Week 10 NFL Picks

Once again this week, I pretty much agree with ESPN's Week 10 NFL Ranking. But, what is scary though is that I agree more with Peter King's ranking than I do with Dr. Z's ranking. I'm going to take my temperature now.

Anyways, since last week I went 11-3 on my NFL picks, I've decided to do it again. And since not over analyzing things by just doing quick picks, I'll do that again. Well, to be specific I will only use two things. My astounding knowledge and instincts (ie. My brain) and this Week 10 schedule from Yahoo. The schedule shows home, away, favorites and spread. (BTW, I probably shouldn't be looking at the favorites considering last week it in part got me to pick the Packers to beat the Steelers.)

Anyways... off to my picks:

Atlanta over Green Bay. A few years ago I remember the Falcons going into Green Bay and breaking their long playoff home game winning streak. I guess the point is the Packers really haven't improved since, Michael Vick seems healthy and they're playing in Atlanta. (What scares me: Green Bay seems to win away this season and if Vick doesn't play, I'd go with the Pack.)

Kansas City over Buffalo. I just don't like Buffalo's QB whoever it is. nuff said. (What scares me: Just that Buffalo is favored... why is there no love for the Chiefs?)

Carolina over NY Jets. Once again I don't like the Jets QB, whoever they decide to play. (What scares me: nothing really.)

Denver over Oakland. I'm going with the Broncos mainly because of my old rule, don't ever trust Norv. (What scares me: Oakland at home... I'm pretty sure Denver doesn't do well there.)

Detroit over Arizona. Pretty evenly matched game so I'm going with the home team. (What scares me: It's evenly matched. Maybe If i were going against the spread, 4 points, I'ld go with the Cardinals.)

Indianapolis over Houston. But I might go with Houston if I were picking against the 17.5 points (WOW!) spread. (What scares me: A let down from last weeks win against the Patriots... just kidding!)

Jacksonville over Baltimore. Like I said last week, I like the Jaguars... but I also like the Ravens, just not on the road with Anthony Wright at QB. (What scares me: Nothing really, especially since this is in Jacksonville.)

New England over Miami. New England will continue their "lose one, win one" trend. (What scares me: I think the Patriots are going to tank at some point this season, just not this week... right?)

NY Giants over Minnesota. If this game were played at Minnesota, I might have gone with the Vikings. (What scares me: The Vikings on the road... so in other words I'ld even pick the Giants against the 10 point spread.)

Pittsburgh over Cleveland. Does this really need to be explained. The Steelers don't lose to bad teams, the Browns lose to everyone, etc. (What scares me: The Browns... I'm glad I'm not from Cleveland.)

Washington over Tampa Bay. I stopped trusting the Bucs back when they lost their QB and their Cadillac broke down. (What scares me: The fact that I keep using the Cadillac gimmick when talking about the Bucs.)

Dallas over Philadelphia. Lemme see: the Eagles are at home, but they still don't have a running game, just gave up on their only real passing threat, and Donovan McNabb would have been shot months ago if he were a horse. So why are the Eagles favored? (What scares me: Two things. The Eagles got spanked last time they played the Cowboys and the Cowboys secondary loves giving up passing yards. Remember that the Eagles can't run? Well that sorta works out well for the Eagles doesn't it?)

Finally, if I haven't mentioned it before I'll state it now. I hate Chris Berman. His nicknames were cool... back when I was 10. Actually, that's a lie, I didn't like them back then either. His alter ego NFL picking "Swami" gets old especially since he only picks like 6 games. What is even crazier is that even though he hand picks 6 games, he sucks. Like this week he goes and misses them ALL! Another thing I don't like is that he doesn't hide who he roots for very well. I'm pretty sure he's a Giants fan. He's got that Peter King-ness to him. More on this later...

20 Questions

So I recently decided to get the portable version of 20Q, the 20 Questions game. It's 10 bucks, and definitely worth it. It surprised me with how good it is at figuring out what I think of. It does miss but it's pretty cool when it hits. Hits come on simple things (an orange) and slightly harder things (stop sign). It initially missed "mango" guessing "pear", but 4 or 5 questions later it got it right. I've tried Santa Claus twice, but it has guessed "Mickey Mouse" and "Planet".

You can play it online at 20q.net. The cool thing is that you can try it in other languages too!

Virginia and New Jersey Governor Races

I wanted to comment earlier on the deluge of negative ads put out by Virginia gubernatorial candidate, Jerry Kilgore. But I wanted to wait. I want to see if being so amazingly negative would work. I am happy to say that apparently it doesn't. Tim Kaine will be Virginia's next Governor.

Now to be honest, I only the cursory points of Tim Kaine's and Jerry Kilgore's political beliefs but I am glad that Jerry Kilgore lost. I thought Kilgore's ads were horrendous. In one ad Kilgore stated (not just suggested) that Kaine would not apply Virginia's death penalty on Adolf Hitler. (Side note: strangely there was someone jumping on a trampoline while these malicious "facts" where displayed about Kaine) Do I even need to explain how crude and misleading that is? Sheesh, Kilgore almost had me believing that Willie Horton himself would be my next door neighbor if Kaine were elected... and I live in DC!

I, also, was very dissapointed in what I heard of Kilgore's concession speech. I like hearing concession speeches, because the losing politician tended to seem humble and uses the platform to encourage passion in working for the city/state/country and to encourage unity. But Kilgore seemed defiant after congratulating Kaine. He spoke of losing the battle, but not losing the war. To me, calling the larger scene a war, seems not only tactless, but stubborn and improvident. If he was speaking of not losing the war of "Republican values," did he not know that the same voters who said no to him said yes to Republican Bill Bolling as Lt. Governor? Unless Kaine and Bolling HATE each other, I see no reason for a "war." In fact, I see more of a reason to encourage Democrats and Republicans to work together. I know it sounds naive, but starting a new government by calling it a war just seems wrong.

Anyways, I hope Tim Kaine's victory means two things: First and foremost, that Virginia voters thought Kaine was the better candidate and secondly that Virginia voters were saying attack ads are NOT the way to win. (Please take not of that second point, fella who was interviewed at Kilgore headquarters saying that you don't understand politics if you don't understand the negative ads. Sir, I would say that you are the one who doesn't understand that most voters don't appreciate it when practically ALL your tv and radio ads are negative.)

