Kingfish Stevens

Ah, you miss the whole point. I am not defendidng the boys for hanging the nooses. The school has every right to discipline them since it was done on school property and As I recall, the school did punish them. It was a school infraction and not a crime. It can be argued that the school should have punished them more severely but that is another issue. Obviously, when you enter a situation- job, school, etc.- you must adher to the reasonable rules of that situation. Punching a fellow worker in the nose is a crime. Defaming a fellow employee is a crime. However, hanging a noose on a tree or in your office is not a crime. Of course, it may cost you a suspension or you may lose your job. That is fine because some level of decorum is needed in those situations. However, it should not be a crime. Either we have this liberal interpretation of the First Amendment or we don't. It shouldn't work for one group but not for another. Unfortunately, in this climate of political correctness and selective censorship, t6he First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights are not equally applied. that, my learned friend, is the problem that I see. My main problem is with the concept of "hate crimes". I find such a classification ridiculous. It is merely social engineering at the expense of the rule of law and the US Constitution. What the white boys did cannot be justified. However, it is not a crime. the color of the skin involved should be of no materiality. However, I do find it interesting that you find my argument "emotional". It is anything but emotional. It is, however, not politically correct. But, then, truth is rarely politically correct.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s quote is well known. However, the hanging of the nooses did not interfere with anyone's nose. Liberals are quick to insist that we must have freedom of speech and expression and that it cannot be censored. Attacks, particularly by entertainers, of chroistians and Judeo-Christian beliefs runs rampant. We who are deeply offended are reminded of the First Amendment porotections for those who make the statements and/or expressions. Why is this any different? Why should it be treated any differently? The old bromide is that, even when we are disgusted by the words/expressions, we must defend the right of the individual to express it. Would this not apply uniformly? Or, on the other hand, do we support the First amendment only when it is our own preferred speech/expression that is the subject of scrutiny? I don't approve of what was done. However, I am more bothered by the way individuals pick and choose just when the First Amendment should apply. Either it should apply consistantly or not at all.

Oh, my. The boys are getting touchy. Facts are still facts but I guess I better just withdraw my query lest I upset a few of you. Consider it done.

Ah, true. However, you really didn't have the choice to be taller or to not be taller so that is a different situation. Nonetheless, it is all a part of "supposin'" and I'm just "supposin'".

Absolutely an interesting question and isn't it great that you actually took the words right out of Golden Gopher's mouth? And, to be truthful, all who read BGP have read about that exact Ashland "what if" over and over since 2002. It is also a topic of conversation during basketball season at the Ashland area service clubs and churches as well as with the maroon clad "man/woman on the street". I would speculate that Flynn would still be your coach and you would have likely made another trip or two to the state tournament. However, you wouldn't have won. When I posted the query in regard to Thomas I stated that I would make some of you Ashland partisans unhappy. Nevertheless, it is interesting to speculate. I just wish Thomas were in a situation where he could get the accolades and opportunities that he deserves. That is not meant to start any argument but merely to wonder what might have been in light of how it all turned out.

I'm sure there is no better or more dedicated team player than is Matt Thomas. However, I am merely an observer who wonders what could have been if he had gone to Russell as could have been the result. It is kind of like wondering what the Reds could have done if they had a better pitching staff. Or, what could Harang accomplish if he were in the Mets rotation? Or what about the Bengals with a defense? No harm in speculating what could have been. That is one of the beauties of "what if". And, the idea that all are "team players" is part of that perfect world that exists only in hypotheticals. Reality doesn't often work that way.

Thanks for the information, happy ol' dad. I heard Dicky compliment the officiating several times during the game. I appreciate you pointing out the reason for the accolades. According to the newspaper, Ashland was penalized 0 times for 0 yards for the game. That is, to me, amazing. I don't remember ever seeing that result before at any level. As for Hart, you may remember one of my previous posts when I said that he would never be confused with Herb Conley or Jake Hallum. After the fine article in the DI, I suppose we can add Fayne Grone to that list. My main point, at the risk of making Ashland people mad, is that Matt Thomas deserves a better fate in both football and basketball. I really don't see how anyone could disagree.

