The DC spelling bee.

The national spelling bee is this week and it got me thinking about how I've always thought it was an interesting show. Well, at least the national version has been interesting. Maybe because it was televised by ESPN or maybe because of spellers like Rebecca Sealfon (who won the bee and freaked out spelling the last word "euonym") but for whatever reason, I found it interesting. (And yes, I thought that before Spellbound came out.)

Anyways, last week this year's spelling bee for Washington DC schools aired on a local cable channel. (although it was taped at NBC's Channel 4 on Nebraska Ave.) Two iteresting/funny things happened.

First, in the first round, one contestant had to spell "mantilla" and asked for the country of origin. The moderator said she couldn't provide that but she could give the definition which explained that it was a scarf worn in "Spain and Latin America." The contestant got it wrong, but returned for the next round by appealing between rounds. Not surprisingly, she got the next word wrong as well.

But the best part came at the end of the show when they were down to two finalists. The rules dictate that if when one finalist gets a word wrong, the other finalist needs to spell that word correctly and then spell another word correctly. So one finalist needed to spell "aphemia" but spelled it "efemia." The bell is dinged and the rediculously clueless moderator then says "No. The correct spelling is..." Fortunately, she was stopped by the judges before she could start spelling the word but she STUPIDLY then says "I didn't say the first letter did I?" Which, um... GIVES AWAY THE FACT THAT THE FIRST SPELLER GOT THE FIRST LETTER WRONG!

No one seemed to care that the moderator practically gave away the first letter! To be honest, though, the girl (who spells it right and goes on to win the bee) seemed to have already known the correct spelling of "aphemia." But regardless, the moderator was gallingly irresponsible.

Is Nolan Ryan dead?

So I go to ESPN.com all the time (in fact, it's my home page at work). Roger Clemens is coming back to pitch for the Astros and they put up a little gallery of the best living pitchers but with a glaring omission. Nolan Ryan is nowhere to be seen on ESPN's photo gallery of the "Greatest Living Pitchers". They even numbered the guys they have in the list (putting Clemens at #1), which makes it seem like its a top ten list. Am I on crack? I even looked on Wikipedia to see if Ryan had died without me knowing... but he hasn't.

The Nats Game Day

Remember awhile back when I was "feeling less optimistic" about the Nats? Well, I still feel less optimistic (they probably won't reach last year's rather fortunate 81-81 record), but you've got to like their current winning streak of 4 in a row (and 6 of 7). What sucks is that I'm headed to the game today, so they'll probably lose. Why? Well first, they're on a streak and secondly they'll probably start a rookie (Zach Day was scheduled but he got hurt earlier in the week).

Oh well... hopefully this "reverse jinx" works... right?

The Da Vinci Critics Reviewed

Last weekend I was among the many people who, despite the bad reviews, went to see The DaVinci Code. And here are my responses to the major criticisms:

Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou mailed their performances in - I can see why people thought that, but I don't entirely agree. Hanks didn't play the character, of Robert Langdon, like he normally plays a character. Hanks's characters are usually witty and much more likeable but I don't remember thinking of Langdon as those things. "Movie Langdon" lacked the depth "Book Langdon" had, but thats not entirely Hanks's fault. On the other hand, I pretty much agree with the evaluation of Tautou's performance. (BTW, I didn't think Paul Bettany's performance as Silas was as good as I've heard a few critics say. Ian McKellen's performance was by far the best.)

It was too long and lacked action - Yes, it certainly was too long, but this isn't Mission Impossible. They had to the art history lessons or else things wouldn't make sense. Hopefully, I'm not ruining the book or movie if you havent read or seen it, but the resolution (once the big secret is revealed) took way too long.

They didn't take risks in an attempt to mollify Christians - Movie Langdon seemed much more skeptical about the theories than Book Langdon, but that didn't bother me. And I didn't take that as "mollifying Christians." In fact, I think the risk they should have taken was to play more with the story line, and not stay so true to the book. So maybe my view is skewed by having read the book. (I'ld like to see a review of the movie by someone who hasn't read the book.)

In the end, I liked the movie but it was too long and the overuse of post production graphics bothered me. They would have also done better to add a bit more comic relief, especially with Tom Hanks in the cast. Having said that, the movie really isn't as bad as "everyone" was saying. I guess, though, what "everyone" was saying was that the movie wasn't as good as everyone else was expecting... and with that I would have to agree. But, that doesn't make it a bad movie.

American Idol Season 5 Final Results: Taylor Hicks

If you believe Dial Idol, and I do, it wasn't even close. 45.5 to 37. Even if you apply the margin of error negatively to Taylor (44.4) and positively to Kat (38.2) it wasn't close.