Finally, I know nothing about the New Jersey race... so I only can say this: I hope New Jersey voters didn't vote Democratic because of dissatisfaction with President Bush and the corruption in the Republican Party. Virginia voters, on the other hand, were practically invited to show such dissastisfaction, because of Bush's campaign appearance for Kilgore. (BTW, am I the only one who thought that move was pretty daft? Really all Bush would do is lose you those votes who are among the 60%+ that think Bush is doing a bad job.) I just hope New Jersey voters didn't forsake a candidate simply because of his or her political affiliation.

My new favorite show: Next

So I really understand the idea of Love/Hate because I love and hate the mtv show Next. First, click the link if you don't know how the show works. Second, I'll explain why I hate it: because it's childish, the people are shallow, and its just a car crash of a show. Finally, why I love it:

So, last week I thought the show hit an all time high when a quasi-cross dressing fella named Matthew was a dater on the show. Our friend Matthew wasn't only strangely dressed but he actually called himself "Matthew Fashion." To the contestant's credit, he actually didn't "next" Mr. Fashion at first sight. Since the contestant was a "division one" college basketball player the date involved playing basketball. Needless to say little Matty wasn't very good, and running around in an interesting dress-like outfit probably didn't help. He got nexted. (Side note: if the contestant was really a division one basketball player, he must be having a hard time if he still plays, considering he just admitted to being gay on MTV.)

Anyways you're probably asking yourself, is that it? Is this worthy of a posting. And I say to you "Nay Nay!" What I watched about 10 minutes ago is. This was THE MOMENT in Next history. I don't see how they top this, although I wasn't sure how they would top "Matthew Fashion", but this one certainly did the trick.

So this guy who openly admits he is picky, "nexts" the first 2 girls the second they get off the RV. The third girl, last a bit until he finds out that she has piercings "down there." Okay I can sort of see that, so we move on to the fourth girl. She seems nice, eats shellfish even though she doesn't like it, and even obliges the guy when he starts asking about the final girl. The girl gets a little too truthful and the guy nexts her to meet the finally dater. So on comes our WINNER, the fifth and final dater. As she is getting of the RV she tells us and the other daters that she needs to go to the bathroom. She arrives at the date, and it seems like she was able to make it to the bathroom and starts talking to the guy. The guy asks what kind of guy she likes and out of nowhere, and I'm not kidding, she pees herself. They show the floor beneath her and there is a puddle of... well you know. Then they go to pants and you see a big wet spot where there should be one. She sits there sheepishly, as the guy notices and yells "Next!" As she gets up, they show you her chair, freshly soiled. I sat there STUNNED.

Needless to say, you need to catch this episode and the Matthew Fashion one too... just amazingly frightening television from the folks over at MTV.

Redskins 4-3, I am 10-3

So I went 10-3 on my picks and I can explain the three I got wrong. First, I stupidly picked Green Bay over Pittsburgh. I called it my upset special even though I described my "reasoning" as RETARDED. Second, I picked Tennessee over Cleveland. As I stated, I didn't really think about this one because both teams are horrible, so thats some what of an excuse. Third, I picked Tampa Bay over Carolina, and for that I blame myself. I thought these teams were evenly matched but it seems they are teams headed in different directions. I didn't see them play but I no longer think Tampa Bay is for real.

Now on to the Skins victory over the Eagles. My first thoughts are that, although a win is a win, I am disappointed. The Redskins came out flat in the first quarter and in general this win should have been much easier. The Eagles are not the Seahawks, Broncos, and Chiefs but the Skins played them all the same. Hopefully, these are just "cobwebs" from last week and from a 7 game losing streak the Skins had against the Eagles.

First, the Redskins defense had no business allowing a touchdown to this terrible Eagles offense. I am finally believing Donovan McNabb's transformation into a real throwing QB (which only truly started last season) but without a running game, no one should be getting that many passing yards. But the way the defense has been playing It should come as a surprise to NO ONE that the Eagles lone touchdown was on a long yardage play. Is it me or does Gregg Williams' defense breakdown amazingly easy when one person misses an assignment or tackle? Oh and can we do some tackling drills?

Second, the fumbles (by Cooley and Thrash) that the Redskins were lucky to recover, bother me. I guess those plays make up for the fumbles the Redskins caused but failed to recover against the Broncos and Chiefs.

Third, the running game needs some help. The past two defenses have figured them out, so can we draw up a few new plays here?

The things I like?

Special teams, except for punt returns (including the James Thrash fumble) and punt coverage inside the 20. Mark Brunell, is money throwing and running.

Finally, though, it has to be noted that even when the Redskins didn't play their best, they pulled it out in the end. And that is most certainly worth something. It is that quality that has won 3 Super Bowls for the New England Patriots. The only problem I see is that the same could be said about the Redskins back when they started 3-0. The Redskins then tanked their next two games. Hopefully this time they have learned their lesson and can pull out games against teams they should beat like the Buccaneers and Raiders.

Two Signs of the End and Nobody beats the Wiz

So here are my two "signs that the world is ending" of the day:

1. I was parking outside my apartment this evening and the Pizza Hut Delivery dude pulled up in front of me. His Toyota Corolla was adorned not only with the large plastic light-up Pizza Hut sign, but a set of four spinner wheel covers. The little fellas were spinning like crazy down low.

2. Then I come in and read about pirates (real ones that don't go "argh!") attacking a cruise ship of the coast of Somalia. Pirates? Really? Can't we come up with a new name for pirates, like sea bandits or ocean wrongdoers? Well, sea bandits still sounds as bad as pirates, but you know what I'm getting at.

So if thats true that would sucks because the Wizards just beat the Orlando Magic, 87-79. They are off to a 3-0 start, and Comcast SportsNet tells me it's their best start since 1978, which is back when they made it to consecutive NBA Finals, winning one in 1978.

