that lost the last two weeks because of turnovers (and lack of turnovers) and a defense that really doesn't stop anyone when it counts.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
I probably won't be going to Germany next year
My beloved national soccer team will not be going to Germany in 2006. Needing a win against Ecuador in Santiago and loses or ties by both Colombia (at Paraguay) and Uruguay (vs. Argentina), La Roja played Ecuador to a scoreless tie tonight. It didn't make much difference because both Columbia and Uruguay won their games, 1-0.
This was the final game of 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifiers and Chile was tied with Colombia for 6th place, one point behind 5th place Uruguay. The 5th place team would earn the right to play Australia for a spot in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. In the end they finished in 7th place, and will watch the World Cup from the same place as I... home.
So let see: the Redskins lost, the Caps either win by 1 or lose by at least 5, and my national team is out of the World Cup. All in all not a great sports week. My only solace is: 1. that, after a weak start, the Terps are winning and 2. the Yankees lost!
Oh and finally: Wow! The Angels got JOBBED! I flipped over to see Mark Buehrle finish the top of the 9th, to probably end up getting a no decision and watching someone else pick up the loss in the 10th or 11th. But oh no! The umps must have had reservations somewhere cause this game was ending in the bottom of the 9th... sorry Angels!
This was the final game of 2006 FIFA World Cup qualifiers and Chile was tied with Colombia for 6th place, one point behind 5th place Uruguay. The 5th place team would earn the right to play Australia for a spot in the 2006 FIFA World Cup. In the end they finished in 7th place, and will watch the World Cup from the same place as I... home.
So let see: the Redskins lost, the Caps either win by 1 or lose by at least 5, and my national team is out of the World Cup. All in all not a great sports week. My only solace is: 1. that, after a weak start, the Terps are winning and 2. the Yankees lost!
Oh and finally: Wow! The Angels got JOBBED! I flipped over to see Mark Buehrle finish the top of the 9th, to probably end up getting a no decision and watching someone else pick up the loss in the 10th or 11th. But oh no! The umps must have had reservations somewhere cause this game was ending in the bottom of the 9th... sorry Angels!
The Panda Cub has a name!
This past weekend I went to a picnic at the National Zoo and I saw a familiar face. I saw the lady who appears on TV on behalf of the Zoo, and who I've seen in pictures holding the cub. I didn't know at the time but her name is Lisa Stevens and she is an assistant currator.
So of course I had to ask if the name had been chosen. And it has.... but she wasn't telling. All she would tell me was that "it's a good name." She also said that the name will be announced next Monday, October 17th on the Today Show.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
NFL Top 15 (week 6)
I'm not making much of this past week, and that is why the top 15 order didn't change much. Don't get me wrong, there is ALOT to learn from that week. The point is that no team, aside from the Colts, stood out. Every game involving my top 15 (except for the Eagles/Cowboys) was close. Each game could have gone the other way. Having said that here are my thoughts:
1. All this talk about not counting out the Patriots is stupid. The Patriots beat up on the Falcons without Michael Vick. Now I'm quite aware that Vick wouldn't have stopped Tom Brady from racking up all those yards, but Atlanta's defense wasn't exactly stellar to start with. Vick could have easily put more points on the dessimated Patriots defense, or at least not made Vinatieri once again look like Larry Bird. They should call him the Football Jesus in Boston. (BTW, ESPN's Skip Bayless wants to get rid of kickers, and I guess field goals, in the NFL. I'm pretty sure that AT LEAST the Patriots wouldn't be in favor of that, considering they've built their dynasty on kicking field goals. Yeah, great idea there Skippy!)
2. The Eagles loss was not a fluke... more on that a little later.
3. I still have them at 4 and 5, but the Bucs and Bengals are only there because everyone else lost too. I want to see them play good teams later in the season when things get harder.
4. Peter King is officially INSANE. Granted he wrote his top 15 before the MNF game but he has San Diego at #2 and Pittsburgh at #10. They definitely were closer than 8 spots away from each other! (I had SD at #10 and Pittsburgh at #6, last week) Oh and just to show how much he LOVES Bill Parcells he has the Cowboys at #8, and praises their win against the Eagles as a warning shot to the NFC East. Ummmm Pete, the Eagles have all of ONE respectable win and that was at Kansas City, when the Chiefs offense couldn't keep up with the AWFUL Chiefs defense giving up the lead in the second half. Maybe they gave a warning shot to the Division Champ Eagles, but to the NFC East? Please don't be so dramatic, Dallas has lost to Washington and they're playing the Giants this Sunday, so can we hold of the hyperbole for at least one week?
