OGTEleven

I was a big Easy Goer fan and somewhat of a Pat Day fan, but they did not go well together. Day got him beat in the Preakness (probably) and the BC Classic (absolutely). Spectacular Bid and Alysheba were both Great. I think Bid was better. My favorite horse ever was Java Gold who was a 3 year old late bloomer during Alysheba's year. I attended the Travers that year which had Polish Navy, Cryptoclearance, Gulch, Bet Twice, Alysheba and Java Gold (winner). Now that was a race and a great year for 3 year olds. I was not a Big Brown fan at all and think of him as a symbol for what has gone wrong with racing over the past few decades. Although he had stamina on the dam side, there was none at all in his sire line until a few generations back and even those were better milers. Danzig was a sprint sire who produce Boundary who was a sprint sire who produced Big Brown. He was never meant to try a mile and a half. That Belmont field he faced was amazingly weak. This year's is far better and can challenge Chrome, but he has definitely been up for the challenges so far.

This was the single biggest anomaly of which I am aware to ever occur in sports. It is not just the distance by which he won, but the time in which he ran it. At that time, I believe it was more than 2 sends faster than any other mile and a half race in the history of racing. This means that the second best race ever run at that distance would have produced a horse 13 lengths or so behind Secretariat. 41 years later it is still more than a full second faster than the second best time ever. It would be like someone hitting a 700 foot home run or kicking a 94 yard field goal. Or maybe a better example is if Roger Bannister ran a 3:40. California Chrome is good. His story has some similarities to other great horses. He is no Secretariat, but that is not really a knock on him. He has caught a few breaks this year because some other very good horses fell off the trail before the Derby. There are a few threats tomorrow. Personally I think Tonalist, Wicked Strong and Medal Count and major long shot Matuszak are possible upsetters. In the long run I think Tonalist and Medal Count will prove to be very good. Tonalist is still inexperienced and Medal Count may end up better on grass than dirt. I'd sort of like to see him do it but would love to see another Secretariat come along some day, or at least another Affirmed. There are some very good horses over the past 15 years or so that have whiffed in the Belmont after winning the first two. It is a grueling task. Alysheba, Smarty Jones and Silver Charm come to mind. Going back further even Spectacular Bid succumbed. CC is no Spectacular Bid. I also think there were two real Triple Crown horses since Affirmed but they had to run against each other and that stopped them both. Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.

Here's another. There is also a nice live version available on Youtube. I don't know if the original is really a classic but it is well known.

I will pray for you and your wife. When you think of what your wife has meant to you, truly meant to you, reverse it, and that is what you meant to her. Your advice is good for all of us but don't have a big bag of regrets, because every day you were on a trip with your wife that was far more important than any vacation or planned event. Every person who has ever lived could have done one more thing, or corrected one more mistake, or said something differently. We should all strive for these things every day, but the best we can do is to get closer to that perfection. None of us can ever achieve it. You mustn't judge yourself against that standard. Without even knowing you, I can tell from these posts that your wife has a good husband. The little moments, the dish washing, snow shoveling, grocery shopping tend to be the boring parts, but they also tend to provide little surprises or laughs that we all remember with our loved ones. Even when they don't, the time itself helps build the foundation or roots for all of those things to grow. Vacations, events and trips are important and memorable, but they are nothing without that foundation. The foundation is what is most important and what will last in your heart. I believe that the pain you feel is a reflection of the love you have. That love can't be taken away by the pain, time, or even death. It is yours and hers. Without that love, we wouldn't feel the pain. Let the pain remind you of the love. Your promises to her that everything would be ok weren't lies. It will be. Maybe not in ways that anyone understands, but it will be ok. I don't feel qualified to offer advice on how you go on, but I would say that using the foundation you have built together can help you and others. In the end, the love that you built is the true foundation. I believe that love can endure as a foundation even after the people who created it are gone. Everything we all do has an impact on others. Make use of your foundation to have that impact be positive. That doesn't necessarily mean do charity work every day or visit the elderly or give away your money (although it does for some people). Be you, find your way. Use your foundation. And take your time. Know that even the little things like posting on a Bills web site, or holding the door open for a stranger, have an impact. Not everyone will know the foundation from which your positive impact comes, but in a small way, it will help them build their own foundation. There has been so much good advice in this thread that I think everyone has been able to absorb something from it. I know I have. I haven't experienced what you are or lost a parent like others have mentioned. I hope I remember this thread if and when I go through this. We all owe you thanks for sharing your personal story because I'm sure we have all benefited from it in some way. I just changed my signature line to a lyric from a favorite song of mine. The line always hits me because I think it is about everyone and what we all can be for each other in ways large and small. Thank you for bringing this to us and helping us all think about what is important.

