leatherneck

I can't believe that either. If it is true, I will lose a lot of respect for the CovCath administration.

2009 I believe was the last year we had 3 O linemen returning as starters.

This will be hard for many of you who know me today (okay, all of you) to believe, but back in day when I was in the Corps, I regularly ran 3 miles in less than 18 mins. I think my best was 17 mins and 46 secs. When I showed up at The Basic School I was immediately placed on Weight Control and couldn't run a mile (way too much fun my senior year in college after football season ended and way too many bad health habits in law school). Within approx 3 months, I'd lost over 65 pounds and within 4 months was running the 3 miles under 18 mins (which got me the max points on the running portion of the PFT). This is a no kidder: when I got placed on Weight Control a Navy Doctor gave me a diet to follow. After I saw the Doctor and returned to my barracks, my CO summoned me into his office and asked if I'd been given a diet to follow. I said Yes Sir and handed it to my CO. He threw it into the GI can and pulled a small can of tuna (packed in water) out of his desk. He told me that was all I was allowed to eat a day until I got to the max weight for my height. Talk about weight coming off fast. It did. But Lordy, I was exhausted all the time. Now because of my knees I'd be lucky to walk 1 mile in less than 18 mins. I actually enjoyed running but the years of playing football in high school and college plus all the runs in boots while carrying a full ALICE pack eventually came home to roost on my knees. Now I'm a stationary bike "enthusiast".

I think we are getting a little confused; or maybe I am? I'm not suggesting that the Campbell County J/E be able hire/fire the Sheriff. I don't think Ky's Constitution permits that. But I see where you are coming from. I'd just rather have the senior law enforcement officer not be involved in politics but rather be focused on running a professional police dept and stay out of politics. Polly-anish on my part? Perhaps. I analogize the police chief of the the County's Police Dept to the police chiefs of city government units. They aren't elected either. They are hired/appointed by the Mayor/City Council. From everything I know (and that's obviously not everything), the Campbell County Fiscal Court has not injected politics into the administration of the Campbell County Police Dept but rather has "left them alone" to do their jobs (as it should be).

I was really impressed with Evan this year. Moves his feet and hips really well to get into the proper position and to maintain his block. I'm really looking forward to watching him this year. The O line, a question mark heading into last season, became a strength of the team. Coaches Hall and Turner deserve a lot of credit, but so do the kids who worked so hard. Well done.

There is a line of thinking that believes that a police dept should be, to the extent possible, isolated as much as possible from politics. By not having the senior law enforcement officer determined at the ballot box, the hope and belief is that the person filling that spot will be more interested in the professional administration of his office than the politics involved of being reelected. Many supporters of that line of thinking hold up Kidwell as Exhibit A as to why they don't want the police duties merged into the Campbell County Sheriff's office. Sometimes efficiency isn't measured in just dollars and cents on a balance sheet.

Your recollection is incorrect on this matter. Kidwell was definitely NOT appointed by Pendery to fill out Dunn's term. I think it was Dave Fickensher who was appointed by Pendery in August of 2012 to serve as the interim sheriff until the election could be held the following November. In the election, Kidwell was the R candidate; Dave Otto was the D candidate. I can also assure you that Pendery did NOT select Kidwell to be the R candidate. You may be thinking of Jim Daley. Pendery did appoint Daley to the open Jailer position. Daley had been a D for a long time. Pendery got a lot of flack for appointing a D to the position. But Daley was by a large margin, in my opinion, the most qualified person for the position.

Your assumption would be totally correct.

According to the author of the article I linked, that was the case. Nonetheless, it did result in slavery being abolished (legally).

And ditto back at you my friend.

It may be funny to you and if you read my post carefully you noticed that I specifically said the fact that blacks enslaved other blacks doesn't make slavery of blacks by whites acceptable. I have no reason to need to save face by the way. I never enslaved anyone. I feel no more guilt for the fact that whites enslaved blacks 150 years ago than you probably do for the fact that blacks enslaved blacks less than 150 years ago. Word.

How much European history is taught in high school these days? And is that content primarily related to its impact on the founding of the US or on its impact on other significant events in US history? Been a long time since I was in high school, but I sure don't remember being taught anything about the history of Norway, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Spain, Portugal etc., etc. Taught a very little about Germany only as it related to WWI and WWII because our involvement in those wars. Taught a little bit about England because of its impact on our founding fathers and our independence. Taught a little bit about France history, but again that related to the founding of our country and France's assistance. No disrespect, but I don't remember learning plenty of European history when I was in high school and what I was taught was in the context of its impact on US history. Obviously the history of African countries is significant as it relates to the issue of slavery in the US. So perhaps the history of Africa should be taught as part of the history of the US involving slavery. That history would reveal that slavery existed in Africa way before it existed in the US. Whites doing to blacks what blacks did to blacks certainly doesn't make it right, but some of the righteous indignation that some black leaders have against whites because whites owned black slaves in the US 150 years ago totally ignores the historical fact that blacks owned black slaves in Africa for 100s of years before whites owned black slaves in the US; blacks continued to own black slaves while whites owned black slaves in the US; and blacks continued to own black slaves after whites no longer owned black slaves in the US. Ironically, if the following linked article is correct, it was the European countries (the whites) conquest of African countries that ended slavery in Africa. See: Slavery in Africa. Plenty of other info out there involving black on black slavery in Africa but I decided to link this one because of the author's credentials.

