Kingfish Stevens

The reality is that political power determines who receives the new roads and bridges. If your senator/congressman is in a position of power, you benefit. The best example is probably Robert Byrd. Byrd brings hundreds of millions in projects to West Virginia which is one of our smaller states populationwise. Why? Because no senator is more powerful, particularly with the Democrats in control, than is Byrd. Population has nothing to do with it. To be honest, assuming the Democrats take the White House and continue to control the legislative branch of government, Davis will be able to get very little for our area. On the other hand, power is the major reason why we need to keep Senator McConnell. Though in the minority, he is a powerful figure in Washington and, if the GOP ever retakes the US Senate, he will be majority leader. Your final paragraph is correct in regard to welfare payments to those who qualify for an inner city business loan. That is, as I said, merely welfare and is, in fact, a type of welfare program open to a lot of waste, graft, and failure. My point is that, regardless of where you reside, $83,000 is taxed using the same rates for federal income tax purposes. There is no cost of living adjustment.

Davis isn't running for national office. He is representing our district. His duty is to represent his constituents. He is doing so quite well. As for the "leftovers". I suggest that everyone take care of his/her own needs rather than always looking to the welfare system for support. For those who are truly not able to support themselves, we should take care of their needs. However, for those capable of funding their own needs, why should the rest of society support them? We need to draw the line somewhere. Keep in mind that the government has no funds. It depends on those of us who are self sufficient to supply the money to "operate". I have no problem with helping the needy. I just don't think we need to continually expand the definition of "needy". There is too much emphasis in society on "rights" and too little emphasis on "responsibility". I believe Davis is of similar philosophy. Good for him.

Much more realistic analysis.

No, $83,000 is $83,000. The cost of living may be more in NYC than it is in Paducah but your domicile is your choice. If they can't make it in NYC, let them relocate. It costs more to live in Louisville than it does in Whitesburg. Do we make different rules for Louisville than we do for Whitesburg? Also, you can easily make ends meet in many parts of upstate New York on $83,000 per year. When you file your income tax return, those in NYC use the same tables as do those in Whitesburg. Davis is duty bound to represent and aid those who sent him to Washington. I applaud his reasoning for his vote. By the way, I don't smoke.

I would agree with you that Conley and Hallum are considered two of the best coaches from this area. On the other hand, I have seen the adjective "great" applied to Hart and his coaching ability and I am merely pointing out that such a description is not applicable in his case. Of course,"great" is used so indiscriminately on BGP that it has come to have no real significant meaning.

Ashland was the last area team to have five D-1 players on the same team. That was in 1961 and actually there were six since Dale Sexton, the sixth man, played a couple of years at Morehead. Elliott County is a good team. However, they will never accomplish what that Ashland team accomplished. EC may win the 16th Region but they are not a threat to advance very far in Rupp Arena. The 1961 Ashland team won the state championship easily and also beat the state champions of Ohio, West Virginia, and Georgia. No Sixteenth Region team has ever come close to that Ashland team. If Rose Hill had kept all of its talent, it could have done so possibly for a couple of years. However, as we all know, and as we are often reminded, that was not the case.

Who played for Ashland in 1996?

Golden Gopher, we all are aware of your loyalty to Ashland and its schools. However, even in light of that, you surely don't believe what is contained in your post. Teachers and parents in your beloved system certainly tell a different story. I see a lot of Ashland students in juvenile court. On the other hand, it is rare for me to see any from Rose Hill or Holy Family. I'm not knocking your schools. I am merely being realistic. By their very nature, government schools will always have more and more serious problems than will private schools. And, as to the morals vs. ethics issue, if you really believe it holds "no water", you are uninformed and, I suspect, you know better. Still, you are one of the parties "interested" in the motivation of families for sending their children to RH. All I did was to give you a few of the reasons. Now, I again ask, why do you care? I suspect you are aware of how RH's younger athletes have fared against your kids in the last four or five years (even in middle school football) and you are, shall we say, "concerned". Am I not correct?

I would suppose it would depend upon the nature of the "negative influences". Are we talking about drugs or fighting or criminal activity of some type? Or, on the other hand, are we talking about general negativity and/or the inability to get along with fellow students in a more passive way? The former behavior, I feel sure would not likely be tolerated at all in a private school while it is, to some degree, tolerated in the government schools. It's just the nature of the two types of schools. These students, regardless of how undesirable they may be, are legally entitled to an education. Government schools are required to provide it. Privates are not. The latter behavior is tolerated in both settings although the period of toleration will likely be much less in a private school. Since, as you said, we are speaking in hypotheticals, a government school would put up with the poor behavior of X much longer than would a private school. In other words, hypothetically speaking, the private school would not put up with it for 8 or 10 years or more. The government school often does so out of necessity. As for special treatment for superior athletes, I am a realist. Regardless of what may be claimed, in all schools the superior athlete would be given an extra inch or so. However, in regard to remaining a part of the student body, that inch would not extend to a yard in the private schools as, again by law, it likely will in a government school. Removal from athletic participation does not remove X from the school environment.

