Oh for three in my guesses, and I can't say I mind at all.

Playing England to open will be tough, no doubt. But once the chance to play South Africa went by the boards, any of the other seven teams would present a significant challenge. It's a better draw than getting Brazil or Germany, but not by much. But given England's tendency to land in the Group of Death (or at least the Group of Agonizing Pain), karma looked to be running against the US.

But then Algeria and Slovenia wound up in the group, and things improved considerably. Both have short World Cup resumes and were among the lower FIFA ranked teams in their respective pots. Like I said yesterday, neither team is exactly a pushover, but playing them makes going through to the round of 16 more likely than if we'd drawn, say, Cote D'Ivoire and Portugal.

Speaking of those teams, I'd mentioned both as teams in a potential Group of Death (well, I'd picked Greece but mentioned Portugal as a close runner-up), along with Brazil. And guess which three teams wound up in the same group? Ladies and gentlemen, your Group of Death. Just with North Korea as your fourth rather than us. Thank God.

Now we just have six months to figure out how to pull a repeat of 1950 on the English.

OK, World Cup draw starting in a couple of minutes. My prediction for the US group: The Netherlands, Paraguay and Serbia. Well, as much of a prediction as you can make for a random draw.

The draw for the 2010 World Cup is tomorrow. Each of the 8 groups in pool play will be populated by four teams drawn in semi-random fashion. The teams are divided into four pots: one for host South Africa and the 7 qualifiers who finished highest in FIFA's October rankings, one for all the teams from Asia, Oceania and CONCACAF (the US's confederation), one for teams from Africa and South America, and one for the remaining European qualifiers.

(There's some controversy over the pots, as the use of the FIFA rankings alone - which don't include November's playoff games and don't take into account past World Cup performance, which was used in the past - led France to fall from the first pot to the fourth. Some see a conspiracy to punish the French, and they may not be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time with this Cup that FIFA has changed rules on the fly, as they made late changes that wound up pitting France against Ireland in the first place.)

So with that set up, what's the best the US can hope for?

Pot 1: South Africa: As hosts they get to be seeded, but on rankings alone they'd never make it into this pot (they were 85th in the October rankings; the only qualifier ranked lower was North Korea at 91). They missed the 2002 World Cup, and some people wonder if they'd have qualified for 2010 if they had to play their way in. Even with the expected bump from playing in front of home crowds, they'd be the team to get here. Honorable mention goes to Argentina, who does have world player of the year Lionel Messi, but also has him (and the rest of the squad) being coached by Maradona, whose coaching skills can charitably be called uneven.

Pot 3: Algeria: They've not made the World Cup since 1986, making them the least experienced team in the pot. On the down side, they are currently at their highest ranking ever, so they may have enough skill to make up for the inexperience.

Pot 4: Slovakia or Slovenia: Slovakia is in their first World Cup as an independent country, while Slovenia was a qualified by surprising Russia in their playoff. Neither is exactly a pushover, but the rest of the teams promise a tougher road. An article over on ESPN.com suggested any team beginning with 's' would work here, but I'm not so sure. Both Switzerland and Serbia won their qualifying groups, and the Swiss are ranked 18th. Serbia did have a lousy 2006 World Cup, for what that's worth.

Now that we have the dream bracket, what would be the US's Group of Death?

Pot 1: Brazil: Avoiding Brazil for as long as possible is a good strategy for getting deep into the tournament. Having them in your pool automatically means you have three teams playing for one place. Of course, if you don't get Brazil you could just get Germany or Spain or Italy (or England or the Netherlands for that matter). Simply put, if you don't get South Africa from this pot the team you do get from here is likely to be a challenge. It's just a question of how big a challenge you want.

Pot 3: Cote D'Ivoire: They're much more than Didier Drogba, as their entire roster is made up of European club players. They're the deepest team in the pot, and they get to play on their home continent.

