Redskins hit bottom

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

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

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

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

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

Singing Rabbit Skittles Commercial

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

TACA Keeps it Real

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

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

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

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

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

NFL Week 4 Rankings

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New NBA Ball

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

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

My first NFL ranking of 2006

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

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

So anyways, here are the categories/rankings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRC4 Sports coverage makes me cry

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

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

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

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

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

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

F U Pluto!

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

State Quarters 2004: Michigan to Wisconsin

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Quarters 2003: Illinois to Arkansas

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last words on the World Cup and the 2002 Quarters

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

World Cup 2006: now what?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World Cup Quarterfinals

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

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

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

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

2006 World Cup Knockout Rounds Begin - Reviewing my Picks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

State Quarters Design Review: 2000 (Massachusetts to Virginia)

Today, I'll continue my review of the U.S. state quarters. One quick link: Although I indirectly linked to it yesterday (for the alternate Delaware designs) I didn't link directly to the main page on this pretty cool site of alternate quarter designs. So, without further ado:

Massachusetts - I am not entirely resolved as to how I feel about the Massachussett quarter. In a pure layout design sense it's near perfect: the offset Minuteman statue and the text ("The Bay State") fit around the state perfectly and take up their respective spaces perfectly. Feature-wise it's pretty boring, though. The filled-in outline of the state is definitely better than the thin outline, but it's still pretty plain. That leaves the statue as the only attracting feature which makes it barely better than the Pennsylvania quarter. (Remember that full length statues don't make good coin subjects) In fact, I would have gone with the Boston Light design but I would have filled in the spaces around the lighthouse with text, ala Delaware and Cesar Romney. Not great but definitely better. Grade: C

Maryland - I should admit that I'm probably biased here since I associates myself with Maryland. But I like the Maryland quarter. I think the Maryland quarter is good. I just can't get it out of my head that it could have been better. They did well by placing plants (The White Oak in this case) on the edges (like Georgia), but I'm just not sure about the Maryland State House dome. It's very "statue-like" in that it takes a lot of vertical space. But at least that white space is filled by the text ("The Old Line State"). Personally, I would have like to see a rendering of the Chesapeake Bay on the quarter, but I'll deal with what we got. Grade: B

South Carolina - South Carolina started another bad and ugly trend: randomly stuffing things onto the design. South Carolina decided to throw the Carolina Wren, Yellow Jessamine and the Palmetto tree onto they're quarter. You might argue that Pennsylvania started this (with the text, statue and keystone outline) but South Carolina took it to another level. Sure, those things aren't entirely random because they are all related to the South Carolina (being the state bird, state flower and state tree), but design-wise it's too cluttered and just makes no sense. At least they combined two elements by having the wren perched on the jessamine, but they're both bigger than the tree! (Oh, we'll see alot of that pretty soon, btw.) Just a bad design/layout all around and one that sadly was emulated repeatedly by other states. Oh and did I mention it has the state's outline on it?! Grade: D

New Hampshire - I like and dislike the New Hampshire quarter. It should be noted that New Hampshire is one of those featureless states (remember, I mean "lacking features that work well on a coin"). New Hampshire liked "The Old Man of the Mountain" so much they put it on their license plates and their coin. Unfortunately, a rock formation that kinda looks like a face is pretty boring. The license looks nice because the image of the rock formation is in color, slightly faded and in the background. The coin, however, has the Old Man prominently displayed. But at least it's better than the generic alternatives. And layout-wise it's pretty good with text ("The Old Man of the Mountain") on the rock and the state motto ("Live Free or Die") in the white space. Grade: C

Virginia - If you think about it, aside from its natural beauty, Virginia is pretty featureless. But I'm still surprised no one came up with an interesting design, even with the early/alternate designs. I'm also taking off points because of a simple rule: You shouldn't be celebrating ANYTHING seven years before it happens. Back around 2000 Virginia made this design and they began issuing "Quadricentennial" license plates... SEVEN year ahead of time. Besides, celebrating the Susan Constant, Godspeed, Discovery, and Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in North America, is just slightly more interesting than reading this sentence. So subject-wise it's not very interesting. Design-wise it's okay. What detracts from the design is how the water just abruptly ends at the bottom (Rhode Island did a much better job of handling water on it's coin). Oh and it's pretty weird that the middle ship is going the wrong way. Grade: C

Next: New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont and Kentucky.

