So a little while back I wrote about the 20 questions site. Cool site but it would be wrong every so often. Well, now check out LikeBetter.com.
Sort of the same concept, except it guesses things about you after you tell it which picture (of two) you like better. Interesting concept....
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Did you need a new pair of shoes? Footlocker Sale this weekend.
This weekend (Oct 26 to Oct 28) Footlocker (which also owns Champs, and Footaction) is having their Friends & Family sale, which means you get 30% off (and an additional 10% if it's over $100) by using these codes:
FF6TV345 at FootLocker
FF6TVL66 at Champs
FF6TVPL6 at Footaction.
Online, though, they seem to share the same inventory. If want to walk into the stores check out this SlickDeals' post for printable coupons.
FF6TV345 at FootLocker
FF6TVL66 at Champs
FF6TVPL6 at Footaction.
Online, though, they seem to share the same inventory. If want to walk into the stores check out this SlickDeals' post for printable coupons.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
NFL Rankings - Week 8
Three weeks ago I lost my internet connection right before the weekend, which made it nearly impossible for me to post my entirely useless (to you) rankings. The past few weeks I just didn't feel like. But then last week I saw this post over at ArmchairGM.com.
The user (DNL) did a BCS like ranking of the NFL (yes I don't like the BCS system either, but there is some merit to it when it comes to ranking). I liked the idea a lot, except for one problem: DNL used only the ESPN ranking to act as the human element. So I decided to do the same thing but instead I included human rankings from FoxSports (Peter Schrager), and CBS Sportsline (Pete Prisco). I wanted to add CNNSI's (Dr. Z) NFL power ranking, but that doesn't get released until midweek (tomorrow I'll add it and see how much of a difference it makes.
I also left out one "computer" from DNL's list (the one done by an ArmchairGM user) because I don't know if it will be consistently posted. I did the BCS thing, where all the human rankings are equally balanced and the computer average constitute a "5th human ranking."
And, like with the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking from the computers are dropped from the average (just to keep crazy computer stuff a in check).
I also ran a "straight-up" average where every ranking is taken equally and no ranking (i.e. high/low) is dropped. That way I could see where the computer or human bias was.
Here are the more humanized "BCS-style" rankings (with "straight-up" ranking in parenthesis):
1. Chicago Bears (1)
2. Indianapolis Colts (2)
3. New England Patriots (3)
4. Denver Broncos (5)
5. New Orleans Saints (6)
6. New York Giants (4)
7. San Diego Chargers (7)
8. Baltimore Ravens (8)
9. Atlanta Falcons (9)
10. Cincinnati Bengals (10)
11. Carolina Panthers (13)
12. Seattle Seahawks (14)
13. Minnesota Vikings (12)
14. Philadelphia Eagles (11)
15. St. Louis Rams (15)
16. Jacksonville Jaguars (16)
17. Dallas Cowboys (17)
18. Pittsburgh Steelers (18)
19. Kansas City Chiefs (19)
19. New York Jets (20)
21. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (21)
22. Washington Redskins (22)
23. Green Bay Packers (23)
24. Buffalo Bills (24)
25. San Francisco 49ers (26)
26. Cleveland Browns (25)
26. Houston Texans (27)
28. Tennessee Titans (31)
29. Detroit Lions (28)
30. Miami Dolphins (29)
31. Oakland Raiders (32)
32. Arizona Cardinals (30)
A few thoughts:
The user (DNL) did a BCS like ranking of the NFL (yes I don't like the BCS system either, but there is some merit to it when it comes to ranking). I liked the idea a lot, except for one problem: DNL used only the ESPN ranking to act as the human element. So I decided to do the same thing but instead I included human rankings from FoxSports (Peter Schrager), and CBS Sportsline (Pete Prisco). I wanted to add CNNSI's (Dr. Z) NFL power ranking, but that doesn't get released until midweek (tomorrow I'll add it and see how much of a difference it makes.