Pot 4: Greece: It's a hard pick here given the strength of teams like Denmark and Portugal (even with their difficult qualifying experience). But I went with Greece as their style of play will wear down and frustrate teams. I suppose France might be a problem, too, but their qualifying path was nearly as chaotic as Argentina's (moreso at the end), so they may be ripe for the plucking. Plus, I kind of want to draw them in the hopes of getting some Irish-American justice.

The bottom line for the US, and really for most of the teams in their pot, is that the way the pots were filled none of them are going to have an easy time getting through to the knockout stages. Given that many of the teams are lower-ranked there's an argument that that's the way it should be. On the other hand, consider this: the US is 14th in the FIFA rankings. There's a chance their group will include the teams ranked first, fifth, and 11th, while Slovakia, ranked 34th, could get a group with the teams ranked 37th, 84th and 86th. Granted, the US could also get two of those teams, but I still don't think one ranked pot and three geographically assigned pots was the best way to go. Unless you're a European team.

We're a week away from the primaries for the special election to fill the US Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy. Time to sort out who you should vote for!

On the Democratic side, we start with Mike Capuano, who is currently in his sixth term as the Congressman from the historic 8th district (former Reps include JFK, Tip O'Neill, and Joseph "Joe 4 Oil" Kennedy II). He's got the most legislative experience of all the candidates, and has worked the hardest to claim the Kennedy mantle by pushing his liberal credentials. His TV ads have focused mostly on war-related issues, even though it's more of an "it's the economy, stupid" kind of time.

He has a number of union endorsements, most notably the Massachusetts Teachers Association. His individual endorsements are kind of a mixed bag, with the most notable names being former governor Mike Dukakis and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Even with his experience and endorsements, he's stuck in second place in most polls.

The person he's trailing is Martha Coakley, the current Massachusetts attorney general. She announced her candidacy scant days after Kennedy's funeral, and while there was some undercurrent of it being too soon, the quick announcement apaprently helped her get clear of the field that was still forming. That, plus strong name recognition and favorable ratings, allowed her to build a large early lead in polling, giving her time to raise money and plan. Opponents used this time to cut into her lead, but she's still holding on to a decent cushion and forwarding a message squarely focused on financial and health care issues. It also probably helps that she's the only woman in the race; she's not playing gender politics per se, but it's an obvious difference that connects her to approximately half of the voters in a way the other candidates can't match.

She's endorsed by a variety of unions and politicians, as well as groups like MassEquality and the Massachusetts Police Association (helps to be a former prosecutor). She also has a fair number of state politicians in her corner, including the state senate president and majority leaders from both the state senate and General Court (our quaint name for the House).

Social entrepraneur Alan Khazei is one of the two non-politicians in the race. He's the founder of City Year, a well-known AmeriCorps program, and was pretty well involved in the public service bill named for Kennedy. His vision for service finds room for both the private and public sector, and he's got experience working with folks in both arenas.

What he doesn't have is name recognition, and while he's been somewhat successful in raising money, he's not really made much headway. He does have one TV ad, whose theme is cleaning up Washington. It involves him holding a diaper (I assume it's full). He also doesn't have many endorsements, but the ones he does have are bigger names - Teddy's nephew Max Kennedy, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Presidential candidate Wes Clark, and, most surprisingly, the Boston Globe. (Although perhaps not that surprisingly, as every piece I've read about him there has been effusive with praise for his thoughtful approach to political questions).

The other non-politician is Steve Pagliuca, a former manager at Bain Capital, where he worked for once and future presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Like Romney, Pagliuca is using his personal fortune to bankroll his candidacy, and he's used TV ads early and often. Their progression has at least been sensible, starting with "getting to know you" ads, moving on to spots casting his liberal political cred, and then to more specific issue ads (like Coakley, focusing on the economy and health care). He's also a minority owner of the Celtics, which he's mentioned but not harped on, to his credit.