State Quarters Design Review: 1999 (Delaware to Connecticut)

As the great design connoisseur that I am, I have been following the U.S. state quarters program ever since the first quarter (Delaware) came out back in 1999. The last state quarter (Hawaii) will be released toward the end of 2008.

So since 5 quarters are released each year and two quarters have been released so far this year, there are 37 state quarters out there. The designs for the remaining 3 quarters in this year have been released so there are 40 designs so far.

What does that mean to you and me? Well, I’m going to review them and I’ll grade them like I were a high school teacher. We’ll go by year and we’ll start with 1999:

Delaware – A tough place to design for because, well, frankly Delaware isn’t all that scenic or “monumental.” Oh sure, they have nice beaches but otherwise it’s pretty flat and forgettable. So they decided to go with some dude, named Caesar Rodney, on a horse and two sets of text: Caesar’s name and “The First State.” I don’t have a problem with the “The First State” (especially since it fills up some white space) but putting the guy's name on the coin is… well stupid. Oh, and Caesar not being recognizable isn’t a good excuse because Franklin Roosevelt isn’t either and his name isn’t on the dime. Aside from that the design is carried out pretty well. Plus, it was definitely better than the other designs (“quill pen and parchment and the allegorical 'Lady Liberty'”). All in all, not a bad start. Grade: B


Pennsylvania - A bad, bland design that spawned a trend I don’t like: putting the outline of the state on the quarter. (I especially don’t like it considering how “boxy” Pennsylvania is.) State outlines are boring and on this quarter it messes with the text. But the outline here seems to be a necessity, from a design sense, as the statue (which is the statue on top of their state capitol) alone leaves too much white space. The keystone logo is pretty boring as well and just doesn’t help the aesthetics. However, the statue wasn’t entirely a bad choice since PA’s more recognizable features (Liberty Bell, Independence Hall) have already appeared on coins. And since it’s not good politics to concentrate on one of the two major cities (Pittsburgh or Philly), they had to go with a “not very good for a coin” statue. Grade: F (Although I might consider uping the grade to a D if the student came and explained to me the merits of the statue and the difficulty in finding a good symbol not from Philly or the ‘Burgh.)

New Jersey - Another tough place to design for because of the same reasons as Delaware. New Jersey might be a much more varied place than Delaware, but it also doesn’t have a unique memorable object. In fact, the memorable “object” they ended up using wasn’t even entirely in New Jersey, since George Washington crossed from Pennsylvania into New Jersey. Regardless, the design is simple and interesting. My only gripe being that the boat is overloaded and it’s hard to make out the details (but you have to expect that since it’s a copy of the famous painting.) Grade: B-

Georgia - The dull state outline makes an appearance on an otherwise good design. Georgia does a good job in going with the very recognizable peach (which they also use on license plates). I also like how they made the text interesting by putting it on a banner. They also do a good job of using plants along the edge (like the old wheat pennies). The only change I would make, would be to get rid of the outline, make the oak sprigs smaller and the peach bigger (almost “sitting” on top of the sprigs). Grade: B

Connecticut - The first quarter that made me think, “Now that’s a good design.” Connecticut was another “featureless state” (I’ll start calling states like Connecticut, Delaware and New Jersey this to make it easier) but they could have gone with sailing (which Rhode Island did a good job with, but that’s for another day). But they came out of nowhere and hit a home run, with the Charter Oak. The design is simple and interesting with the stone wall on the right counterbalancing the text on the left. So we’ll just have to forgive them for feeling the need to explain the tree with the text (although I do like the font) and the fact that the tree no longer exists. Grade: A

Tomorrow: Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire and Virginia.