I also left out one "computer" from DNL's list (the one done by an ArmchairGM user) because I don't know if it will be consistently posted. I did the BCS thing, where all the human rankings are equally balanced and the computer average constitute a "5th human ranking."
And, like with the BCS, the highest and lowest ranking from the computers are dropped from the average (just to keep crazy computer stuff a in check).
I also ran a "straight-up" average where every ranking is taken equally and no ranking (i.e. high/low) is dropped. That way I could see where the computer or human bias was.
Here are the more humanized "BCS-style" rankings (with "straight-up" ranking in parenthesis):
1. Chicago Bears (1)
2. Indianapolis Colts (2)
3. New England Patriots (3)
4. Denver Broncos (5)
5. New Orleans Saints (6)
6. New York Giants (4)
7. San Diego Chargers (7)
8. Baltimore Ravens (8)
9. Atlanta Falcons (9)
10. Cincinnati Bengals (10)
11. Carolina Panthers (13)
12. Seattle Seahawks (14)
13. Minnesota Vikings (12)
14. Philadelphia Eagles (11)
15. St. Louis Rams (15)
16. Jacksonville Jaguars (16)
17. Dallas Cowboys (17)
18. Pittsburgh Steelers (18)
19. Kansas City Chiefs (19)
19. New York Jets (20)
21. Tampa Bay Buccaneers (21)
22. Washington Redskins (22)
23. Green Bay Packers (23)
24. Buffalo Bills (24)
25. San Francisco 49ers (26)
26. Cleveland Browns (25)
26. Houston Texans (27)
28. Tennessee Titans (31)
29. Detroit Lions (28)
30. Miami Dolphins (29)
31. Oakland Raiders (32)
32. Arizona Cardinals (30)
A few thoughts:
- The "straight-up" ranking pretty much follows the "BCS-style" ranking except for towards the end (where the teams are pretty much equally bad) and with a few teams, Giants, Eagles and to a lesser extent Vikings. We'll discuss that in a second.
- Although, all the humans like the Broncos (#3 in every human ranking) more than the Patriots (#4 in every human ranking), the computers prefer the Pats. In fact, the computer prefer the Pats so much more that it was enough to drop the Broncos (averaging #8 in computer rankings) behind the Pats in the "BCS-style" ranking.
- As I mentioned the "straight-up" and "BCS-style" rankings pretty much agree. Well, except when it comes to the Giants and Eagles, and to a lesser extent the Vikings. The Giants (#6 "BCS-Style") average a #3 ranking with computers and the Eagles (#14 "BCS-Style") average #11 (when removing high and low) and #9 (without removing high and low) with the computer rankings. That means the computers seem to like the Giants and Eagles (and Vikings) more than the humans. My guess is that the computers give more credit for the Giants' strength of schedule and the humans don't give enough credit for close games (which accounts for all of the Eagles' losses).
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Lindsay Czarniak Quote of the Week
"He's running so fast, he falls out of his shoe."
Describing Hines Ward's reception for a touchdown where he loses a shoe about 30 yards away from the end zone and runs the rest of the way missing a shoe. At no point during the whole play (even once he gets into the end zone) does he fall.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Project Runway 3 Finale: Jeffrey wins
Although I haven't mentioned it, I have been following the 3rd season of Project Runway. I had tried to avoid watching since I was really turned away by the fact that the producers have a say in the results. In fact, if you remember from earlier this year, I completely hated how season 2 ended. I even had an imaginary back-and-forth with the "winner", Chloe.
Anyways, following that farce and the fact that, as a whole, I didn't particularly like this bunch of designers (personality-wise), I tried not to follow the show. But I succumbed and followed it by proxy (that is, Cindy watched it consistently, and I watched for the final pieces and who was eliminated). I grew to like the designs of Bonnie, Allison, Michael, Uli and Jeffrey. Bonnie and Allison were eliminated relatively early, but Michael, Uli and Jeffrey made it to the finals (Laura also made the finals, but I thought, although she was good, she was never really innovative).