I can't find any endorsements for him on his web site, though there is a link where individuals can sign up to endorse him.

While there's something to be said for the experience of Capuano and Coakley, I have to admit I love an underdog and think it's about time we started sending non-politicans to Washington, which is why Blogalicious endorses Alan Khazei in the Democratic primary.

For the Republicans, there are two choices. Scott Brown is one of five Republicans in the state senate, and is seen as a rising star in the state party (inasmuch as they can have one, given the low GOP numbers in elected positions). That being said, he's only the third-best known person in his family, as his wife, Gail Huff, is a local TV news reporter, and his daughter, Ayla, plays basketball for BC and was a semi-finalist on season 5 of American Idol. He's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, enough that I wouldn't call him a RINO though I'm sure there are plenty of people who would.

One of those people is his opponent, Jack E. Robinson, entrepraneur and occasional Republican candidate. He ran against Kennedy in 2000, losing pretty badly (a fair amount of the GOP vote went to the Libertarian candidate), and has since run for Secretary of the Commonwealth and the US House, losing both contests badly.

Robinson's political views are varied, as he combines fiscal conservatism with social views from across the spectrum (he's for gay marriage and thinks that public transportation should be federally funded and free to use; odd stances for someone who's called Brown a RINO in radio ads). The state party doesn't care for him, as they challenged the signatures he collected to get on the primary ballot (or at least threatened to, I can't find confirmation that they actually did).

As much as I'd enjoy the theater of Robinson winning, I'm opting for experience here as Blogalicious endorses Scott Brown for the GOP primary and eventual whipping at the hands of the Democratic winner.

Book Log 2009 #49: The Beckham Experiment by Grant Wahl

Touted as the signing that would single-handedly bring the MLS into the hearts and minds of Americans, David Beckham's deal with the Los Angeles Galaxy never lived up to its inflated promise, and Walh explores the reasons why this occurred, from Beckham's physical fitness to play to his uneasy relationship with teammates to the overly-slick handling by 19 Entertainment and Simon Fuller.

From the beginning, it's clear that Beckham's arrival in the US is about more than soccer, as his signing seems to be as contingent on his wife's ability to score TV deals as it is about the game. Further complicating things are the people that surround Beckham and the demands they put on the team, which eventually lead to a de facto takeover by 19 Entertainment and long time Beckham friend Terry Byrne. This leads to some disastrous decision making and the eventual firing of team GM Alexi Lalas, who had little to no actual control over the team.

Compounding things was Beckham's increasingly frosty relationship with teammates, specifically Landon Donovan, whose notoriously thin skin only made each perceived slight that much worse. They would patch things up after a fashion, but only in time to see Beckham sign a deal that would have him play with AC Milan during the Italian season, making him a part-time MLS player.

As interesting as the details are, the most intriguing question of the book is just how much the Beckham Experiment was controlled by Beckham himself. Did he know and direct the changes with the Galaxy, or did things happen with him staying in a state of blissful ignorance? Both options raise questions, and Wahl does a good job of exploring them and only drawing conclusions where the information allows.

A must read for soccer fans.

Book Log 2009 #48: A Spectacle of Corruption by David Liss

Benjamin Weaver, the boxer turned investigator who debuted in A Conspiracy of Paper, returns in this book to explain his involvement in the murder of a laborer, which is actually a small part of a larger struggle between the Whigs and Tories on the eve of the first Parliamentary election of King George's reign. Throw in an appearance by the Jacobites - who want to overthrow George and put James III in - and you have an engrossing tale of 18th century politics, business and social life.

Weaver's attempts to clear his name and find the actual killer only get him in deeper with parties on all three sides of the larger plot - and put him at danger of being killed himself by any one of the three. The difficulties that Weaver faces in untangling things is clearly felt, and it drew me in more deeply than the average historical mystery.

A worthy successor to a great first novel.