I have been meaning to post this for a while, but I knew it would be long and I needed to find time. Thanks to the word insober (easily remembered) in the title, finding the thread was easy. I am heavily biased as he is my favorite musician ever, and he is generally held in high regard, but I am convinced Mark Knopfler in incredibly underrated. This includes his days with Dire Straits, his solo work during that time and especially his solo work post Dire Straits. He is most known for his phenomenal and unique guitar playing, which I still think is underrated as he plays every guitar type and style imaginable. What seems to go unnoticed is general musicianship. He is known as a rock star, but has many fantastic songs that could be classified as Rock, Gospel, Blues, Country, and several other genres. When you listen a few times you realize the relative ease with which he masters all of these styles and the respect with which he plays them. His songs have such staying power for me that I often find myself re-discovering old ones that I had almost forgotten and finding out that they become among my favorites when I give them a good listen. In his whole library I find maybe three or four songs that I don't like as much and they are typically the ones that are meant to be funny. "Money for Nothing" is not a bad song, but was overplayed and maybe his best known song besides "Sultans of Swing". That is a shame. His greatest talent in my opinion is as a songwriter. Yes, that is even over and above his guitar skills. From the beginning with songs like "Lions" and "Wild West End" I found many of his songs to be very unique. His latest CD has "Dream of the Drowned Submariner" and "Yon Two Crows" which I find to be so different in style or lyric that I'm not sure I've ever heard anything quite like them. Many of his songs are about people; some famous, some just regular people, but they always have a different way of showing the dignity of that person without being pretentious. It doesn't matter if it is someone real, like Ray Kroc or Sonny Liston, or someone imagined like the divorced man in "A Place Where We Used To Live" or the traveling gospel singers in "Baloney Again". Even the dignity of a ship in "So Far From the Clyde" is something he describes perfectly. He seems to be able to tell a story about anyone to which anyone can easily relate. I would recommend listening to the spiritual "In the Sky" a few times or "Piper to the End" which is about an uncle he never met who died in WWI. He also did some of his best work without using words via soundtracks. The two most famous are probably "The Princess Bride" and "Local Hero, but there are several others. So many individual phrases in his songs stick with me. "You can fall for chains of silver, you can fall for chains of gold, you can fall for pretty strangers, and the promises they hold...."; "Too poor to be wasteful with pity or time"; "Generations toiled and hacked....for a pittance and black lung". I find amazing lyrics like this in other songs too, but I find scores in Knopfler's songs and most are very direct and personal, not abstract like the songs I love from Yes or Pink Floyd. I don't know how anyone could write a song about 9/11 but his "If this is Goodbye" was written for the victims who placed phone calls to their loved ones when they knew they were going to die. As if "My famous last words, are laying around in tatters...." weren't brilliant enough on its own, he wrote it for the voice of Emmylou Harris. It appears on a CD of duets he made with her that is definitely worth a listen if you haven't heard it. His collaborations are a who's who: Tina Turner, Bob Dylan (Knopfler produced Infidels), James Taylor, Emmylou, Van Morrison, Chet Atkins are among the more famous with Ruth Moody, Pieta Brown and Bap Kennedy being some of my favorite "non-famous" types. His songs have been covered by: Mary Chapin Carpenter, The Killers, The Indigo Girls, Kenny Rogers, The Judds, Metallica, Randy Travis, Trey Anastasio, Art Garfunkel, Shooter Jennings and.....The Everly Brothers. That's not a bad list. I know a lot of people like him, but I don't think he ever really received the icon status that he deserves. I doubt he cares. I don't really either, but I think the people that have overlooked his music have really missed out. And again I don't care, but the Rock and Roll hall of fame is a joke. I listed a lot of songs and wanted to link one that was relatively unknown but what the heck, this one kicks in at 0:11 so I guess that makes the most sense:

I agree with the people who said that the reality of his mom dying probably hit home quickly after he traveled back from Jacksonville. Without practicing at least for the beginning of the week I can't see how he would be expected to play. I really hope they keep Stevie. He has shown he can be very productive and this year was spent with a rookie QB who missed several games due to injury. He has personality, which this team desperately needs. If it were up to me, he'd stay.