What really surprised me was the caliber of stars that were present... my favorites being Mary J. Blige (who sung with my other favorite, Elliott) and Prince who of course sung alone. Apparently, not even the Idols knew that Prince was coming, but I would expect They definitely made it worth watching all 2 hours of it. My other favorite moment was when the Clay Aiken wannabe's practically soiled his pants when Clay Aiken appeared... all in all a good show with the right results..

American Idol 5: Last Chance to Vote

When Taylor came out singing Stevie Wonder's "In the City" I got scared. In the final day, he was flying in the face of rule #1 in my American Idol rule book, "Never sing a Stevie Wonder song." But he slam dunked it. Simply killed it. I thought Elliott made me amend the rule to add "unless you are Elliott Yamin" and now I have to add Taylor to that list... and I'ld even put him first with that song. That was just amazing.

Unfortunately for Taylor, he did too well and outsung his other performances. He could have walloped Kat, but stupidly broke another one of my American Idol rules ("Don't sing songs because you like them.") with his second song. Kat outsung him in the second round (like Simon said) but she just whiffed on the other two songs. Well maybe not whiffed... since she certainly did her best, it just wasn't good enough.

On Kat's last song Randy said a few things I disagree with. The song wasn't bad, it just wasn't a song Kat could sing. (I actually spent most of the time thinking Carrie Underwood would have hit that song out of the park.) "The singer" wasn't better than the song, it just wasn't her kind of song. Kat's type of song is Disney soundtrack songs... just note that those songs, while "entertaining," rarely make pop hits. (At least not since Fievel sung "Somewhere out There.")

So Taylor should win, but I'm hessitant because whoever paid for "a thousand roses" must be making every effort to have her win. I don't think Taylor has that kind of backing, so he's going to have to win with the "common people." Those people who vote once, twice or even 20 times. I just get the feeling the McPhans will make this close. We'll see...

Barbaro and the Triple Crown Drought

I can easily attribute my love of thoroughbred racing back to my grandfather. He was never a true gambler (in fact, when I was about 13, I learned a lesson about gambling at a race track in Chile with him... ask me if your curious) he just truly enjoyed the analytical aspect of the sport. I remember him spending part of his morning going over the daily form and then listening to the races on the radio that afternoon/evening without ever placing a bet. (I, of course, would at least put a few bucks down if I spent so much time on it... but thats a different discussion for another day.) So I didn't become as obsessed with the sport as him, but I am definitely a fan.

I remember being ten years old in 1987 hoping to see a Triple Crown Winner in Alysheba. Just 9 years prior, the last Triple Crown winner had been a chestnut colt named Affirmed. Alysheba's sire, Alydar, had come in second in each race. (Interesting note: that was the second year in a row that there was a Triple Crown winner. Seattle Slew had won it the previous year, 1977. And there were almost 3 straight winners but Spectacular Bid came in third in the Belmont after winning the Derby and the Preakness)

But the 1987 Belmont Stakes was won by a horse name Bet Twice. In fact, I don't even remember seeing Alysheba finish. I just remember being disappointed. I also remember being disappointed 2 years later, in 1989, when another "son" of Alydar, Easy Goer, denied Sunday Silence of a Triple Crown by winning the Belmont.

So then I started blaming the Belmont Stakes. It was a longer race and, for some reason I didn't understand, there were always more horses in that race then there were in the Preakness. So a horse could "get lucky" and win the Derby, have an easy time in the Preakness but then race against 14 horses in the Belmont.

But that didn't make much sense because in 1988, the year between Alysheba and Sunday Silence, Risen Star won the Preakness and Belmont. Hansel did the same in 1991. Tabasco Cat did it again in 1994. In fact, in ever year since 1994, except for 2 years (1996 and 2000), a horse has won two, but not three, of the Triple Crown races. (Strangely, Thunder Gulch has been the only one to win the Derby and the Belmont in 1995.)

Horse trainers, Bob Baffert and D. Wayne Lucas (Thunder Gulch and Tabasco Cat) are always involved in these near misses. Between 1997 and 1999 one of their horses won the Derby and Preakness only to lose the Belmont. Baffert's Silver Charm (1997) and Real Quiet (who lost the Belmont by a nose in 1998) both came in second in the Belmont. One might even think the Triple Crown is cursed as Lucas's Charismatic won the Derby and Preakness in 1999 only to suffered a leg injury in the Belmont that year. (Charismatic was leading the race, faltered and had to be pulled up after race by his jockey.)

