jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Don't know the movie.

Its a rather obscure movie from the 1970s. The "friendly government" quote was
made during a scene where a bunch of gentleman are enjoying a birthday cake on
a hotel roof high above an island city.

> Feel free to explain to me the difference between
> assertion, tenet and opinion.
>
> The automakers and banks got bridge loans and
> backstops until the credit markets opened back up
> and, in the case of the auto makers, they
> restructured. Racing wishes its problem could be
> solved that easily. (I don't know where you're
> going with this anyway. You seemed to be arguing
> in favor of survival of the fittest tracks and
> then you trumpet the virtues of "friendly
> government" bailouts. Huh?

I am reading this passage over and over and two things concern me:
Firstly, the parenthesis which begin the second sentence never close.
Secondly "Huh?" is most frequently used by Ken Sherman, who usually
appears here after his posting privileges are suspended by the Men of Rag.

I was not advocating survival of the fittest in this case, even though it is
probably applicable to racing facilities. I was merely making a point about
some of racing's successful venues to counterbalance all the negativity in
this string (ie internet poker killing racing and lack of young blood and new
fans betting the races) (as one gets older, it seems like there are NOTHING BUT
younger people at the track).

To say that "the automakers and banks got bridge loans and backstops until the
credit markets opened back up" is confusing in that it implies that a friendly
government had nothing to do with restoring these credit markets, that these
credit markets are somehow cyclical and would have rebounded on their own
volition. But this is not the place to argue or discuss politics; if it was I
would be submitting daily dittys praising NYC Mayor Wilhelm Sharpton -
deBlasio.

Lets return to Racing. Unfriendly and/or apathetic state governments:
Massachusetts (racing dead); Virginia (down to one day of racing per year);
Illinois (racing on the respirator, Illinois bred foal crop now just over 300,
down from a peak of about 1100); and Florida (gone from 3 major racing venues
to 1, and one of the two shuttered facilities, now relegated to poker and
quarter horses, was a very historic venue).


> If it's not a fact and it's not a personal
> observation then what is it? Maybe an assertion, a
> tenet or an opinion.
>
> My original point was simply that tradition does
> matter, maybe not to you, but to general public it
> does. More people watch the triple crown races
> than any other event in horse racing including BC.
> And that's a fact.


To me, "Tradition" is a song from a beloved Broadway play (hint:
like the "friendly government" scene, it also involves a roof).
Prior to the recently concluded Saratoga meet there was a lot of hand
wringing over the changes made to the physical plant. Then a strange
thing happened: the Sun shone, the recreational liquids flowed, the
bettors bet, the bugle blew, the starting gate opened. Acquaintances were
renewed. We all came to realize, I think, that the most important traditions
had been preserved.

Tradition is a bit like cholesterol: there are good traditions and bad
traditions. Fraternity hazing, flying the Confederate flag, female
circumcision, arranged marriage all activities which have been carried on,
sustained partially by what you call "tradition". An old racetrack tradition
involved consigning horses who were no longer competitive to the "killers" and
thankfully horse lovers from the humble to the most wealthy have pretty much
put an end to this.

I have to stop because I am even boring myself here. There is an outstanding
series of 4 full field stake races to be run over the undulating, irregular
shaped course at quirKY Downs this afternoon, and I intend to watch the early
races to get a sense of exactly how boggy the turf is.