Well, I guess we will never get an explanation from those who scrutinize RH so closely as to why they do so. But, then, I believe I stated the obvious reason in a post above. There are many good, moral teachers in the government schools. No one should dispute that. However, because those schools are controlled by the various levels of government, the teachers employed there cannot teach morals. They, within narrow parameters, can teach ethics. Ethics are not morals. Ethics have no real religious connotation. Morals do. In reality, moral teaching, by law, is not allowed in government schools. Ethics, a humanistic concept, is allowed so long as it doesn't get "religious". You may think I am merely playing on words. If so, you are not familiar with modern education principles, practices, and edicts. If some of you recently taught morals you were in violation of the modern policies existing in the government school arena. The oft-used retort that the government schools must accept all comers while the privates can pick and choose is actually an endorsement of what I contend. One of the real draws of private schools is that such schools can "monitor" the student body and, thus, minimize the presence of negative influences. That's just how it works. And, Golden Gopher, I would think anyone would agree that it doesn't take an independent study to ascertain that a school in which there are few and only minor disruptions produces a better atmosphere for learning than does one in which there are, shall we say, a material number of various and sundry disruptions. I am not condemning the government schools. I am merely pointing out differences that will, by the nature of the two types of schools, always exist. But, all of this has nothing to do with ascertaining why so many government school partisans, particularly those within the Ashland city limits, are so interested in the reasons why parents send their children to RH. Obviously, there are many valid reasons- including athletics.

I assumed my bait would catch a fish. It did. Seriously, I know there are a goodly number of people who hawkeye everything that happens in regard to the RH athletic program. That doesn't normally happen in regard to other schools. I presented what I believe to be the reason for the scrutiny and I am inviting someone else to rebut my conclusions. I know the interest is not generated because of "concern" for the mission of the school. I believe it is actually quite the contrary. No patting of the back here. Merely observations that those who are usually quick to take both veiled and direct shots at RH, are for whatever reason, now dodging the discussion. I guess we can pass it off as the typical whining of government school vs. private school.

It has been over forty-eight hours since I posted. Since there have been no responses disputing my analysis and conclusion, I must assume that other posters agree that I am correct.

Since my loyalties rest with the private schools statewide, I have no ties to either school other than through the payment of an obscene amount of taxes for the support of all government schools. I'll take Ashland in an upset.

Can we all agree to be somewhat realistic in our praise this season? East Carter will by no stretch of the imagination be a "great team". There are no great teams in the 16th Region. As for dunking, although he made a somewhat cameo appearance in the region, no one compares with Bill Walker. He is the "Supreme Dunker" with Mayo second and Dawson third. I realize that all three of these guys played at RH but, in rating dunkers, we aren't required to have a quota system or to be inclusive- merely to be truthful.

No. Not really.

No. What I should have said is "in the opinion of many observers who are really familiar with the coaching abilities and demeanor of all three coaches ..."

Do I hear Dusty Springfield in the background singing her old hit. A parent of one of JC's better players told me that they haven't forgotten the field goal debacle. At least Coach Biggs should be pleased because he will get his basketball players a little sooner than usual. Coach Hart is, at best, a mixed bag. As I said once before, he is certainly no Herb Conley or Jake Hallum on or off the field.

Good observation. The 64th District appears to be balanced from top to bottom. Rose Hill has more potential than do the others but they are still very young. Fairview is in a similar, though probably a little lesser, situation. Boyd County will be dangerous as long as Selby is around and Zornes won't be outcoached. Ashland is on a bit of a downward spiral talentwise but may have enough to win the district this season if Thomas excels- particularly since the district will be played at Ashland.

Valid observation. Rose Hill will not win any championships with two players. Nor will anyone else for that matter. .

It is always a sign that the athletic program at Rose Hill is on the rise when others, usually with some association with the Ashland schools, start nitpicking about, among other issues, the school and its student body. I would venture a guess that parents send their children to Rose Hill for many reasons- athletics being among them. Other, I would think, more prelevant reasons would include the inclusion of Christian standards in the curriculum, smaller classes, and the general family atmosphere that accompanies a smaller school. Also, it should be mentioned that the desire to avoid the many discipline problems (including but not limited to drugs, etc,) and the inability of the government schools to handle these problems plays a major role in the decision. Academically there is really little difference. Government schools, due to funding, offer more fluff. In the end, that means little. Graduates of Rose Hill and graduates of other schools are on equal footing when it comes to admission to college. Where is the difference? Well, for one, Rose Hill, though not remotely as costly as X or T, is expensive. If it weren't for the tuition and other costs, I believe Rose Hill, and other private schools, would burst at the seams with increased enrollment. Why? The atmosphere for learning, for safety, and for moral teachings is far superior to that of its neighboring schools. To imply that students are less than genuine because they attend Rose Hill for other than a "Christian education" is really not a valid thesis and those who like to make the argument are well aware of the weakness of their statements. So, why do they bother? Fear, of course. Fear that, from all indications, the little private school will once again (and for an extended period) compete with and, heaven forbid, beat the local government schools including the school with the self annointed "tradition". Very transparent. What else could it be?

I agree. While I have no intention of voting for either Fletcher or Beshear, I will go to the polls and vote for Mr. Grayson. He has earned reelection.

If Trey Grayson has received the endorsement of the teacher5s's union, that is really amazing. That liberal bunch never supports a Republican. Hendrickson must really be a dud.

Trey Grayson has been a fine public servant. Unfortunately, he is a Republican and he will probably go down due to the weakling at the top of the ticket.

Happy birthday to one of BGP's finest gentlemen.

Big deal. Keep in mind that it is a C-J editorial.