Post yours. Mine is below.

It seems to be conventional wisdom that the Bills have had a tough schedule so far and that it gets easier as the season moves on. I decided to take a look at the records of our opponents at the beginning and end of this season's schedule and their records so far. I did three levels. The first was the teams' records when all games were counted. Level 2 is the records when you strip out their game against the Bills and level 3 is when you strip out the games against either the Bills or teams the Bills have played this season (I did this because when the Jets play the Pats, their record after the game will be 1-1 no matter what happens). I included the Chiefs in the first section because they will not play again before the game against us, so their record won't change. Level 1: 43-25 .632 Level 2: 38-22 .633 Level 3: 26-10 .722 This tells me that the teams we have played so far have been good (level 1) in general, good when not playing us (level 2), and very good when playing the part of the league we haven't played against. The level 3 of .722 is amazing as only 7 teams in the NFL have a better percentage (and we have played 4 of them) and this is an aggregate record for our whole schedule. It gets easier when we play the rest of our schedule. Level 1 17-35 .327 Level 2: 15-34 .384 (Jets, Pats, dolphins are the only change from level 1) Level 3: 8-17 .320 will this ease be enough to help a playoff push? Personally I think 3-5 is too big a hole to dig out of but the schedule is one thing in our favor (for a change).

At this point I think each side may very well be defining a win as getting the better of the other guy. Sadly, this does not always equate with getting the best deal for yourself. I like Byrd and would like him here long term and think he fits the re-make of the team perfectly, but keeping Byrd and losing subsequent negotiating credibility is the wrong tactic. Giving in and trading him doesn't help either. The Bills have to keep him this year unless they get undeniable value in a trade. From Byrd's point of view I just don't see how forcing the Bills to trade him gets him anything unless he thinks the new team will agree to not franchise him next year. Who would do that and still offer the Bills a high enough pick or good enough player to have them interested? None of this makes logical sense which leads me to believe it is a pissing match.

That is what makes it hard for me to understand why Parker or Byrd would demand a trade. Parker and the Bills have to know Byrd's trade value is low given the fact he can't get a new deal from anyone until year's end. If he were traded, why would Parker make any promises to the new team when he could negotiate with 32 teams once the season ended? Why would any new team promise not to franchise Byrd again? It would be the only leverage they have. For the trade partner, the major motivation would have to be a rental of a safety to put them over the top for this year. How many teams can be in a position to think that way about themselves before week one? If there is an injury to a safety for a team that is 4-1 and looking good I could see this changing, but that is a narrow field of potential teams and a narrow window of time. For Byrd, I'm not sure I understand the motivation unless Parker thinks he has a deal in place with a certain team (collusion?). Maybe he has a few teams about which he feels comfortable enough about the prospects for a deal. That seems to be taking a lot on faith. It almost seems like Byrd would be better off playing for the Bills and opening up the field wider for 2014 (via trade or FA), than giving some sort of gentleman's agreement to his new team. He can't expect any new team to promise not to use next year's franchise tag can he? On paper that is the only potential advantage to Byrd the new team could offer that is not already there with the Bills. The only exception to this I can see at all is a crazy one where Byrd has a specific team in mind. Did he grow up in San Diego when his dad was playing? I doubt it is about something like that. Clearing an immediate headache would be the only motivation I could see for the Bills trading Byrd, but if they do this they would be creating far bigger headaches down the road. Because Byrd can't negotiate with the new team, any draft pick would be too low (IMO). Again, only a wild scenario could make any sense. Is there another team with a player on a one year tender who would feel comfortable working with the Bills long term while Byrd went there and felt comfortable? I highly doubt that scenario. I don't think a trade makes logical sense at all to Byrd, the Bills, or the new team from a practical point of view. All of the above was my roundabout way of saying that this seems to have become about winning to both Parker and the Bills. I think the Bills have made their share of mistakes over time with how the organization has been run, but this is supposedly a new regime. On the field it certainly seems like a new feeling from the coach to the new QB and at least one potential superstar in Spiller. Off the field who knows, but I am rooting for the Bills to win this apparent battle with Parker. Losing it will eventually erode whatever progress they make on the field. I like Byrd and losing his full capabilities on the field in 2013 hurts (I in no way expect him to play hard for the Bills this year....it is Parker's only leverage against the CBA). I'd rather lose Byrd for one year than lose the ability to leverage the CBA and basic negotiating tactics for a long time, with any player.