My Top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Denver Broncos
4. Tampa Bay Bucs
5. Cincinnati Bengals
6. Atlanta Falcons
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. New England Patriots
9. Redskins
10. New York Giants
11. Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Dallas Cowboys
13. Seattle Seahawks
14. Kansas City Chiefs
15. Carolina Panthers
1. All this talk about not counting out the Patriots is stupid. The Patriots beat up on the Falcons without Michael Vick. Now I'm quite aware that Vick wouldn't have stopped Tom Brady from racking up all those yards, but Atlanta's defense wasn't exactly stellar to start with. Vick could have easily put more points on the dessimated Patriots defense, or at least not made Vinatieri once again look like Larry Bird. They should call him the Football Jesus in Boston. (BTW, ESPN's Skip Bayless wants to get rid of kickers, and I guess field goals, in the NFL. I'm pretty sure that AT LEAST the Patriots wouldn't be in favor of that, considering they've built their dynasty on kicking field goals. Yeah, great idea there Skippy!)
2. The Eagles loss was not a fluke... more on that a little later.
3. I still have them at 4 and 5, but the Bucs and Bengals are only there because everyone else lost too. I want to see them play good teams later in the season when things get harder.
4. Peter King is officially INSANE. Granted he wrote his top 15 before the MNF game but he has San Diego at #2 and Pittsburgh at #10. They definitely were closer than 8 spots away from each other! (I had SD at #10 and Pittsburgh at #6, last week) Oh and just to show how much he LOVES Bill Parcells he has the Cowboys at #8, and praises their win against the Eagles as a warning shot to the NFC East. Ummmm Pete, the Eagles have all of ONE respectable win and that was at Kansas City, when the Chiefs offense couldn't keep up with the AWFUL Chiefs defense giving up the lead in the second half. Maybe they gave a warning shot to the Division Champ Eagles, but to the NFC East? Please don't be so dramatic, Dallas has lost to Washington and they're playing the Giants this Sunday, so can we hold of the hyperbole for at least one week?
My Top 15:
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Denver Broncos
4. Tampa Bay Bucs
5. Cincinnati Bengals
6. Atlanta Falcons
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. New England Patriots
9. Redskins
10. New York Giants
11. Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Dallas Cowboys
13. Seattle Seahawks
14. Kansas City Chiefs
15. Carolina Panthers
Sunday, October 09, 2005
3 and 1. so what?
I feel the need to comment on the Redskins and on Tuesday I'll write the top 15. First let me say, I am not dropping the Redskins too far.
The Redskins could and should have won that game. A negated touchdown on a TERRIBLE offensive pass interference, two negated field goals, and a "tuck rule" negating a safety. That's 15 points the Redskins didn't get because of bad calls, mistakes and a bad rule. And don't think I'm being too biased because the Broncos got hosed too, like on the defensive pass interference on the 4th down drive at the end. The referees were awful.
My other thoughts on the game:
1. Strangely, this game should at least give the Redskins the respect they deserve, losing by 2 points on the road to a team which most people have in their top 8.
2. Can the Skins defense get a turnover or what!? Come on!
3. The Skins are going into Arrowhead Stadium next week and could just as well drop another game demoralizing them and making the next four games (49ers, Giants, Eagles, and Bucs) very loseable. (And yes, I think even if they beat the 49ers, it doesnt help in playing the next 3 or 4 games)
4. I'm happy because hopefully this loss gives the team a sense of urgency which they don't seem to have until the 4th quarter of games. It's pretty obvious to me that the Skins can stretch out the field pretty well, so when that field gets shorter (in the red zone) options get shut down.
5. I'm not happy because I don't think Denver is all that good of a team. Even though at the beginning of the season I listed this as one of the 5 games they could lose and still go 11-5, the Redskins just beat themselves.
6. The defense is giving up too many big plays, its rediculous. I didn't want to bring it up while they were winning (like everyone else) but exactly why aren't they playing LaVar Arrington? Warrick Holdman missed (or arrived late to) a few important tackles.
7. And I'll post this now before the start of the Bengals vs. Jaguars game..... ESPN.com's Bill Simmons put it well when he described the Bengals early schedule as "Krispy Kreme." I'm thinking they'll lose in Jacksonville tonight.
The Redskins could and should have won that game. A negated touchdown on a TERRIBLE offensive pass interference, two negated field goals, and a "tuck rule" negating a safety. That's 15 points the Redskins didn't get because of bad calls, mistakes and a bad rule. And don't think I'm being too biased because the Broncos got hosed too, like on the defensive pass interference on the 4th down drive at the end. The referees were awful.
My other thoughts on the game:
1. Strangely, this game should at least give the Redskins the respect they deserve, losing by 2 points on the road to a team which most people have in their top 8.
