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.