As pointed out, a couple of states already use this although I think they give the two "extra" votes to the popular vote winner; not the winner of both districts (not sure). It is already the decision of each state, it's just that 48 states decide to be winner take all. It really shouldn't be a national debate at all. This is a good idea or bad idea for Virginia and Virginia alone. It is no business of anyone living in NY or Kentucky. Unfortunately I think no matter what you do you're going to have problems. You think districts are gerry-mandered now? Lay this electoral tie-in to them and watch what happens. I'm not a huge fan of winner take all either because so many states have populations with large political differences. Although less so now, NY City and Upstate are like two different states politically. Upstate Republicans basically have no say at all in selecting a president. No system is perfect but any system ought to have its roots in the constitution which includes the electoral college for a reason. A national popular vote is the worst possible idea for a whole slew of reasons.

We had the same washing machine for my whole childhood and it never broke down. As an adult we are on our third machine and the current one has had major repairs (luckily covered by warranty) three times. Every one we have had has been terrible.

I could see moneyball being applied somewhat readily to defensive players and not so much to offensive players. Oddly enough, this is similar to baseball using it for offensive players over defensive players. A football defender and a batter in baseball are both reacting to something being thrown at them. The defense (pitcher) initiates every play in baseball where the offense initiates it in football. You can look at film and determine most of the time how the football defender matched up against the other team. Did he draw a double team? Penetrate? Cover his man? Sometimes you won't be sure if he executed his assignment but most of the time you'll be able to tell by watching. Even so, you can't have others do the watching for you by reading OBP stats like baseball. That is a lot of people watching a lot of film and that makes it subject to varying interpretations. I haven't read the book Moneyball (movie only) but I am a baseball fan. I have not seen anything indicating that Beane used the metrics on pitching/defense but he didn't completely ignore them building that winning team. They did have Hudson/Zito/Mulder after all. Evaluating Scott Hatteberg as a value against Jeremy Giambi is one thing and I think it can be important, but you still need pitching. That is where everything starts. A quarterback is like a #1 starter that starts every game. Take the Bills this year and plug in Manning for Fitzpatrick. What would the record be? I am not sure how to apply moneyball to WR (how do you know if a player operating from another team's playbook ran the right route?); RB (can apply it to rushes certainly but what about blocking/receiving? And even rushing is dependent on the OL as has been pointed out). I guess I can see applying it to the OL somewhat but again the assignments are not always clear.Moneyball worked (works) for the A's brilliantly with respect to hitters and production. They have been able to develop pitching talent consistently too and make some timely trades to keep the farm stocked. Some of these things could be done in football but some could not. I am not against the moneyball concept but it would have to be a square one re-design for football. I'm hopeful but skeptical.

So you have defined that there is a problem and decided there should be a stigma? Others may say that gay marriage is causing a morality problem, or food stamp recipients are buying twinkies and causing a nutrition problem or people with high incomes aren't paying enough in taxes and causing our fiscal problems. Why can't they get access to all government records on all citizens so they can post the trouble making gays/poor/rich/black/white/SUV driving/student loan deadbeat/parent with special needs children's names and addresses on line? Should they run it by you first to see if there is enough of a problem to make a personal transaction public information? Everything you or I do via an application or license granted by government could be seen by another person as wrong and hurtful to society. Are you really saying they should be entitled to all government legally issued licenses, permits, applications and similar documents? In my opinion your answer has to be yes to everything or no to everything. You can't say it is ok to publish a list of all gun licenses but not ok to publish a list of all people making over $100k. I'd prefer a society based upon that answer being no.