World Cup 2006

... is finally here. It'll begin today at noon (EST) with host Germany vs. Costa Rica. And I'll be somewhat useless until it ends on July 9. La Roja (Chile's national team) was officially eliminated in their final qualifying game last year. Although they were a longshot to get in, needing to beat Ecuador (they tied at 0) and a loss or tie by Colombia (they beat Paraguay, who had already qualified, 1-0) and a loss or a tie by Uruguay (who beat Argentina, who had already qualified, 1-0).

The sad thing is that of the three only Uruguay moved on, but not directly into the World Cup. They qualified for a home-and-away playoff against Australia to see who would make it to Germany. Uruguay squandered the opportunity by playing to two draws and then losing in a penalty shootout.

So thats what happened in bottom half of CONMEBOL qualifying... now on to what I think will happen.

I'll start by going to the end: I think Brazil will beat Germany for it's 6th World Cup title.

I know, everyone is predicting Brazil... sure, it's a safe bet. But I think im being bold by predicting them beating Germany because if Germany gets to the final, I think it will be TOUGH to beat them with the home crowd support. (Remember, Brazil couldn't beat France in the final when it was held in France... and the French fans are not as rabid as the Germans.)

Anyways, here are my predicted group results:

Group A: 1. Germany 2. Ecuador
Group B: 1. England 2. Sweden
Group C: 1. Netherlands 2. Argentina
Group D: 1. Mexico 2. Portugal
Group E: 1. Italy 2. United States
Group F: 1. Brazil 2. Croatia
Group G: 1. France 2. South Korea
Group H: 1. Spain 2. Tunisia

(BTW, those last two groups should be cakewalks for France and Spain... I pretty much threw darts at the wall to pick South Korea and Tunisia)

So that makes for these Round of 16 games (btw, why don't they ever call these Eighthfinals?):

Germany beats Sweden
Portugal beats Netherlands
Italy beats Croatia
France beats Tunisia
England beats Ecuador
Argentina beats Mexico
Brazil beats United States
Spain beats South Korea

Quarterfinals:

Germany beats Portugal
Italy beats France
Argentina beats England
Brazil beats Spain

Semifinals:

Germany beats Italy
Brazil beats Argentina

And I already told you the rest.

Redskins Lower Level Obstructed View Tickets

As I mentioned before, here are the views from the obstructed view tickets:

The view from my seat in section 220

The view from the end zone seats in section 213
(these might still be available)

Checking one off the list: Redskins Season Tickets

I have a list, as should everyone, of things I want to accomplish in my life. It spans from things I want to own (an island, a ferrari, etc) to things I want to see (Taj Mahal, Petra, etc.), from the quite useless (hit a hole in one in golf) to the more valuable (donate a million dollars). Some of the things, for "strategic" reasons (or just be mysterious), I won't reveal. Finally, some of the things have been checked off, like...

Today, I can officially call myself a Washington Redskins Season Ticket Holder. Sure it's for obstructed view seats, but there's a saying about a beggars and a choosers, something about a chooser not being able to beg or something... I don't remember. There is a post blocking about a 10 yard section of the field, but the seats are on the 40 yard line and everything else is entirely within sight.

I could have gotten a seat that was, practically, unblocked (the corner of an endzone was obstructed by a railing) but it was a single seat AND it was more than twice the price.

In case you're looking for tickets, they still have a few left... in fact, i would recommend the seats I didnt take in one endzone. They had about a third of the endzone (maybe half of the endzone for the other seat) obstructed but there was a big walkway in front of you, so there was endless legroom and you could probably stand up into the walkway to see the other side of the endzone if you had to.

Anyways, I'll be posting pictures of those seats (and mine) pretty soon.

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.