Wizards at 2-0 and Jarhead

That's more like it! The Wizards beat the Knicks 86-75 at Madison Square Garden tonight. Now the Knicks, like the Toronto Raptors, aren't really supposed to do much this season, but I will happily take the win mainly because the Wizards had a terrible tendency of losing at the Garden. In fact last season, the Wizards ended their regular season with a loss in New York versus a Knicks team that had been assured of watching the playoffs from home a long time before that game. Plus, the whole world apparently wanted to see Larry Brown's debut at the Garden, so this meant a lot. (And yes there is a certain amount of sarcasm and smugness in that last sentence.)

I particularly liked the fact that the Wizarads got out to big lead (19 pts), gave up the lead (Knicks went up 1), but came back to win by 11. The Wizards of the past few years used to go up on teams early, only to lose it in the second half. So coming back from a bad third quarter to win, on the road (in New York), in a tough situation (Brown's home debut) definitely impresses me.

Alas, I didn't watch the game because I was watching Jarhead tonight.

My quick thoughts: First, it reminded me of Full Metal Jacket, especially the boot camp/drill instructor scenes. It is a pretty good movie, certainly better than the other two Persian Gulf War movies I spoke of earlier (Three Kings and Courage Under Fire), but I'll hold off on calling it great since I feel compelled to compare it to another Sam Mendes movie, American Beauty.

I think the acting is what his holding me back. Jamie Foxx did a better job than I expected as he didn't do a Denzel Washington impersonation for the entire movie. I've liked Jake Gyllenhaal ever since I saw him in The Good Girl, but I think he could have done better. For most of the movie his character was missing depth, there was just a monotony which I don't believe was intentional. Peter Sarsgaard did a good job. In fact Sarsgaard could very easily get on my "best young American actors" list, but he seems to have been typecast, at least in the roles I have seen him in. I get the feeling he is very much in real life like he is in his movie roles. Maybe he needs a starring role in a big movie, or a Tom Cruise in A Few Good Men role. (And, yes, I am probably in the minority in thinking Tom Cruise is, or at least was once, a good actor.)

NFL Top 15 and Picks

Two quick things first:

1. I would just like to point out that Michael Wilbon stated, in not such direct terms, what I said Sunday night. The Redskins came out flat (in some part due to their blowout win against the 49ers), and that things were not helped by the death of Wellington Mara. And I know, it's kind of sad of me to point that out.

2. The Wizards won their season opener up in Toronto, 99-96. Now I know that "a win is a win" especially away, but Toronto isn't exactly going to surprise anyone this year. Heck, I only know 3 players in Toronto: Jalen Rose, Chris Bosh and Charlie Villaneuva... all good guys but thats all they got. I'm just wondering if Larry Hughes could have helped keep Toronto under 90 points. Ahhh, forget it! I keep forgetting that Cleveland overpaid him, and the Wizards are better off not spending so much money to keep a team together that got swept by the Miami Heat last year. Anyways, I shouldn't complain considering it is the first game of the season and I barely watched about 5 minutes of the game.

Now on to the rest of the NFL.

So partly because of laziness and partly because I actually agreed with ESPN's week 8 NFL Power Ranking, last week I did not do my own ranking. And yes, in case you are wondering, I look at other rankings to see if any point is made about a team that I have missed. Alot of the time it helps. Sometimes, though, I find things that I think are just plain dumb. For instance, in ESPN's week 9 NFL Power Ranking apparently the Giants have the most explosive offense, even though they are 13th in total offense (1st in scoring though). I guess it doesn't matter that their supposedly weak defense has recovered 22 turnovers for the offense, making scoring much easier. Trust me, the Giants are scoring points because of those turnovers. I'll go with San Diego, Indianapolis or Cincinnati as more "explosive" thank you.

Anyways, my thoughts from last week on the teams still stand. So this week I am again forgoing the ranking and instead I am making my "Quick Picks." That is I am making picks without analyzing things, I am just going with my gut feeling:

Atlanta OVER Miami - Two words: Marcus Vick. Miami is better than 3-4 but I don't believe in Nick Saban.
Tampa Bay OVER Carolina - Pretty well matched up... so Tampa Bay at home after a bad time in San Fran. Plus Carolina just won 4 against some bad teams.
Chicago OVER New Orleans - I have no clue where they are playing and you just can't trust the Saints.
Cincinnati OVER Baltimore - Baltimore might not be able to get over barely losing to Pittsburgh.
Tennessee OVER Cleveland - I don't even want to think about this game so I'm going with the road team who is also the underdog.
Minnesota OVER Detroit - Another suckfest, I'm going wiith Minnesota because I like the crazy Vikings at home
Jacksonville OVER Houston - I refuse to go with the Texans
Kansas City OVER Oakland - I like Oakland, but not away, not in Arrowhead, and not Norv
NY Giants OVER San Francisco - I refuse to go with the Niners unless they are playing the Texans
Green Bay OVER Pittsburgh - This is my upset special of the week, since all those betting book guys have em, I think I want one too. I'll even add one of those crazy quotes that sounds plausible even though they are RETARDED: "The Packers finally pick up their first win in Lambeau this year" BTW this is probably the worst pick of em all.
San Diego OVER NY Jets - Even though I almost feel certain this will be a close game and the Chargers will find a way to lose.
Seattle OVER Arizona - Seattle is a good team, Arizona is not.
Washington OVER Philadelphia - Read my post from this past sunday for an explanation.
Indianapolis OVER New England - Looking forward to this game, and I think this is the Colts over the hump game.

So finally remember these are my Quick Picks, which means all of these picks are hunches. I'll probably read more about each team later and think "why did I ever make that pick?"

The Gang starts crumbling and J. C. Watts almost gets it.

I find it very telling that a Republican member of the Gang of 14, Senator Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), doesn't understand why Samuel Alito's confirmation would be filibustered. I thought the Gang was supposed to be moderates with open eyes and ears, who would hold off judgement until the time was right. Certainly Gang of 14 member, Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), understood this when he said "it's way too early to talk about extraordinary circumstances."

I have vented in the past as to how corrupt I believe the Republican party has become in the past few years, so I haven't been too surprised by the indictments of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and former Vice President Chief of Staff Scooter Libby or the SEC investigation of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. So I find it refreshing that Republican would admit that the Republican party has become arrogant.