2. Can the Skins defense get a turnover or what!? Come on!
3. The Skins are going into Arrowhead Stadium next week and could just as well drop another game demoralizing them and making the next four games (49ers, Giants, Eagles, and Bucs) very loseable. (And yes, I think even if they beat the 49ers, it doesnt help in playing the next 3 or 4 games)
4. I'm happy because hopefully this loss gives the team a sense of urgency which they don't seem to have until the 4th quarter of games. It's pretty obvious to me that the Skins can stretch out the field pretty well, so when that field gets shorter (in the red zone) options get shut down.
5. I'm not happy because I don't think Denver is all that good of a team. Even though at the beginning of the season I listed this as one of the 5 games they could lose and still go 11-5, the Redskins just beat themselves.
6. The defense is giving up too many big plays, its rediculous. I didn't want to bring it up while they were winning (like everyone else) but exactly why aren't they playing LaVar Arrington? Warrick Holdman missed (or arrived late to) a few important tackles.
7. And I'll post this now before the start of the Bengals vs. Jaguars game..... ESPN.com's Bill Simmons put it well when he described the Bengals early schedule as "Krispy Kreme." I'm thinking they'll lose in Jacksonville tonight.
Friday, October 07, 2005
Python vs. Alligator
So remember back in elementary school when you used to fight over who would win a fight in rediculous matches? You know like a bear vs. a shark (I have always thought the shark wins) or a footlong bee vs. a platypus (remember male platypuses have venomous spurs). Well thanks to the National Park Service, we have definitive proof that Burmese Python vs. Alligator is a tie.
Okay and now my two thoughts about the article.
1. The fact that there is a "growing" population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades sorta freaks me out there a bit.
AND
2. I was watching Animal Planet about a week ago and watched as they found a big snake (anaconda or python, i don't remember which) by smelling it. So it comes as no surprise that they go with the trusty ole beagle to find these invasive pythons from all the other snakes they've got there. I was also happy to find this National Geographic article with pictures of "Python Pete."
Okay and now my two thoughts about the article.
1. The fact that there is a "growing" population of Burmese pythons in the Everglades sorta freaks me out there a bit.
AND
2. I was watching Animal Planet about a week ago and watched as they found a big snake (anaconda or python, i don't remember which) by smelling it. So it comes as no surprise that they go with the trusty ole beagle to find these invasive pythons from all the other snakes they've got there. I was also happy to find this National Geographic article with pictures of "Python Pete."
Thursday, October 06, 2005
NHL Opening Night
My streak of opening day/night games for 2005 continued last night at the MCI Center. I only need to make it to the Wizards' opening night on November 5th and I will have hit the quadfecta of the Nats, Redskins, Capitals, and Wiz.
My thoughts:
1. I don't want to jinx it, but Alexander Ovechkin is... um, I'll say pretty good. First he started with an impressive preseason which included a hat trick. Then in last nights game, after a good if not fruitful first period, he score 2 perfectly timed goals (answering goals from Columbus). What else could you ask from him? Okay so it would have been interesting if not prudent to see him on the penalty kill. Finally, I really think it helps that the rookie spotlight is ENTIRELY on Sidney Crosby, leaving Ovechkin free of that pressure.
2. The new rules make for an interestingly open game. I'm not going to drool over it like all the talking heads have on TV, but I'm definitely not complaining. The offensive zones look huge and I kept thinking the new lines behind the goals were broken sticks on the ice... It is also interesting to see players getting called for hooks and checks which are second nature and which were perfectly fine 2 years ago.
3. I'm gonna need some time getting used to seeing Jeff Friesen wearing Peter Bondra's #12. Amazingly with all the new rules Bondra's new team, Atlanta, was shutout!
4. I realize it's just one game, against the Blue Jackets at that, but I don't think this team is going to be as bad as many people think. There is some serious young talent on the Caps, and if they can do the cliches (play together, avoid stupid mistakes, etc.) I don't see why they can't at least finish second in the Southeast Division.
My thoughts:
1. I don't want to jinx it, but Alexander Ovechkin is... um, I'll say pretty good. First he started with an impressive preseason which included a hat trick. Then in last nights game, after a good if not fruitful first period, he score 2 perfectly timed goals (answering goals from Columbus). What else could you ask from him? Okay so it would have been interesting if not prudent to see him on the penalty kill. Finally, I really think it helps that the rookie spotlight is ENTIRELY on Sidney Crosby, leaving Ovechkin free of that pressure.
2. The new rules make for an interestingly open game. I'm not going to drool over it like all the talking heads have on TV, but I'm definitely not complaining. The offensive zones look huge and I kept thinking the new lines behind the goals were broken sticks on the ice... It is also interesting to see players getting called for hooks and checks which are second nature and which were perfectly fine 2 years ago.
3. I'm gonna need some time getting used to seeing Jeff Friesen wearing Peter Bondra's #12. Amazingly with all the new rules Bondra's new team, Atlanta, was shutout!