Edited to correct myself.

Paris Killings Show Rise of Banned French ?Weapons of War? - Bloomberg France's banning of "military style" weapons isn't very effective. Just food for thought.

In Ky, the Governor and Lt. Governor are elected as a team. Been that way since the Ky Constitution was amended back in 1992 (I think that was the year).

First of all, I'll admit that Mike is a friend and I know him extremely well, so I'm biased towards him. But because I know him so well, I'm extremely confident that Mike made/will make great decisions as to which employees will be retained. Because I have such a low opinion of Kidwell and his decision making abilities, I too would want to carefully look at every one of his employees before I made them one of my employees.

Okay.

Because I raised the issue of coaches these days not being as loyal to their programs as they used to be (and used Chuck Smith's recent actions as an example) you think that I have a personal vendetta against you, Boyle County fans and Chuck Smith? Seriously? No offense, but I think you are grasping.

I said I know nothing about the situation. And I don't have to make the point I was making. You want to bust Larue for, in your opinion, not being loyal to Jaggers but you were one of the most fervent defenders of Coach Smith when he was, in my opinion, unloyal to the program he committed to for such a very short while. If you don't see the irony of that, I can't help you. And if your OP had simply addressed why you felt it was a bad decision by Larue and what a great job Jaggers had been doing, I'd not have even posted in this thread since I know nothing about Jagers nor Larue. It was the whole "schools need to be loyal to coaches" tirade in this thread when there are more and more coaches not loyal to their schools that motivated me to comment.

They could be. I don't know. But someone obviously very senior in Administration either (a) believes there is a better coach out there; or (b) has some other reason for wanting to replace Jaggers. If the reason is (a), I'm not sure I'd have the problem with it that some in this thread have pronounced. If the reason is (b), then I'd need to know the reason before I could cast judgment. It's the loyalty comments that have me puzzled. Again, some people have no problem with a coach walking away from a program if he can better himself somewhere else. We've had numerous discussions on this board over the years on that subject. Heck, Chuck Smith agreed to coach at a certain program and before you knew it, he walked away from that commitment to return to Boyle. Many on here were totally fine with that. Well if such behavior is acceptable, then an administration removing a coach because they believed someone else could do better (however "better" is measured) should be fine also I'd think. Honestly, I don't know what came first: coaches being disloyal to their programs or programs being disloyal to their coaches. But it is what it is (and I'm not necessarily saying what "it is" is all that great). But as more and more schools take football more and more seriously, you'll see this happening more and more often to football coaches. I haven't followed high school basketball in Kentucky all that closely, but my guess would be if I had to guess is that schools dumping head basketball coaches in the pursuit of more wins or bettering the program has been going on in Kentucky for decades and decades.

Just so I'm clear on this, some people have no qualms with a Head Coach switching schools if the Head Coach can better himself, financially or otherwise, at a different school, but if a school fires a coach because the administration believes that a new coach will better the program, that is wrong.

I seriously doubt the guy even has a kid playing for Highlands. To me, he's just stirring the pot in response to some similar pot stirring threads started by Highlands folks about other programs. What goes around, comes around I guess. Irony of the situation is that a lot of responses (like your's for example) allows real Highlands fans to point out the many positives about Highlands football and to point out why Highlands football is so very successful year after year.

I agree.

Same thing happened when Oboro had the ball and spiked it to stop the clock. White hat had not put the ball in play, so Oboro got a do over. And again spiked the ball.

There were a lot of folks (Highlands fans included) that thought the sky was falling after the 2013 season ended too. Sit back, relax and trust in the coaches and players. I'm not naive enough to think we'll win championships every year just because we are Highlands. But I've been around the program long enough and seen enough to know that the players and coaches will always give everything they've got. People put way, way too much emphasis on what happens in JV, frosh and even FTJFL games. That's just silly in my opinion. Being blunt, the talent level on the 2014 team wouldn't be in the top 15 most talented Highlands teams. But the commitment, dedication, discipline, execution and teamwork level would be right up there at the top with a whole lot of past Highlands teams. That is why they won state this year. That and the fact that we have some pretty darn good coaches at Highlands. Well done boys; well done.