J.C. Watts (former Republican Representative from Oklahoma) wrote in his column for the Las Vegas Review-Journal that "... sadly, what they say about absolute power is coming to reality in the 2005 GOP Washington. Republicans in just 10 years have developed the arrogance it took the Democrats 30 years to develop."

The sad thing is that even though he sees the arrogance, he ignores the corruption. His defense of Republicans is to tritely claim they the lesser of two evils. Watts goes on to say that in spite of the arrogance, "Republicans have a real chance to rebound simply because our Democrat friends just don't get it." He rehashes the old "Democrats want to tax you" argument apparently oblivious to the fact that Bush keeps spending money. Don't get me wrong, I believe Bush is doing the right thing in spending money for hurricane relief and health care, but bills have to get paid somehow. It is very deceptive of Watts to deride tax hikes when money is being spent and even Republicans in Congress are curious as to where the money is going to come from. Taxes and programs have already been cut, what exactly is Watts's plan?

Watts then finishes with a flurry of rhetoric stating "I believe we can still be the party of change, and we can lead." Well not to state the obvious but, It's kind of hard to be "the party of change" when you are in charge of everything. Democrats know this well considering they held the White House and both chambers of Congress in the 90s, right when J.C. Watts and the Republican Party took control of Congress.

Redskins: 4-3, so what?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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

Why the Washington Humane Society is a Joke

If you know me, you know I love dogs... and I loved the idea of adopting. But I have a warning: don't even bother going to the Washington Humane Society. Their policy is awful in that they are a "first come, first serve" shelter, and do not look for the best situation for an animal.

Yesterday, Cindy and I put in an application for a 3-4 month old Shiba Inu at the WHS. We were told that another application had been placed but we were also told that adoptions were not done on a "first come, first serve" basis. They supposedly had a "best fit for the animal" policy. Since Cindy works at an Animal Hospital there wasn't much doubt that we would fit as a excellent situtation to place the animal.

Alas, today we got a phone call from the shelter stating that someone else had put in an application before us and that they were "moving ahead with that." So we called back. We were informed that when they had more than one "qualified" application they were "first come, first serve." So in essence, with any dog that is at all desirable (small, young, etc.) they don't care to put the animal in the best situation, just in a not bad situation. And I think that is haphazard and apathetic.

We even left last night thinking, "the only situation which would be better than us, would be a vet." But in the end it didn't matter and since we can't get there when they open everyday to put in an application the moment a dog is available, we won't be adopting (at least not at the Washington Humane Society). And now I understand another reason why people don't adopt, and that is just sad.

NFL top 15 (week 4)

ESPN just came out with their week 4 NFL Power Ranking, and I can't HELP but comment.

I'll start with the nitpicking. Cowboys are #13, Redskins are #15. The Cowboys barely won a game against the 49ers and end up 2 spots ahead of the Redskins. Um, exactly what part of that win over the 49ers (two touchdowns in the 4th quarter, sounds familiar doesn't it?!) nullifies the Redskins beating the Cowboys less than a week earlier? I mean come on, there are only 4 undefeated teams left and you put them at #1, 4, 6 and 15! Granted the bye week helps, but they're only ranked higher than three 2 win teams. The Redskins are ranked lower than the Chargers (#11) who have only beaten the pretty weak NY Giants (who btw have only beaten the 0-3 Cardinals and got lucky in many ways against the Saints). They are also ranked lower than the Panthers who have lost to an emotional Saints team and to a Jeckyl and Hyde Dolphins team. I guess I can see the Panthers ranked so high (since they beat the Patriots) but the Redskins again get no love... but as I have stated before, I'll deal.

Remember how last week I said Kansas City's defense didn't impress me. Well last night they didn't impress me either. Shocking! You'll hear it over and over again, a good defense travels, and they did not. Anyways, why I would say their defense doesn't impress me and then put them at #4 last week is beyond me. Oh well... what is also beyond me is that I'm believing the Bengals hype and am moving them to #5. Their offense convinced me against the Bears, but their defense has yet to play a quality offense. And I don't see a quality offensive until they play the Colts in mid NOVEMBER, although the Jags might give them a game on Oct. 9th.

Other Things:

1. I don't want to say it because they certainly know how to win close games, but the Patriots are suspect.

2. The Eagles know how to beat bad teams, but I'm still afraid of putting them so high at #4.

3. I still think the Steeler's offense is weak and since they're not playing a decent defense until mid-October when they play the Jaguars, I'll have to rank them high.

4. I put the Colts #1 because they've only given up 16 points all season and the history of their offense, BUT I still haven't seen them play yet and I want to see their defense to believe the hype.

5. The Raiders could easily beat the Giants this Sunday if not for one man, Norv frickin Turner.

6. If you want to see why I don't like the passer rating, especially early in the season, check out Michael Wilbon's column in today's Post. The passer rating over-emphasizes touchdown passes, and favors throw the ball short and let your WR run with it QBs like Donovan McNabb...

7. I think Peter King is rediculous for ranking the Cowboys at #10, and three 1-2 teams (Chargers, Panthers, and Vikings) at #11, #13, and #14 AND not even listing the 2 win, NO lose Redskins. But what can you expect since King has always been seriously biased against the Skins and for the Giants and Parcells. Someone whose NFL Ranking that I can respect if not entirely agree with: Dr. Z over at SI.com.

1. Indianapolis Colts
2. New England Patriots
3. Tampa Bay Bucs
4. Philadelphia Eagles
5. Cincinnati Bengals
6. Pittsburgh Steelers
7. Jacksonville Jaguars
8. Redskins
9. Seattle Seahawks
10. Atlanta Falcons
11. Denver Broncos
12. Kansas City Chiefs
13. Dallas Cowboys
14. Miami Dolphins
15. New York Giants

Birthdays and Movies

Yes, my birthday was this past Wednesday and so to anyone who I have forgotten to get back to, thanks!

Now to the movies. The past few weeks there has been a dearth of movies I would be interested in seeing. But this week is entirely different, so I'm recommending a few movies.

First, and I've mentioned it before but now its finally out: Corpse Bride.