So you wouldn't see a problem of publishing a list of the home addresses of all abortion doctors? Or all owners of SUVs? Or all married gay couples?

Who decides what gets stigmatized in society? A newspaper? And then they publish the associated list of private citizens? If gun ownership and foods stamps are on the naughty list, what might be next? Income under (or over) certain levels? A 1040 is something that is filed with the government just like a gun registration. Should that be published too? How about a kid that needs special assistance in the public school classroom? The parents need to fill out a form for that, right? A list of everyone on Medicare that takes Zoloft? Viagra? A list of all people that drive cars with low mileage? Gay couples that are married? My point is that many (almost all) individuals interact with government on an individual basis. Personally I think the documents filed by individuals with the government ought to be treated as private by the government, much like your doctor or lawyer would treat them. A conviction record, on the other hand is another matter in that the person has broken the law(s). You don't break any laws when applying for a gun permit or food stamps. Documents internal to the government should also be available. I'm not totally against things getting stigmatized, I think that has a useful place in society within limits, but information that should be private shouldn't be used as a vehicle for stigmatizing it. Stigmatizing groups (food stamp recipients, gun owners, whatever) only works if there is enough agreement that there is underlying "bad behavior". Naming an individual gun owner or food stamp recipient in writing seems beyond reasonable to me.

This is an attempt by the paper to stigmatize gun ownership (I think everyone figured that out). What would be the reaction if a registry of all people on food stamps or other government assistance was published in a similar attempt to stigmatize? My guess is that the left would be up in arms. It is strange to me that the pendulum of what is perceived as desirable and undesirable can shift so much in a society but clearly it does. You can agree or disagree with gun or welfare laws, but is it really fair to single out people that are obeying those laws? I understand and support government openness for policy setting, bids, internal communications and the like, but why are interactions between governments and law abiding individuals subject to the same openness? The gun owner and the welfare recipient are basically clients of the government. Public companies have to audit and publish their financials but they don't have to publish a list of their clients or accounts. We all have to file with the IRS but our returns aren't open to the public (are they?). Why are gun registrations open like that?

I believe in God and find your post interesting. With respect to the part of your post I bolded I have to disagree with you on one thing. If there were no free will, only perceived free will, why would more than one possibility exist? The illusion of free will notwithstanding, our predetermined choices would all still collectively lead to only one (admittedly highly complex) outcome. I can buy the concept of time being our perception and everything existing at once either with God or without God existing. I can't get there with respect to all possibilities existing simultaneously at once without including free will in the equation. This is because without free will there is but one possibility. Am I missing something here? To me free will can only exist with God, not without him. As for the study I only skimmed it and must have misunderstood it. Care to summarize? I interpreted it as saying the subconscious tells the conscious what to do. In other words you think about moving your arm and then your arm moves. There must be more to it than that.

Does it strike anyone as odd that the teachers union is getting all high and mighty about this investment after the fact? If they felt so strongly why would they have made the investment in the first place?

I keep trying to wrap my head around what happened in Connecticut the other day and this seemed like a good place to look. I normally have a lot of opinions on things to blame and not to blame. I'm sure at some point I will have opinions on the arguments that arise from this about guns, mental health, schools and the media. Right now I still don't have any opinions on any of it. Maybe it is because I have two young children, or maybe it is just the age of those poor kids that were taken from us. Parents or not, we can all relate in some way. I always come back to the what if. What if this were my kid(s), or if it were me, and there was nothing that could stop it, what would I feel? The only answer is knowing that I would trade everything I have, including my life and all of its memories, to be able to spend one more minute with my kids. It makes me realize how blessed I am to not have to make any such trade. There are 20 sets of parents yearning to make that trade right now, but they can't. All they can do is live there lives in a way that honors their children and hope that at the end of their own days, they will have a glorious reunion with their child. I pray for them that they will have this reunion.