4. I realize it's just one game, against the Blue Jackets at that, but I don't think this team is going to be as bad as many people think. There is some serious young talent on the Caps, and if they can do the cliches (play together, avoid stupid mistakes, etc.) I don't see why they can't at least finish second in the Southeast Division.
Monday, October 03, 2005
3-0? So what?
I'm not sure who said it but I first heard Steve Czaban of Comcast SportsNet's Redskins Post Game Live put it best when he said "3-0? So what?"
And thats not exactly a bad thing. It's what the Redskins themselves should be saying for two reasons. One: they have yet to win convincingly this season, and two: it should drive them. At 3-0, no one outside of DC expects them to do well, they see these wins as lucky or as the AP puts it "The fates are truly shining on the Redskins so far this season." And to that they should say "So what?"
This start reminds me of two teams, The New England Patriots of the past 4 years and the 2001 Chicago Bears. Although it seems to be fading this year, in the past 4 years the Patriots just knew how to win. Take a lead, or don't let the other team run away with it, keep it close and win in the end. Which worked for them in the form of 3 Super Bowl titles. And they also remind me of the Bears who went 13-3 in the regular season, by getting lucky and playing a weak schedule. We can only wait and see who they turn out to be.
The things I like:
1. Unlike the past few years, the Redskins are converting 3rd downs.
2. FedEx Field is alive. Leaving on Sunday, fans were chanting "3 and Oh!" and "Undefeated!" It was amazingly loud and thats not even mentioning how loud it was when the Seahawks had the ball during the game.
The things I don't like:
1. The 3rd downs the Redskins are converting are LONG. Which means they aren't doing much on 1st and 2nd... you can't live off of that.
2. The defense allowed the Seahawks to drive down almost the length of the field twice for touchdowns. I know I'm getting spoiled but this is not typical for the Skins defense. And with the offense not exactly running smoothly, that almost cost them the game this week. I just hope it was an off day.
I still don't like Peter King, so I was frightened to find out that I agreed with him when he said that the Lion's final touchdown should not have been reversed against the Bucs. PLUS I think he was pretty fair in his top 15 analysis (The Skins were finally listed at 10), he even thinks, like I do, that the Steelers aren't as good as everyone else thinks.
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Tampa Bay Bucs
3. Philadelphia Eagles
4. Cincinnati Bengals
5. Atlanta Falcons
6. Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Redskins
8. Denver Broncos
9. Miami Dolphins
10. San Diego Chargers
11. New England Patriots
12. New York Giants
13. Jacksonville Jaguars
14. Seattle Seahawks
15. New Orleans Saints
And thats not exactly a bad thing. It's what the Redskins themselves should be saying for two reasons. One: they have yet to win convincingly this season, and two: it should drive them. At 3-0, no one outside of DC expects them to do well, they see these wins as lucky or as the AP puts it "The fates are truly shining on the Redskins so far this season." And to that they should say "So what?"
This start reminds me of two teams, The New England Patriots of the past 4 years and the 2001 Chicago Bears. Although it seems to be fading this year, in the past 4 years the Patriots just knew how to win. Take a lead, or don't let the other team run away with it, keep it close and win in the end. Which worked for them in the form of 3 Super Bowl titles. And they also remind me of the Bears who went 13-3 in the regular season, by getting lucky and playing a weak schedule. We can only wait and see who they turn out to be.
The things I like:
1. Unlike the past few years, the Redskins are converting 3rd downs.
2. FedEx Field is alive. Leaving on Sunday, fans were chanting "3 and Oh!" and "Undefeated!" It was amazingly loud and thats not even mentioning how loud it was when the Seahawks had the ball during the game.
The things I don't like:
1. The 3rd downs the Redskins are converting are LONG. Which means they aren't doing much on 1st and 2nd... you can't live off of that.
2. The defense allowed the Seahawks to drive down almost the length of the field twice for touchdowns. I know I'm getting spoiled but this is not typical for the Skins defense. And with the offense not exactly running smoothly, that almost cost them the game this week. I just hope it was an off day.
I still don't like Peter King, so I was frightened to find out that I agreed with him when he said that the Lion's final touchdown should not have been reversed against the Bucs. PLUS I think he was pretty fair in his top 15 analysis (The Skins were finally listed at 10), he even thinks, like I do, that the Steelers aren't as good as everyone else thinks.
1. Indianapolis Colts
2. Tampa Bay Bucs
3. Philadelphia Eagles
4. Cincinnati Bengals
5. Atlanta Falcons
6. Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Redskins
8. Denver Broncos
9. Miami Dolphins
10. San Diego Chargers
11. New England Patriots
12. New York Giants
13. Jacksonville Jaguars
14. Seattle Seahawks
15. New Orleans Saints
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)