Second, A Sidewalk Astronomer, which is only playing in a few places, like Fairfax in the DC area. Why am I recommending it? Well, for one I love astronomy (which if you know me you might already know). And the fella in the trailer intrigued me. My favorite quote in the trailer: "Once you've come to the conclusion that what you know already is all you need to know, then you have a degree in disinterest." Kinda obvious, but I still like it.

And I'm mildy intrigued by El Crimen Perfecto and A History of Violence. Both intrigue me but I'm definitely recommending them until I see them.

Sweet Revenge

Last year in Texas Stadium, the Redskins were ready to win their first game against the Cowboys in Dallas in almost a decade. 41 year old Vinny Testaverde threw a long touchdown to Patrick Crayton. (You should probably say "who?" now.) Heartbreaking.
Well it didn't take long for the Skins to get return the favor, coming back from 13-0 to win 14-13.

First let me say, I don't want to hear from a single person saying this was a fluke, because I've got two words and a phrase for you: "Flea Flicker" and "One good fluke deserves another." Hey, I'll be the first to say that the Skins aren't juggernauts, at least not the offense. But it comes down to this: when your offense isn't scoring in a close game, you need to find what you can score with. And the Skins found it late with Mark Brunell's arm and Santana Moss's legs.

Unfortunately it took Joe Gibbs, having his team down 13-0 with about 9 minutes left in the game to go for the long ball. And they missed the first few times. In the drive before the first TD drive, passes to Moss and David Patten went incomplete. But eventually they scored on a Cowboys secondary that they should have been attacking with medium to long stuff from the get go. (Honestly their secondary isn't exactly stellar. Roy Williams is a very good player but I think he's a linebacker in a strong safety position. I wouldn't want to run at him, or have to block his blitzes, but throw behind him and it should be money. I certainly wouldn't try to run against the Cowboys at the beginning, though. Heck, I couldn't even name another DB (okay thats a lie, Newman) but I could probably name half the starting DL and LBs... well maybe not buy I know Ware, Glover, Canty, and Nguyen.)

I have to agree with Michael Wilbon when he says that it looked like the rust came off on that second TD throw. And considering he didn't spend all preseason getting starter reps, I'ld say thats a pretty quick "derusting." But really, he's had a whole year now to learn Gibb's system (with this years mods to boot!). The main difference I saw was that Brunell never seemed to lose his confidence. But also as Wibon noted, only the game against the Seahawks will tell. It almost makes the Bye week THAT much more important.

Now, on to stuff that bothered me: For the first 3 quarters the pass protection was... well, not there. My only complaint about the defense was no turnovers (I know, picky huh?). And I'll be the first to say that giving Gibbs a Gatorade shower was REDICULOUS. But hey, maybe it will drive home the point that going long isn't exactly bad. (How that equates I'm not exactly sure.) Gibbs went for the shotgun, so why wouldn't he be willing to throw 2 or 3 early long balls per game, especially when other things aren't working. About my top #15, I am definitely not giving the Redskins the #5 spot. I'll give the Giants #5, Eagles #6, Steelers #7, and Skins #8.

Finally, When the Skins scored that first TD making it 13-7, I truly felt they had a chance to win because of two things: First and foremost their defense and second because they finally scored and then had no choice but to throw the rest of the way. So now I think they have a chance this season because of two things: First and foremost their defense and second because after this game they might finally learn from last year's loses. It's weird that the confidence of win, is how one might learn from a loss.

Hopefully, my only words on the Ramsey-Brunell saga

I find it AMAZING that sportswriters don't understand why Joe Gibbs would have moved to Mark Brunell. I'll admit it is quick, but I would rather him do it now than 8 weeks in, when the Redskins are 3-5 like last year. To be honest, it's real simple: like SI's Andrew Perloff notices, Patrick Ramsey had the whole preseason (which amounted to around 8 quarters, or about 2 full games, worth of time) to solidify his starting job. He just plain didn't. Ramsey has had the starting job since at least week 9 of last year, and he has done nothing with it.

Last week Tony Kornheiser seemed to understand Gibbs saying: "Gibbs is doing what coaches do everywhere -- putting a guy out there who he thinks gives his team the best chance to win." I think Gibbs is smart enough to realize that last year Ramsey and Brunell were about same in his old system. (Hmm, maybe if you think about it, maybe it was Gibbs system that sucked... thats sarcastic if you haven't noticed) If you've watched the preseason and first game you'll notice that Ramsey still likes to throw iffy balls. The QB just cannot do that with this WR corps. You need a tall physical WR like Terrell Owens or Randy Moss to do that, and the Skins don't have any one like that. And I think Mark Brunell is experienced enough to run this system. And that is what counts, not who needs or deserves a chance, but who can do the best with the tools at hand.

NFL Top 15

The NFL seems to be off to a very interesting start. By tuesday morning there will only be 7 undefeated teams after two weeks. One team, the Bengals, have benefited from playing two terrible teams in the Vikings and Browns. Another team, the Colts, finally have a defensive front, and scare me.

Anyways here comes my prediction: first, the Redskins/Cowboys game will be close. If the Redskins win they will be the lowest ranked unbeaten team (although the Bucs might be close) in ESPN's week 3 NFL Power Rankings. If Dallas wins, the Redskins will be the lowest ranked 1-1 team (although the Niners might be close) and will be ranked lower than the Bears who would also be 1-1 and who they beat last week. Peter King even has the Bears ranked #15. (I really think he has a man crush on Kyle Orton.) It's not that I disagree with the Bears at #15, but if you just lost to a team, that team should be ranked higher than you (unless it is a fluke, which the Redskins win wasn't; there are a few other exceptions to this rule but i'll cover them later.) And how Dallas gets all that love (#8 at ESPN and #13 with King) after only barely beating the surprisingly weak Chargers is beyond me. Have I mentioned how I don't like King.

The point is that the Redskins will get no love this weekend, unless they blowout the Cowboys, and that won't happen. But once again... this might be a good thing.