Book Log 2009 #47: The Arms Maker of Berlin by Dan Fesperman

A scholar on Nazi Germany with an interest in the short-lived White Rose resistance movement has to find files about the group for which a colleague died (possibly murdered) that shed light on the White Rose resistance movement and its potential ties to an elderly German industrialist. Along the way, the scholar teams up with a woman whose single-minded determination to find the same information leads to questions about her past and how well she can be trusted.

The book is split between the modern day search and World War II-era Germany, the latter following the industrialist during his younger - and apparently more radical - days. The two come together at the end of the book and its shocking conclusion, though I found some of the conclusions fairly easy to guess as things went along.

It's a different twist to World War II espionage stories, especially with the involvement of the White Rose, whose fight against Hitler isn't well known in the US. I also appreciated the way that the drudgery of academic research is portrayed, given how easily documents seem to turn up in similar works. Worth a look.

Book Log 2009 #46: K Blows Top by Peter Carlson

Highlighting one of the more bizarre moments of US-Soviet relations, K Blows Top recounts the 1959 visit to the US by Nikita Khrushchev. The trip, the result of a mistaken negotiating ploy , was as much farce as diplomacy, with nearly each day punctuated by an emotional outburst by the Soviet premier. It made for great theater (and newspaper copy) then, and it makes for entertaining reading now.

The only drawback to the book, and it's somewhat minimal, is the suggestion from the cover and jacket that the story of the trip intertwines with several of the biggest names of the day. There are appearances by the likes of Sinatra and Monroe, but the most notable brush with celebrity came from Shirley MacLaine, who met Khrushchev when he stopped in to see some of Can-Can being filmed. It's not a real problem, but I do think the blurbs over promise.

Certainly worthwhile for people interested in the 1950s or US-Soviet relations, with the expectation that it's on the lighter side.

Book Log 2009 #45: Jericho's Fall by Stephen Carter

I've loved Carter's previous novels, thrillers featuring upper class African-Americans at the highest levels of the academic and legal communities. This book is a radical departure from that universe, perhaps too radical.

Jericho Ainsley is former CIA director (and former Secretary of Defense and former National Security Advisor) who is slowly dying of cancer in his home in the Colorado Rockies. Beck DeForde, the woman he threw his career away to be with when she was a student of his at Princeton, is summoned to the house in his final days. She's not sure why, though it slowly becomes clear that he wants to confide in her, and that there are a variety of people out there who want to know what, from American and foreign intelligence agencies to corporate titans to Ainsley's own daughters.

Carter set out to write a page-turner, and he does manage to ratchet up the tension admirably, creating a sort of seige mentality by playing off the remote location with a constant barrage of surveiland and suspicion. But I don't think the story every quite gets to where it wants to go, and while we get a somewhat clear picture of what secret Ainsley is looking to spill, the ending leaves a lot unanswered, which is kind of unsatisfying in a book of this style.

It's still written well - Carter hasn't lost anything there - but I don't know if he's best suited for writing thrillers. An interview with him on Amazon.com suggests that he enjoyed writing it and would write more if reaction to this one was good. I'd probably have another book set in the same universe as The Emperor Of Ocean Park, but I'd take another thriller, as I imagine that Carter would do better the second time around.

Book Log 2009 #44: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows by J. K. Rowling

I never quite expected a Harry Potter book to have a body count rivaling 24, but I suppose I should have expected it with this final showdown between good and evil. I'm not necessarily complaining, mind you, but I'll admit to being taken back a bit.

That sorted itself out a bit over the long middle of the book, where it seems like Harry, Hermione and Ron spend several hundred pages camping. It's a lot of down time for a book that begins and ends with a fair amount of action, but it does help to fit in some of the exposition that gets us to find out just what the Deathly Hallows are and how they might relate to finally defeating Voldemort.