It's been a long time since I logged in but I still lurk (put it this way my birthday is in February and I had a note from Mead when I logged in. Thanks Mead). I saw this thread and liked a lot of it. A song I heard today reminded me. I thought I'd add a couple from one of my favorite artists. even though I'm not a music expert on what qualifies as The Blues. The first one is a song I love called Baloney again. It seems bluesy to me but I'm not sure it qualifies. The second one is definitely Blues. Thanks for all the good links. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gUV4UKWHA You Can't Beat the House

I always liked Icehouse but thought their best was We Can Get Together. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzRCYjlIVYw Another forgotten song I think exemplifies the 80s is Wouldn't It Be Good. Over video limit I wouldn't call it 80s music exactly, a lost Dire Straits gem is Tunnel of Love.

I can buy into a multiverse theory which says every action we make based on a decision "creates" a parallel universe. I actually have thought a lot about this with God. Without God I still come to the same conclusion (only bigger?). I create trillions upon trillions of universes by deciding to blow my nose or turn left/right. At the end of this thought process, I still come back to the free will itself being an illusion. It doesn't matter if trillions of "me" think they have free will or even if some me's were created by other me's. Every decision I make spins out a universe. Meanwhile you are making a decsion. If both our decisions are yes/no, then the result is 4 universes more than an instant ago. There are billions on earth with free will and not every decision is yes/no, so the number of universes is staggering. This is before we even account for decisions being made in other worlds we have yet to discover. I can actually buy off on this no matter how big the number, but not with free will as part of the equation. If there are trillions of me, but each is subject to the laws of the multiverse which involve predictable interactions of matter and energy, then there is still zero free will by definition. Zero times a trillion-trillion is zero. I still come to the same conclusion that an atheist must be resigned to predetermination. That's ok because as you say the illusion of free will may be enough. I just think it has to be recognized as an illusion by atheists. I tried the link and I can get it to play but am having a hard time with the fast forwarding. I'll try it again when I have more time.

Thanks for the nice words. I understand your thoughts about predetermination and whether it is consistent with the concept of God. There are certainly some points there which need to be addressed for believers. I have my thoughts but have no illusions that they could ever be proven. Maybe I missed it in your post, but I personally cannnot come to grips with free will even being possible in a universe without God (an atheist universe if you will). I am interested in your thoughts about that. To me, if someone is an atheist, they simply must be someone who believes in predetermination. I'm not clear whether you believe that. I am not trying to set up some trap, just interested in your thoughts. If you even believe free will is a remote possibility, how could it be without God?

I am what some people would consider religious and others would not. I believe in God or at least I would be perceived to believe in God. I am aware that being religious, and/or belief in God requires faith. I have that faith. I can see a reasonable person having no faith in the existence of God. I can EASILY see someone not wanting to be religious or be affiliated with and organized religion. Here is where I differ with you. Whether it is God as described by Catholics, Muslims or Jews, some other kind of God, or something altogether different, I do think that humans generally feel a connection to something. Basically, consciouseness makes us feel we are in control of things. We feel as if have free will. I can decide to sit down and watch the Bills play on Sunday for example. In the mind of an atheist, what is that consciouseness? How is it described? Is it real or is it an illusion? I am wondering if the conclusions you've reached include a perception that you (and all of us) have free will. To me that notion is inherently inconsistent with atheism. If there is no God, then when all is said and done, the universe is made up of energy and matter. The reactions between this energy and matter, although complex, can be predicted. Over time we have learned, about light, gravity, chemistry and myriad other disciplines with increasing accuracy. We haven't met something we don't feel can be predicted (although we've met things we can't predict yet). This means all of the chemistry that goes on in our brains and triggers actions in our speech and movement and every other aspect of what we call life, can be predicted. It just can't be predicted by us. Basically, this amounts to predetermination. It really isn't too complex, but my perception of atheists is that not all of them subscribe to predetermination. Why not? How can there be free will; real free will without a real consciouseness. Is that consciousenss "God"? Since you're into spreading seeds of doubt, here is an attempt to spread one to you. You gave the thumbs up to that. Let me ask you something. Why don’t I believe in free will? No, no no, why do YOU believe in free will? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith.” If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic. How can I question anything without free will? I really have no idea why this topic is the one that seems to draw me in to posting. It is getting pretty annoying.