So I was happy to see those three in the finale. I felt Michael and Uli were consistently good but never entirely outstanding. Jeffery, though, was much more daring... he really swung for the fences on every piece. Sometimes he struck out and sometimes he hit a homerun. And on his final collection he hit more homers than the competition, so I agree that he deserved to win. So I guess things have come around in the Project Runway world... now let see if Top Chef is worth it this year.
Anyways, following that farce and the fact that, as a whole, I didn't particularly like this bunch of designers (personality-wise), I tried not to follow the show. But I succumbed and followed it by proxy (that is, Cindy watched it consistently, and I watched for the final pieces and who was eliminated). I grew to like the designs of Bonnie, Allison, Michael, Uli and Jeffrey. Bonnie and Allison were eliminated relatively early, but Michael, Uli and Jeffrey made it to the finals (Laura also made the finals, but I thought, although she was good, she was never really innovative).
So I was happy to see those three in the finale. I felt Michael and Uli were consistently good but never entirely outstanding. Jeffery, though, was much more daring... he really swung for the fences on every piece. Sometimes he struck out and sometimes he hit a homerun. And on his final collection he hit more homers than the competition, so I agree that he deserved to win. So I guess things have come around in the Project Runway world... now let see if Top Chef is worth it this year.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Back on the Hook: Heroes
The 2000s should probably come to be known as the point where television became like the movies. I think 2 television shows can take most of that credit, 24 and CSI. 24 truly borrowed from movie making, first by taking a "movie star" in the lead role and second by using the shoot-em-up/explosions you used to only find in theatres. The CSI series doesn't concentrated on that aspect, but it added movie-like special effects to the police/investigative genre (remade popular in the 90s by NYPD Blue and Law and Order). So although, CSI made it okay to have episodes like "Code Black" on Grey's Anatomy, 24 really paved the way for shows like Lost and the already canceled, Heist (although those are ensemble casts instead of a "movie star"-led series).
I never got into 24 but I was looking forward to Lost when I first heard about it, but I missed the premier and then just never followed up on it. I never thought I would get into these kind of shows. I mostly didn't like the hype around the shows but I also didn't like how a plot, which would work better as a movie, would be put into a television series because a TV series NEEDS to draw out the story line. So I was thinking I was immune to these shows... until this season: I am all about Heroes.
I'm stupidly into it even though I fully realize there is no chance this is ending well. One of three things is going to happen, and all them are bad: 1. They're going to cancel the show; 2. It'll start to suck; or 3. They're going to draw the story out over 8 season, and I'm going to spend each summers with a "cliffhanger" looking forward to another season of entirely unlikely twists and pseudo-resolutions to current plots.
Oh well... if you'd like to join me just click on that link up there (or this one one), get caught up, and watch monday nights at 8 pm on NBC! God, I'm retarded!
I never got into 24 but I was looking forward to Lost when I first heard about it, but I missed the premier and then just never followed up on it. I never thought I would get into these kind of shows. I mostly didn't like the hype around the shows but I also didn't like how a plot, which would work better as a movie, would be put into a television series because a TV series NEEDS to draw out the story line. So I was thinking I was immune to these shows... until this season: I am all about Heroes.
I'm stupidly into it even though I fully realize there is no chance this is ending well. One of three things is going to happen, and all them are bad: 1. They're going to cancel the show; 2. It'll start to suck; or 3. They're going to draw the story out over 8 season, and I'm going to spend each summers with a "cliffhanger" looking forward to another season of entirely unlikely twists and pseudo-resolutions to current plots.
Oh well... if you'd like to join me just click on that link up there (or this one one), get caught up, and watch monday nights at 8 pm on NBC! God, I'm retarded!
Sunday, October 15, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
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.
Friday, October 06, 2006
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:
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")
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")
Saturday, September 30, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, September 29, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
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:
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.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
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.)
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.)
Monday, September 11, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
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
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
Sunday, August 06, 2006
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
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
Sunday, July 23, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
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.
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.
Saturday, July 01, 2006
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)