The past 4 years has seen well documented names like Smarty Jones (Derby and Preakness winner in 2004) and Funny Cide (Derby and Preakness winner in 2003) and the lesser remembered War Emblem, trained by Baffert, who won the Derby and Preakness in 2002. Understandibly not much is made in the press of a horse who losses the Derby but wins the Preakness and Belmont, like Afleet Alex (2005) and Point Given (2001).

So FINALLY we come to today's Preakness Stakes. An undefeated Barbaro won the Kentucky Derby two weeks ago and now he is the favorite to win the Preakness. Actually reminds me alot of 2000's Fusaichi Pegasus and 2001's Monarchos, both horses who won were favorites in the Preakness, but didnt win either the Preakness or the Belmont (although Fusaichi Pegasus didn't run the Belmont after losing the Preakness). But I see Barbaro winning the Preakness, as he simply dominated the Derby and only 8 horses are challenging today. Just don't expect him to win the Belmont... I've already learned not to do that.

It's official: The DaVinci Code sucks!

I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of The DaVinci Code, but since practically every critic thinks it stinks, I think I'll stay home. No need to go see the movie... Oh wait a second, I forgot I hated movie critics and their collective conciousness.

In fact, I even have a fairly good method of determining whether or not I will like a movie. In general, if NBC4's Arch Campbell doesn't like a "young" movie, chances are high I will like it. In fact, I tend to like alot of the movies Arch doesn't. That also seems to happen with movies reviewed by the Washington Post's Desson Howe (who now goes by the name Desson Thomson).

So, we'll see how well this theory pans out for the DaVinci Code.

American Idol: Elliott is gone

As I gloomily predicted my main man Elliott is gone. What I didn't know was that apparently Elliott had to sing a song chosen by Paula Abdul... and Kat's song was chosen by Simon? Um... so exactly how is that fair? Who's song choice would you rather sing: A record producer who has made millions or a perpetually drunk has-been one hit wonder? Yeah, thats fair.

Yet even with that stacked against him, Elliott still received 33.06% of the vote. Which meant, Kat probably got 33.26% and Taylor probably got 33.68%. Pretty close, but as I said earlier today, I don't think next week's vote will be that close.

Taylor should roll unless one of two things happens: 1. He bombs, which there is no reason to think he would. or 2. his fanbase becomes complacent, which shouldn't happen considering how close this week's vote was.

And then there were 3 Idols

I didn't catch American Idol last night because I was having a dandy time trying to fix an issue with Verizon Wireless. I just moved to Verizon Wireless (from Cingular) and I almost had a horrible customer service experience at their store in Bethesda. Fortunately a Customer Service fiasco was averted but not soon enough for me to catch the end of Idol.

But that didn't keep me from voting, once again, repeatedly for Elliott. Apparently though, it seems it was all for naught. DialIdol, who has gotten the last two eliminated Idols correct (including the "shocking" Chris elimination) and usually gets the bottom group right, has Elliott in last place. Although he's statistically tied with Katharine McPhee, I'm just not feeling it.

But, I do have this prediciton for next week: If Elliott is eliminated, Kat is cooked. I just can't see her beating Taylor (unless the show really is rigged). She would have to put on the performance of a lifetime, and Taylor would have to break his legs to lose.

But if Katharine is eliminated, I think Elliott could give Taylor a run. And if hell freezes gets an ice rink and Elliott were to win it all, I think that would be a record for "Most bottom group appearances by an American Idol winner" with 4. Alas, I don't think Elliott is surviving this week as I get the feeling if it's close the fix will be in to save Katharine (like it could have been last week).

A "Shocking" Idol and a Crazy Robin

What can I say? Chris is gone, I'm happy and someone named Robin Givhan is insane. Well, maybe not insane, but he or she is certainly deluded.

Robin Givhan, in case you (like me a few hours ago) don't know, writes for the Washington Post. Oh yeah, and apparently Givhan thinks Chris was the best thing since American Idol invented sliced bread. At first I thought maybe Givhan was being facetious, but at no point is there a wink-wink, a just kidding or anything to make you think it was a joke. But it seems to be for real.

Givhan claimed Chris had "confidence and cool." Really, how cool a rock star can you be on American Idol? Also doesn't anyone remember he is a huge Creed fan? (And I'm pretty sure that is the closest the words "Creed" and "cool" will ever be without a "not" somewhere in between.) Givhan spends the entire article acting as if Chris was some sort of seminal artist, the likes of which had NEVER been seen on Idol. Which might have been true had there not been a season 4 with some guy named Bo Bice. Bice undoubtedly had the "rock-star growl" and "distinctivness" Givhan saw in Chris.