Now for the rest of my thoughts:

1. About the Ravens, I am confident about saying this: I told you so.
2. Kansas City's defense isn't as good as people seem to think. The Raiders scored 2 touchdowns on them which were called back on a bad penalty (Randy Moss's catch), and a stupid penalty that had nothing to do with the play (Lamont Jordan's run). I think they'll drop once they play good teams. (Oakland could be a good team if they weren't being run by Norv Turner)
3. The only teams that get by the "you lose, you're lower" rule are last year's Superbowl teams and League championship game teams. So the Patriots and Eagles (and Steelers and Falcons to a lesser extent) need to lose a few more times to be knocked below the teams they lose to.
4. And even though the Steelers were in last years AFC champ game, like i said a few weeks ago... they seem weak to me. They have not impressed me with wins over the Titans and Texans. And in case you are wondering the Falcons haven't impressed me either... 14-10 over the Eagles doesn't do it, when you're at home. The second Michael Vick gets hurt its over for the Falcons.

My top 15 (16):

1. Indianapolis Colts
2. New England Patriots
3. Tampa Bay Bucs
4. Kansas City Chiefs
5. Redskins or Cowboys (whoever wins)
6. Saints or Giants (whoever wins)
7. Philadelphia Eagles
8. Pittsburgh Steelers
9. Cincinnati Bengals
10. Atlanta Falcons
11. Jacksonville Jaguars
12. Carolina Panthers
13. Redskins or Cowboys (whoever loses, as long as it is close)
14. Saints or Giants (whoever loses, as long as it is close)
15. Seattle Seahawks and Chicago Bears

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

Earlier this summer, when I first watched the trailer to "Grizzly Man," I became familiar with Don Edwards and his song "Coyotes" (written by Bob McDill). I loved the song and was happy to hear it played at the end of the movie. I also became interested in the meaning behind the figures in the lyrics and, in particular, the things that are listed as "gone" in the chorus. So here is a list of things mentioned in the song with explanations and links to wikipedia, if you care to learn more.

• Pancho Villa - General in the Mexican Revolution.
  
• Longhorns - Breed of cattle common to cattle drives.
  
• Drovers - persons who drove livestock.
  
• Comanches - American Indian nation in the southwest.
  
• Outlaws - Criminal in the American Old West.
  
• Geronimo - Legendary American Indian of the Chiricahua Apache.
  
• Sam Bass - Wild West train robber.
  
• Red Wolf - A critically endangered species which was once widespread in the Southwest.
  
• Cointreau - Orange flavored liqour and original ingredient of a Margarita.
  
• Quantrill - William Quantrill, Confederate guerrilla leader of Quantrill's Raiders
  
• And last but not least, Coyote.
  

There is one thing which, I cannot make out. It sounds something like "Stan Juanti" or maybe "Stanwanti." If you are familiar with the song and know what that word is, please email me.

UPDATED (2/7/07): I found out that "Stanwanti" is Stand Watie, a leader of the Cherokee Nation and a general in the CSA during the Civil War.

UPDATED (10/4/07): I've now had more than one person point out that "Cointreau" is most likely actually, "Quantrill." I'll believe it, so I've made the change.

President Bush finally gets some points in my book

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge President Bush's admission of responsibility for his administrations failures in responding to Hurricane Katrina. Hopefully this is a step, and not just a response to his record low popularity numbers.

Ansel Adams's Autumn Moon

Astronomers at Texas State University have figured out that Ansel Adams shot his photo "Autumn Moon" at 7:03 p.m. on September 15, 1948. It seems that the scene reoccurs every 19 years. So people are getting together to watch and photograph the moment this time around. My first two thoughts. First, it's cool that the astronomers can figure these sort of things out. Second, it's sad that people are getting together for it... but hey its a better reason than anything else to gather there.

football, football, football...

I'll start out by saying this: I was at the Redskins game yesterday and I am pretty sure Mike Wilbon was there too. So I find it surprising that he so easily dismissed the role the crowd played in the Bears three straight false start penalties. It was loud, and Wilbon makes it seem like the crowd had nothing to do with it. Silence and the Skins defense could have done it just as easily.

Now about the game: How it is passed over I understand. No one cares about two very good defense holding two offenses to single digits. But that the Redskins are getting no credit is a joke! I wasn't sure of a win until the false start sequence, but I never felt like the Redskins wouldn't be able to respond. The offense was strong enough to make one certain that even if the Bears got a field goal, they could drive for at least a field goal if not a touchdown.

SI's Peter King is a homer, in that he loves NY teams and he loves player and coaches that are nice to him. So I really don't mind that he praised Bears QB Kyle Orton, without mentioning the Redskins. But the fact that the Bears defense could take blame for the loss (Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times) is entirely misleading. It sounds like the Skins defense could have lost the game to Orton, and it was the Skins offense which won the game. To be honest though, I don't respect King (to slanted) and the Chicago columnists do spread the blame for the loss. But still no one is crediting the Skins for the win.

And to Len Pasquarelli's column I say: okay fine, the Skins didn't outwardly impress this weekend. But maybe you should have watched the game before commenting. The Bears red zone offense and special team was pretty good. And the Redskins did score a touchdown, but it was taken back on a questionable offensive pass interference (Cooley was being held on that play). Plus, not everyone wins blowout games (see the Patriots for more on that). The Cowboys impressed me, but they could have easily lost that game, and th Giants win just showed me that Arizona apparantly isn't the sleeper everyone was talking about (it looks like their defense will keep that from happening).

Come to think of it this game reminded me of another game I attended back in 2000. The Redskins lost to a Giants team with a great defense, 7-9. The Giants went on to lose the Super Bowl that season to a better offense, the Baltimore Ravens. That Giants team knew how to win the close ones with a questionable QB, Kerry Collins, and great tandem in Thunder (Ron Dayne) and Lightning (Tiki Barber). Reminds me of Patrick Ramsey, Ladell Betts, and Clinton Portis.

I'll finish by thanking everyone for not talking about the Skins. Not too many people were talking about the Giants and Ravens before the 2001 Super Bowl. Just like no one was talking about the Rams (2000 Super Bowl winners) and the Patriots (2002 Super Bowl winners). Since then we had a string of expected Super Bowl participants (except for the Panthers) so I think it's time for a little of the unexpected, the untalked about.

Nationals tickets for the Hurricane Evacuees at the DC Armory?

