birdog1960

Wow. my sister is posting pics. looks pretty dangerous even for stout Buffalonians. prayers for everyone there.

angelic voice at age 15 and a real test for speaker quality :

and that would have likely been a mistake, too. so you're validating the first mistake with an alternative second mistake. it's a false choice. there are multiple other options for this pick. just because whaley apparently didn't consider them doesn't mean they weren't better options.

which reminded me of lee ann womack. tidbits of what sounds like a promising new "old timey" country album here: http://www.npr.org/2014/11/07/362290363/lee-ann-womack-scales-back-and-goes-traditional-and-moody

so we should ignore what he says? sounds correct to me.

linda ronstadt, alison kraus, billie holliday, diana krall

you're joking right? i just read this for the first time as i usually avoid the official bills propaganda.. most of the arguments supporting whaley here are taken right from this piece. except you all choose to ignore that he absolutely stated that he expected the first round pick to be a low one. depending on your definiton of low (and i somehow suspect many here will define it as whatever place the bills draft next year), he's likely to have been wrong. he made his decision on expectations. he expected watkins to be a star. he expected the traded pick to be of relatively lower value. not that what any of us thinks or posts matters but hasn't 15 years of failure convinced anyone that rationalizing the bills bad moves is silly and self deceptive?

and those kids sleeping in their cars, trying to write on the back of a carseat? we've already agreed kids like these are unfortunately, not rare. where was all the crapload of help for them til they reached mid teens? you think they refused help?

and access to higher education, mentors, tuition money , scholarships or grants, strong elementary and high school educations and frequently, inherent intelligence. but you are correct that no program or system can transform any kid into a undergrad or grad school graduate. still, overall, it's the strongest predictor of future earnings. this is likely to be even more pronounced in a tech driven economy. hence the emphasis on education as part of the solution to the problem of poverty.

then they're outliers as well: http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm the best odds for making bank comes from making higher degrees which often but not always correlates with intelligence.

and do you believe he's typical or an outlier? the fact that you single him out as an example suggests the latter.

i don't see the problem. at risk kids often need help to even get to a level of sustained self sufficiency. the reality is that not everyone and especially someone with an iq in the bottom decile or so, is not going to handle an intellectually demanding job. most high paying jobs are just that. those that believe they have the ability to aspire for higher stations will need to do so on their own initiative and with less or possibly no organized assistance. but you all knew that. you're just pretending that you didn't. or is it that you're in the bottom decile?

it's not.. except that soem of my best role models were teachers. they'll likely have to try harder than i did to reach the same career level. that might not be achievable however. self sufficiency would seem a reasonable goal to start with. anything more is on the individual.

everyone can't be saved. bad choices, bad luck, bad karma, bad protoplasm and genetics, bad stuff happens. many progressives including me argue that people should be given the opportunity to succeed in realistic scenarios. somebody with an iq of 78, absentee parents, crappy schools and no role models is pretty unlikely to enter professional life. but they are pretty likely to be able to support themselves on a minimum wage unskilled job that pays a living wage.

not stunning at all. it shows that the people that hold the vast majority of the nations wealth and a hugely skewed portion of the income, pay a disproportionate amount of taxes. so what? what's not mentioned is the direct or indirect economic benefits many of these same high wealth individuals and groups receive from the gov't such as subsidized pay in the form of food stamps and medicare for their underpaid workers or the clout to allow shady businesses like payday lenders to persist or near zero interest loans to financial institutions for years or seeming immunity from jail time for serious financial crimes or... what dollar value do you give those type of perks?

why is it so unconsciounable to you to try a model that guarantees livable wages for unskilled labor? is it that awful label "marxism"? are the countries i cited as examples marxist? no, they just appear to look out more for the least of their societies. they seem to recognize that we still need manual, unskilled work and that it has value. yes, there are lazy, ungrateful, parasites among the poor (and the rich). disincentivize them to be this way but make it highly probable that those who want to work share in the overall success of the country. and the payday loan thing is emblematic of the polar opposite thought process. it's ok to exploit those already down and out. it's not all that difficult to rid the country of these scumbags. it just requires the will. it's not there because of the mindsets i just described.

you've never met anyone that's done nearly all the right things yet has struggled mightily in a financial sense? oh wait... and there are many more that constantly struggle, a good number of whom are veterans. wanna know who they are? look at who uses payday loans and for profit college loans. this is eploitation of desperate people, plain and simple.

um, no it doesn't. nice story, simply untrue.

so your argument is that it's not the way we do it because, well, it's not the way we do it. and look who is talking about fairness. i thought fairness didn't matter. btw, it works for some people for a great many it doesn't. and other system also work, sometimes for a greater proportion of the populace. oh, and i didn't live in a bubble. i worked extremely hard for what i've got and took risks. but then again, i had many advantages: good genes, good parenting, good schools, solid middle class home, plenty of excellent role models in family and friends…i never said life was meant to be easy. i'm saying that 2 or 3 jobs shouldn't be required to provide necessities. it's not an all or nothing stance, unlike yours. wait, you mean you can't have one without the other? so they don't have socialized medicine. they do have a living wage. and…?

that's just the word to describe bills fans: "spoiled". there has been almost nothing redeeming about this organization for 15 years. it's logical to hope for fundamental change. um….,what? if there are 10 potential stars in a position in a draft, it is of high statistical likelihood that at least will be a star. the odds drop significantly for each individual player. that's why this was a reckless move.

but we're discussing evaluating whaley, are we not? the net total of his work can be measured in W/L's. that includes picking a promising receiver this year, dropping a ist round and 4th round pick next, agreeing to the choice of a coaching staff , signing or not signing free agents (including surprisingly good qb's as you mentioned as a possibility) and running the analytics dept, among other things. from most accounts here, he's starting with above avg talent. why shouldn't he be judged by win loss differential against teams with arguably significantly less existing talent? were measuring his body of work and the watkins pick and trade certainly directly relate to that.

that's very convenient. there's no way to measure the impact of that massive gamble. i'm guessing that if watkins puts up league leading numbers, you'd believe those metrics bolster your case. but none can be found that would refute it? hmmm…. i'm guessing a savvy owner would not agree.

i took darin's criticism of my economic understanding and his assertion of a free market in that regard and "how the world really works" and responded with evidence that argues otherwise. how are you going to celebrate your 50.000th post? perhaps lance that rosette of hemorrhoids you've earned composing them?

you could at least attempt to disguise your strawmen. only 122 years ago: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/peopleevents/pande04.html

ya know those fires in third world factories where people burn to death because the managers lock them in? those are a result of unencumbered, uncontrolled, unregulated labor economics. it's not been present in the us since the days of child labor, the pinkerton thugs and sweatshops. i understand enough about economics not to believe in pure free markets existence or desirability. we've evolved a great deal from the bad old days but there's plenty of room for improvement.