All in all it's a fitting end to the series, but I will admit to being a little disappointed in the epilogue, which gives us a very small peek into the adult lives of the main characters. There's not that much information about their lives, and it's wholly silent on the bulk of the supporting characters. I wanted to know more, and was left wanting.

Book Log 2009 #43: The Ignorance of Blood by Robert Wilson

All of the threads of the Javier Falcon books come together here in one engrossing package. Still trying to bring the bombers from a previous book to justice, the case intersects with a Russian mobster who died in a car accident, Islamic terrorist operating out of Morocco, and a CIA agent who can't be fully trusted. As he inches towards the truth, Falcon is put under significant professional and personal pressures, as the case takes a turn straight out of his childhood.

This is the last book in the series, and sadly so. There's rarely a dull moment over the four books, and it's rare to find a main character of such depth in a crime novel. The setting adds even more body, with Seville almost becoming a character in itself (perhaps less so in this book, but certainly in the series).

So as sad as I am that this series is over, I at least have the last two books in the Bruce Medway series to read while waiting for whatever comes next.

Book Log 2009 #42: The Man With the Iron Heart by Harry Turtledove

In 1942, SS officer Reinhard Heydrich was assassinated in occupied Czecheslovakia. This book theorizes what would have happened if Heydrich survived the attack and took leadership of the Werwolf insurgency plan that, in real life, did little to hamper the Allies at the end and after the war.

Not surprisingly, the insurgency in the book bears a strong resemblance to that seen during the US occupation of Iraq. I tend to think it's a little too strong. I don't doubt that proper planning and leadership would have allowed the Nazis to put forth a credible terror threat, but it does seem like Heydrich is operating more along al Qaeda's playbook than anything he'd have learned in the German military.

I also wasn't crazy about the domestic subplot, though I have a hard time putting a finger on why at this point.

It's worth a read, but I was a little disappointed.

Book Log 2009 #41: Holy Hullabaloos by Jay Wexler

Part travelogue, part hornbook on religion and the First Amendment, this may be the funniest book you could use to prepare for a Constitution Law final. In it, Jay visits places that were the settings for important church-state legal cases, and often gets a chance to speak with some of the litigants. Jay explains the law in a way that's easy to understand, though I think that conservatives and evangelicals will not appreciate his arguments or his humor (especially in how he skewers the affrontery known as the Creation Museum).

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I knew Jay fairly well back in high school, thanks to debate. Jay parlayed that into becoming a legal scholar and prolific writer, while I author a blog with a readership in the high single digits. That actually kind of tracks our relative debate success, now that I think of it.

Book Log 2009 #40: The Jewel That Was Ours by Colin Dexter

In this outing, Morse must solve a pair of murders related to an American tour group and an artifact one of the group members was bringing to donate to an Oxford museum. I can't say I cared for the way the Americans tended to be portrayed (though perhaps there's a certain personality that gets attracted to bus tours), but the mystery is pretty solid. No complaints.

Book Log 2009 #39: Florence of Arabia by Christopher Buckley

You don't get a whole lot of satire related to Middle Eastern affairs or terrorism - the issues are either way too serious or seem to close to satire to begin with - but it should come as no surprise that one of the more successful examples would come from Christopher Buckley.

The basic plot: an American diplomat (the Florence of the title) is assigned to a (relatively) liberal Middle Eastern country, with the idea to open up a much more restrictive neighbor through empowering women. Aided by a CIA field operative and a typically dithering State Department bureaucrat, Florence gets more than she bargained for, and winds up running for her life before everything is over.

While not quite his best, this is better than Boomsday or Supreme Courtship. Worth a read, certainly.

Book Log 2009 #38: 7 Deadly Scenarios by Andrew Krepinevich

Pakistan - and its nuclear weapons - is swept into chaos by Islamic militants. A cvberattack leaves the US military unable to communicate or coordinate. China decides its time to bring Taiwan back into the fold. These are but three of the seven scenarios presented in this book, each of which helps to lead the reader into considering potential US vulnerabilities and what can be done now to prevent future catastrophe.