So I went to Nats game on tuesday, where they lost a close one with a pitcher making his debut, Darrell Rasner. I noticed two things: All the news trucks outside the Armory and a good amount of empty seats in the upper deck. The news trucks were there for the Hurricane Evacuees who had just arrived on tuesday. So the obvious occurred to me. The Nats should invite the evacuees to a game.

I mean its right across the street. No need to bus them over or anything, just giv'em the tickets and let them walk across the street. Really its perfect... the Nats Triple-A affiliate are the New Orleans Zephyrs!

So I have emailed them to suggest it. No response yet but I'll write something if it comes up. I'm even willing to pay for 10-12 tickets. I know its not alot but hey... im not exactly rich ya know!

Google Maps has a Hurricane Katrina View

What more can I say than the title... check it out.

It's official, No need to worry about Katrina's vicitms.

George Bush's mom thinks that things are going pretty well for Katrina's victims because they were poor anyways. Please tell me this isn't evidence for how disconnected the family is.

ESPN is not watching the preseason

Did ESPN watch ANY of the preseason games. Or did they make their power rankings before the preseason? It really looks like they just phoned it in, by using last seasons final rankings. Now, I'll admit to being a homer... I certainly have a bias towards the Redskins, but this is a joke. They have the Redskins 8 spots out of last place and the Steelers are #5 and the Ravens are #8. Allow me to retort:

The Redskins TOTALLY handled both teams starting offenses not allowing either a touchdown. And although they didn't finish as well as one would like, the Redskin's starting offenses moved the ball on both teams starting defense. Now I'm not saying the Redskins are going 11-5 this season, but I seriously don't think 10-6 is out of the question (split their division games (even tho i think sweeping the Giants is possible) and allowing for losses at the Chiefs and at home vs. the Chargers would leave them in that 5 or 6 loss range). The cetainly don't deserve #26... more like #15.

These 3 teams are pretty even, and to be honest I think the Raven's are the worst of the 3. I guess it just comes down to this: I don't think the Steelers and Ravens are that good. The Steeler's defense was alright, but their offense was terrible. They better hope Big Ben isn't slumping in his second season. The Raven's defense (minus Ray Lewis) was certainly not impressive. And their offense was not there, until the 4th quarter against the former Redskins who are now looking for jobs in the Arena League.

Sure, it might just be preseason, but that first quarter in preseason games tells you ALOT! During last year's preseason (and the Spurrier preseason to) I was pretty worried watch the Redskins do nothing until the second half. This season there was promise, especially in that last first quarter against the Ravens. Unless all those dropped balls become a constant, I'm not too worried about this season. Well as long as they stop getting all those penalties...

Seriously this is REDICULOUS!

Now even Republicans (like Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney) are saying that FEMA's response to New Orleans is a joke. FEMA chief Mike Brown was fired from his last job overseeing horse shows! Horse Shows! He has little experience which would qualify him for the job. But of course, Bush tells Brown that he's "doing a heck of a job!" Entirely not surprisingly, the Bush Administration is blaming everyone but themselves. Obviously the buck does not stop at Bush's desk. Does he not feel even a modicum of accountability in any of this? (and of course I speak of the response, not the actual tragedy)

And now Chief Justice Rehnquist is dead. As sad as a death is, I hope this spurs Congress into not just rubber stamping John Roberts on to the Supreme Court. This is nothing against Roberts, but in light of the past week (if not the past 4 years) Bush's appointees should be subject to such scrutiny. Especially when speaking of the Supreme Court.

Finally, and this is the least of anyones worries, but I went by two gas stations today that were closed because they had no gas. And ironically enough the gas station named "Lowest Price Gas" was selling at $3.99, $4.05 and $4.15, while the Citgo next door (and every other station for that matter) was at least 30 cents cheaper.

btw, most of these links are via PoliticalWire.com.

links and stuff

• So when did the US Open paint their courts blue? Watching it this year has been weird... was it like this last year?
  
  
• I know I didn't give a movie recommendation last week so I'll do two things this week. First I'm recommending The Constant Gardener, a movie I haven't seen. And I'm recommending it mainly because it stars one of my favorite actors, Ralph Fiennes (who for you Harry Potter nuts will play Lord Voldemort in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, but you probably already knew that).
  
  
• Second, now that I have seen it, I'm re-recommending Grizzly Man. A very well done documentary about a man who just wasn't all there. Many parts made me laugh, others made me jealous, and yet other parts infuriated me. Finally though, I just felt bad for Timothy Treadwell. He obviously had asocial (almost antisocial) and psychological issues. Werner Herzog seems pretty fair in his depiction of Treadwell as a man who seemed to (at least to Treadwell himself) function better among a group of wild animals. Unfortunately for Treadwell it took just one of those animals to live up to it's instinct to kill him.
  
  
• I never did put up a link to pictures of the Big U Turn (National Park Sampler) Tour 2005.
  
  
• Finally, I travelled to NYC in August of 2001 and went to the observation deck of the WTC. Last year I took my first trip to New Orleans. Went down Rt. 90, which runs along the coast line, all the way through Mississippi to Alabama... right through what is now the most devestated areas. It feels weird, even though it has been more than a year, to see roads, places and lives destroyed like that. I still really don't know what to say about it.
  
  

Softsoap at Safeway almost for free

Safeway has a pretty good deal going on right now. If you have a Safeway card, Softsoap Hand Soap (the one with the pump) is on sale, 10 for $10 (1 dollar per soap). And Colgate (makers of softsoap) have a automatic coupon at Safeway that is: buy 5 items get 5 dollars off. So if you buy the soap in groups of 5, they end up being free... you just pay tax.

I just got 35 at my local safeway for $2.03. Be careful though because for some reason some softsoap don't count towards the colgate 5. I got some of the "Real Moisturizing Lotion", "Lavender & Chamomile", and the plain ones (they look like Aquariums). But for some reason the pink ones didnt work at my local safeway... Read more about it over at Slickdeals.net.

what should we do?

A friend asked me this today, "What would be your solution to the war?" I don't pretend to be well enough informed to give an answer, but I am smart enough to recognize that things aren't working. So what is my solution? Well, I believe Wesley Clark's plan is a start. It obviously isn't complete, but what would you expect in a short op-ed. Sadly he has said more and given more in these 11 paragraphs, than Bush has in the past 3+ years.

a little housecleaning

When I started this superjuan thing a few years ago (almost 5 to be exact), I was explaining it to a former boss. He was southern, from Georgia, and therefore not surprisingly a "no bs, get to the point" kind of guy. His response was, "Oh, a blog."

