Hoot Gibson

From the 2005 AP story. My number should have been $57 million instead of $58 million.

Ouch! The prosecutor in this case disagrees with my assessment. Again, I am shocked. I would argue that the illegal alien from across the Rio Grande who has been responsible for smuggling millions of dollars worth of drugs into this country got what he deserved. It is too bad that he survived to testify. Thanks to him, the next person shot by a border guard may not be so lucky. Are you surprised that the prosecutor has taken the prosecution's side in this case?

The story has been in the news for many months. If you are not familiar with the facts of the case, then I suggest that you do some research of your own. Testimony was withheld that would have cast doubt on the credibility of the government's primary witness. These two agents should never have been put on trial because the only eyewitness in the case was a convicted Mexican drug smuggler.

What the jury did not hear was that the prosecution's star witness was a large scale drug smuggler who was subsequently caught smuggling drugs again. This case should never have been brought and after it was brought, the background and legal status of the smuggler should have been divulged. That was not done, so the character of the illegal alien/drug smuggler was never known by the jury. If everything that the prosecution alleged, as recounted by their criminal witness was true, then Bush still should have commuted the sentences long ago.

There is a difference in $58 million ($40 million plus

Better late than never. There is no excuse for Bush to have waited so long to have taken this action. None.

Note that Fox News ran the same AP story critical of the cost of Bush's 2005 inauguration as its liberal counterparts.

I tell you, I am shocked that security costs soar when a president plans a larger slate of events to celebrate his inauguration. Who would have suspected that this would be true?

Yes, but the two issues are related and really do not need to be addressed separately. Obama's actions are not constrained as much by public opinion as Bush's were because the media are among Obama's most rabid supporters. That is not likely to change anytime soon. Losing its independent media is a serious development in any democracy. Not only is our media acting as Obama cheerleaders, Obama does not need to worry about how his actions will be viewed through the media lens. If there was a more adversarial relationship between Obama and his media, then there might have been some incentive to work within a tighter inaugural budget. Instead, the media has joined the "Party! Party! Party!" hysteria along with the Obama staff and supporters. What is really scary is that there is now talk of a federal bailout some major media organizations. How much less independence among our media can this nation stand?

Did the left wing extremists (the Associated Press) make you laugh in 2005, when they criticized President Bush for spending less than one-third as much on his inauguration?

The comparison of the AP's coverage of the Bush 2005 inauguration to the AP's coverage of The One's 2009 inauguration is most certainly an apples-to-apples comparison.

I never said that they do. What I am saying is the fact that the school may not get money from the state because a home schooled player attends no classes is not the fault of the home schooled player or his/her parents. They have no control over how the state decides to fund its public schools.

If you want two separate threads covering Obama's inauguration, then you have the power to make it so. However, I do not think having two threads will change the content of the posts one iota and the two issues are related, IMO. The media is showing that it is unwilling to hold Obama to the same standards to which it held Bush and Obama is acting accordingly. Right now, Obama can do no wrong in the media's eyes and this will likely be the longest honeymoon that our media has ever allowed a newly elected president to enjoy.

My point is that parents who home school have no say in the way that public schools are funded. The state can adjust its formula to dole out state funding if it wants, so this should not be a factor in denying home schooled children the opportunity to participate in team sports in their community owned school. Public schools should welcome this opportunity to showcase their services. There is nothing wrong with having public schools selling themselves to their stakeholders in the community. Monopolies never benefit their customers and this is a marketing opportunity for our public schools.

IMO, the key point that the people who oppose the proposed rule are missing is the fact that public schools belong to the public. They do not exist solely for those who choose to sit in their classrooms.

I believe that it is both. Spending four times as much for the 2009 inauguration as for the 2005 inauguration feeds the perception of many that this is more of a coronation than an inauguration. The fact that the media criticized Bush's $40 million 2005 inauguration but are simply joining in the celebration of their candidate's victory this year is just further evidence of the their bias.

:thumb: I agree on all counts. I am glad that Tim Tebow is providing a non-stereotypical example of a home schooled kid who excels in life. Many of these kids are very well educated, very well adjusted socially, and become very successful adults.

Much of the $40 million spent on Bush's 2005 inauguration was spent on security and much of the money spent then was privately raised but it AP reported the Bush expenditures as exorbitant. $160 million v. $40 million. So what is your point?

The home schoolers that you know may be teaching their kids at home for 99.9% religious reasons but many parents do so for academic and/or political reasons. Team sports teach skills that are not easily taught at home and one of the best places to learn those skills is on a public school team.

Some of these arguments against allowing home schooled children to participate in public school athletics smacks of the old "if it was good enough for me, then it should be good enough for them" argument. If parents want to home school, then how does it harm the children of those parents who believe that the public schools are doing a good enough job for their own children? The parents of students attending public schools do not own those schools and neither the the school board members, administrative staff, or teachers. Public schools belong to the community and home schooled children are a part of that community, whether you like it or not.

:thumb: I loved Taco Tico. My roommates and I used to load up on their food using coupons at the former Tates Creek area location. There was one in Prestonsburg for a while and I also used to take US 60 from Lexington to Winchester so I could drive through the Taco Tico there. The Winchester location is the last one that I remember being open.

This is true of the state portion of funding but the fact that Kentucky places public school attendance over learning is not the fault of homeschoolers. Competition is a good thing - in sports and education. Public schools should embrace competition, not fear it. Schools should look at home schooled athletes as an opportunity to prove that the public schools can do and will do an effective job of educating its students. Home schooling is a lot of work and expense for most people. Schools should be happy to get home schooled students and their parent into their hallways and gyms on a voluntary basis. Public schools exist, or should exist, to educate the children of the community. Would it be better for these home schooled children to be allowed to participate in group activities at their local public school or denied that opportunity? How would allowing a few home schooled children to play sports in public schools harm the children who already attend those schools? Are public school parents simply worried about home schooled kids eating in to their kids' playing time?

Obama has to make sure that Michelle continues to be proud of this country. What better way than to throw a bunch of expensive parties for the nation's first African-American president while letting taxpayers and wealthy donors foot a big chunk of the $150 million bill? After all, as Michelle said, as an African-American male, President-Elect Obama could be shot for simply filling up the family limo (I am paraphrasing here ). Spending a few tens of millions of dollars and deploying a few extra thousand troops to provide a secure inauguration is a small price to pay for his wife's peace of mind. Besides, as many people as possible deserve a chance to see Michelle's inaugural party outfit and 'do in person. I am shocked that the expense of this inauguration or the fact that Obama will be spending nearly four times as much as Bush spent four years ago is even an issue.

I suspect that the state treats them as private schools to maintain the separation of church and state. That does not mean that the KHSAA must treat every home school the same as it does Trinity or St. X.

Of the fast food chains, Baja Fresh.