I'll admit I didn't read all seven scenarios. I found myself getting just that little more depressed after each one, and had to force my way through the five I did read. Still, at set-alone chapters each scenario is well worth reading. Many of the scenarios are timely (not surprisingly), and they do help pull some of our current events into sharper focus. Certainly worth a look, just not all at once.

Book Log 2009 #37: The Immaculate Deception by Iain Pears

This is the last of the series of art theft mysteries featuring British art dealer turned academic Jonathan Argyll and his wife, the acting chief of Rome's art theft polce squad, Flavia di Stefano, and to mark the end the book has a very different approach from the others. Government intrigue and long-hidden secrets are at the forefront, and while the tone isn't exactly dark, it's certainly cloudier than the other books in the series.

I will admit to being a little put off by this change, and I'm not sure if I'm thrilled at how it all turned out. There's one major personal revelation that comes a bit out of left field, and I can't say the sudden focus on political matters was all that welcome. It's not a bad book per se, but I was a little disappointed that the series ended on this note.

Book Log 2009 #36: The Moonstone by Wilkie Collins

Given my enjoyment of mystery and detective novels, it made some sense to finally get around to reading the book that is widely considered the first detective novel in English literature (or at least the first to use number of elements that became common in the genre).

The basic plot: a diamond (the Moonstone of the title) is bequeathed to a young woman on her 18th birthday, but goes missing the night after her birthday party. Suspects include various guests, a servant with a checkered past, and a troop of Indian jugglers who are suspected of being members of a religious group dedicated to returning the jewel to its sacred statue.

The book is written in epistolary form, as accounts from various people after the case is solved, which works well in that it provides welcome changes in tone and style. It's a little ponderous in comparison to modern detective fiction, and some of the now-common elements will come off as cliched, but I enjoyed the book quite a bit, more than I expected really.

Book Log 2009 #35: The Domino Men by Jonathan Barnes

This book is an indirect sequel to The Somnambulist, in that it takes place in the same universe and involves some of the same characters and organizations, but is not a continuation of the first book's story. It's also set about a century later, taking place in the present day.

And, really, I think both of those last two points work to the sequel's detriment. The new story - about an office drone who becomes the key person in stopping the House of Windsor from turning Britain over to a nefarious being called Leviathan - doesn't quite measure up to the mystery from the first book. And without period detail to enhance (or cover the weaker spots of) the story, I found myself less drawn in. There's also a subplot written by a "second" narrator regarding the Prince of Wales that didn't do much for me, other than tip where things were heading as I got towards the end of the book.

I suppose I was also a little disappointed that this book wasn't going to answer some of my lingering questions from the first one, especially about the first book's mysterious title character. Perhaps a third book will take care of that?

So three things I've been mulling as explanations for Chicago's poor showing in today's vote for the 2016 Olympics

1. Everyone else still hates us. Nothing like a sweeping generalization to kick things off, but it may be fair to say that there's still some fence-mending to be done, even with Obama's apparently popularity abroad. Which leads to...

2. Obama's slight to voters. At least one article I read suggested that some voters passed on Chicago because they felt snubbed by the short length of Obama's appearance. Honestly, if the idiots who vote for this thing won't vote for a city because the leader of the free world isn't going to spend a couple of days kowtowing to them, then we really don't need the Olympics.

3. Never underestimate the emotional appeal of the very old. As part of Madrid's presentation, former IOC president (and current lifetime honorary president) Juan Antonio Samaranch more or less said they should win because he's pretty close to dying and he'd like to see Spain named host before that happens. Throw that out to a room full of people who you've worked with for years, and it's not surprising that you get that close to winning. Which also seems like a pretty weak rationale for voting, which just further tells you what you're dealing with as far as the IOC is concerned.

Anyway, congrats to Rio. Hope you get your rat and monkey problem cleared up in time for the Games.