I remember almost taking offense to it. I remember thinking, "No. I'm not that conceited." To me, it served 2 main purposes. First and foremost it was a journal. I was terrible at writing thoughts down, but I was slightly better at typing them. Second, it was a way to have friends keep up with me if they cared to. The most important aspect was that, as a journal, it reflected my thoughts. I never wanted it to become solely my thoughts on sports. Or my political views.

With that said, I hope I'm not headed in a political direction. I have removed boingboing from my links list and replace it with a site I eagerly wrote of before, the HuffingtonPost. Recently, it has drawn me more than a few of the other sites. And yes, this is probably a direct result of the growing anti-war effort, Bush's 40% and under approval rating, and his insistence on repetition when speaking of the war.

That Panda Needs a Name!

So the little bugger over at the National Zoo seems to have made it long enough to deserve a name. Lo and behold 'we' get to name him. And by 'we' I mean those privileged few people who picked the 5 fairly uninteresting names which everyone else gets to vote for. They should have aleast asked for suggestions to be sent in. Anyhoo just head on over to the National Zoo Cub Naming Site and pick a name from the list.

As for me, I'm going with Tai Shan. The Hua Sheng/Sheng Hua combo is just rediculous, trying a bit too hard to connect him to DC. (Plus if you think about neither should win. Since they are so similar any vote for them should be split between them. Yeah I'm probably thinking a little to political about it, but it makes sense right?.) And do I need to say why Long Shan sucks as a name? Really, no pet should ever be named Long something, it's just... strange. Finally Qiang Qiang is too Panda, if you know what I mean mean. (and thats not a typo)

Oh the Nats!

I've recently found a cool blog concentrating on the Nats. Now I can torture myself even more with a statistical analysis of why the Nats have been tanking for the last 2 months. Like I don't realize by watching and listening to the games that they're sadly underpowered when it comes to hitting.

I least I take solice in this: The pitching rotation needs just one more quality starter to go with my boy #22 and Hernandez. I'm fine with Armas and Ayala as number 4 and 5 starters. The pen is set. And then a couple of big bats and a lead off hitter. You know someone that at least looks like a lead off hitter (sorry Wilks). Really, is that too much to ask for next year?

Movie Recommendation... kind of?

This week's movie recommendation is more of a what to look forward to if you go see The 40 Year Old Virgin. Because I wouldn't go so far as recommending it. If you have nothing better to do, go see it.

Not that it's a bad movie, it's just okay... maybe even good. I'ld put it on par with Wedding Crashers.

Now on to more exciting movie news: the trailer to Sam Mendes's new movie, Jarhead, was recently posted. Mendes, if you don't already know, directed Road to Perdition and American Beauty, two extremely beautifully done movies. Not to mention, American Beauty is one of my favorite movies of all time.

Anyways, I've got lots to say about this movie so I'll leave it for another time. For now go see The 40 Year Old Virgin, if you've got time... at least it's not bad.

How to get out of your Verizon Wireless contract

If you are on Verizon Wireless they are adding a 40 cent fee to you monthly bill. What that means is that since they are changing the terms of your contract you can get out of it and not have to pay the $175 fee. Why would you want to do that?

Well for one you can get a new phone and new plan, with them... or any other carrier for that matter. It especially makes sense if you have a 2 year contract and have more than about 5 or 6 months remaining. It is in essence a chance to get a new phone. You just cancel your old contract and get the new phone/plan. If you want to stay with Verizon you might have to get a new phone number tho.

It seems people who have been trying this have to make a big deal of it with the customer service reps, even talking to supervisors, but it's probably worth it. Maybe even get them to send you a new phone for not cancelling. More on this over at SlickDeals.net.

Movie Recommendation 08/12

I've decided to start recommending movies that I yet to see. And sometimes movies that I have recently seen. Either way you can be pretty certain that I have or will have seen it. This weekends movie: Grizzly Man.

This is a documentary on Timothy Treadwell, the man who lived with the grizzly bears of Katmai National Park in Alaska. Now by 'lived with' I mean during the summer season this guy camped near, photographed, walked up to, and freakishly on occasion touched the bears. He believed himself to be so close to them (apparently, emotionally as well as physically) that he started naming them. Not surprisingly, 2 years ago, one of those bears killed him and his girlfriend. The trailer, linked above, shows an intriguing snippet of this fella including some of his abnormal behaviors.

Nascar, Yeehaw!

So I've never been much of a Nascar fan, and I've never really liked the Earnhardts. I guess the whole 'Intimidator' name/images just didn't appeal to my pacifist nature. Oddly tho, there was something that I liked about Tony Stewart, maybe its because he raced Indy cars. Even though he has a reputation of being as brash as Papa Earnhardt.

Anyways, I found something out yesterday. It seems Junior is a big Redskins fan. And as another big Redskins fan, that makes him awesome in my book. So I guess I'm now a Nascar fan... and a Dale Jr. fan at that.

DC Tax Free Shopping, Sorta...

When I was in Montana during the "Big U Turn" this summer I was excited to find out that there was no sales tax. Needless to say, I ended up buying a few items. And now for the next week, August 6-14, 2005, Tax free shopping has come to DC.

Sadly not everthing is tax free. It only applies to clothing (items must be less than $100), shoes, accessories (jewelry, glasses, watches, belts, gloves, etc.), and school supplies.

DC Restaurant Week

Yet another DC Restaurant Week is here. Check out this site at OpenTable.com to make reservations. If you you're not familiar, This week a lot of restaurants (including some high end ones) in the DC area area having full course meals for $20.05 (lunch) and $30.05 (dinner).

They usually have a list of appetizers, meals, and desserts. You pick from the list and the price is fixed (doesnt include drinks or tip... so dont skimp on the tip). Makes it nice and easy to go to restaurants where you are not familiar and when you're not to sure what you want. In case you are wondering, I'll probably be hitting up one of the seafood places... the ones with the $$$$ next to them.