The crazier thing is that, although Givhan is pretty out there, he/she isn't exactly by him/herself. A bunch of news sources and tv shows seemed to at least agree that Chris's departure was a "shocker." So once again to use one of my favorite Pulp Fiction quotes... Well, allow me to retort!

I have already pointed out that, at least in the beginning, Chris screamed most of his songs. He got better about that recently but he never sung better than Taylor and, in my opinion, Elliott. Plus, Elliott and Taylor performed much better this week than Chris and Katharine. So really the only "shocker" was that Chris lost to Katharine... but I'm not all that surprised. Katharine is much more likeable (if less charismatic) and has improved much more than Chris (granted she had more room to improve on). So really, at best, it was a mild upset.

But even if you don't want to consider objective musical asthetics, you can check the previous bottom groups. When looking at that, there is no denying that the only favorite should be Taylor, who has never been in the bottom group. Elliott has been there 3 times, and Katharine and Chris had each been there once before. So, really, how much of a "shocker" is it when someone who had already been in the bottom group is booted?

So... pretty please, with sugar on top: don't be so shocked. Thanks!

Crashing Jetta Commercial

You may have caught one those very strange Jetta commercials recently where two guys are in a Jetta, leisurely driving down the road, when all of a sudden BAM! The Jetta hits a truck that pulls out of a driveway... Well, I thought it was an interesting commercial and I thought they made it look very realistic. Now I know why: It was a real crash using a normal Jetta and two stuntmen. Wow! Thats, um, kinda messed up, kinda cool, very weird and entirely interesting all rolled into one. Way to go Volkswagon!

American Idol... can Elliott possibly be safe?!

For the first time this year I spent way too much time voting on American Idol and I of course voted repeatedly for Elliott. In an entirely unscientific trial, I pulled a DialIdol and tried to "measured the busy signal." I called each contestant repeatedly and tried to see whose lines were the easiest to get through... Katharine's line picked up immediately, Chris's line picked up after one busy signal (After dialing Chris's line I felt like that guy in the "Crying Game" during the shower scene after he realizes the woman is man. You know the scene that is redone in "Ace Ventura"... anyways), and finally Taylor's and Elliott's lines took at least about 10 busy signals before getting through. So I have to think they're safe. Now we just need to hope that Katharine (who called herself "Kat" on her line) can beat out Chris this week.

Alas, no $100 for you!

You're probably aware of the failed plan by Republican leaders in congress to buy us off by giving taxpayers $100 in the form of "gas rebate." It, of course, didn't fly because 1. it probably would help pay for an average of 2 gas tanks and 2. people saw right through the bribe. Personally, I'm disappointed because I wouldn't mind getting the rebate and I seriously doubt it would have served its congressional incumbent saving purpose.

Anyways, I wouldn't blame rising gas prices on the congressional Republican leadership (although I think Bush's war has something, at least in small part, to do with it), but you have to admit: it reeks of a guilty conscience. You don't think Bill Frist has anything to be afraid of, do you?

So, The NY Times has a good article about the "rise and fall" of the plan, which is an interesting read. But, what I found most telling was a quote by Republican Senator Jim Thume of South Dakota.

"I never was in favor of that," Mr. Thune said Thursday. "We all got out there and tried to put our best face on it."

What does it say about a Senator who goes along with his leadership although he claims to have not been in favor of the plan. To me it says one of two things: He is either lying, because he was in favor of it and is now trying to distance himself from the idea OR he blindly and quietly follows his leadership when he thinks it is misguided.

Either way, I'm thinking South Dakota should be pretty darn proud of its junior Senator for being such a lemming or such a liar.

My morning drive to work with a Red Devil and Idol

I was driving to work this morning on I-270 doing about 65 or 70 mph. Kinda slow, but because no one around me was doing more than 60, I wasn't about to tempt fate. All of sudden, in my rear view mirror, I see a red BMW coming up pretty fast. So immediately I'm thinking "Great! I'll move over and get myself a 'blocker'." (the car, going slightly faster than you, who you follow so the police will radar/laser them instead of you).

As the car goes by, I check out its license plate and have a nice good morning chuckle. The car's license plate read "LUCIFUR". Why you would want Satan's license plate, I don't exactly know... but at least now I know: The Morning Star drives a bright red 325i.

Anyways, I didn't comment about Idol because I didn't watch it yesterday. I was right in thinking that Paris was going to leave this week (not exactly a stretch considering she was in the bottom 2 last week), and once again Dial Idol got it right (although they thought Katharine would be in the bottom 2). So for next week all I can say is: Taylor is too popular, Katharine is still building momentum and Chris inexplicably keeps getting loads of votes... so once again im thinking one of my favorites, Elliott, is leaving next week.