Very reasonable response. I was merely suggesting that a different shade of maroon would have brought trips to both the football finals and state basketball tournament with an increased chance for both Thomas and Russell to bring home more championships. At Ashland he has not and will not experience any of these. If you are familiar with school districts in the northeastern kentucky area, you know that student athletes don't always attend the government school located closest to them. Most of them, including Ashland, have several "out of district" athletes or "convenient" relocators. That just seems to be how it works around here. People speculate on BGP all the time so I am just saying "what if?".

Regardless of how good or bad Ashland teams are, they still gather drama, controversy, and emotion like a magnet gathers certain metals. It comes with the territory when you have longtime tradition, a "bit" of a superiority complex, and many passionate supporters and dissenters. I listened to the game on the Dicky Martin Network. He did his usual fine job of reporting the onfield struggle. During the second quarter, shortly before MC scored on the fake punt, Dicky and his fellow occupant of the broadcasting booth, wholeheartedly agreed that MC was a very poor football team. However, after the game Hart stated in his interview that MC was the best team Ashland had played all year. Dicky did not disagree. I can only conclude that MC sure improved in the last 2.5 quarters or that Hart was using the usual "coach doubletalk" for a team that is still winless after 5 games. I feel sure it was the latter. I would suspect that Ashland will win three of its 10 games. They should beat Boyd County, Greenup County, and Bryan Station. They should lose to Woodford County and Johnson Central. I can't help but wonder what would have happened if Matt Thomas had transferred to Russell rather than Ashland when he left Rose Hill. He could have done so. It is a shame that his only real trip to the state playoffs/state tournament will have been as a seventh grader at Rose Hill. Of course, as they say, hindsight is 20-20 and Matt will succeed regardless of which color of maroon he wears.

I am honored to know all three of the men featured in the story. They have all been great assets to Ashland and the area. Bun Wilson is a fine attorney. However, he is an even better family man. The article by Mark Maynard is outstanding. The late 1920s and early to middle 1930s were truly the years in which Ashland built most of its tradition- not just in football but also in basketball.

If I need to explain that to you, you are past the point of reason. The application should be obvious to anyone familiar with the US Constitution and the facts of this matter. Of course, my post does not rely upon the dual evils of emotion and political correctness.

I have read all of the above posts and find them to be about what one would expect. For the sake of discussion, let's take a less emotional look at the situation. I'm sure it will upset a few of you but maybe you need to consider all possibilities rather than merely jumping on the usual bandwagon. I do not agree with the actions of the three white students. The nooses were uncalledfor. On the other hand, it is rather ridiculous to say that they committed a crime. Emotion cannot rule the legal process and, at worst, the three are guilty of littering by hanging the nooses from the tree. They are also guilty of being insensitive and should receive some measure of discipline for that. However, being insensitive is not yet a crime. Of course, many reactionaries want to make it that way. Unfortunately, they seem to be making headway but God forbid if they succeed. We will have even more legal chaos than is now the case. Please keep in mind that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. Also remember that a liberal US Supreme Court extended this to freedom of expression. Thus, it is reasonable to argue that the actions of the three, though unacceptable, are protected by the present day interpretation of the First Amendment. Much hoopla has been raised over the idea of a hate crime. Louisiana has a hate crime law. However, in reality, there was no crime. It should also be questioned as to whether or not the designation of some crimes as hate crimes is constitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection. To say that committing a crime against A should be punished more than committing a crime against B is saying that B is not receiving the equal protection of the applicalbe law. The assumption is that A's head is worth more than is B's head. That doesn't sound to me to be the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment. In this age of political correctness, I feel sure that no court would have the courage to declare socalled hate crimes as unconstitutional. However, that doesn't change the fact. Finally, to dismiss the beating of the white student by six black students is obscene. There was actual bodily injury in the beating. That, indeed, is a crime. And, for those of you who support the flawed logic of hate crime designations, the beating undoubtedly would fall into that category. Odd that I hear no one else on BGP or in the media pointing that out. But, why am I not surprised.

Has Ashland really improved any or were they just fired up to play a bitter and superior rival? We should get an answer of sorts on Friday night.

There is no labor union more dangerous that the ultraliberal NEA.

Well, we have all been inundated by the Thomas testimonials and the endless requests to send up prayers on his behalf. Now, maybe we can get past all the smoke screens and Paul Harvey will come along and tell us the rest of the story. It better be good after all the posturing that has taken place. In light of the original approach, I would believe that the truth would be a needed and appropriate subject for the remainder of this thread. After all, reading between the lines can be more dangerous than the truth.

I believe that there is sufficient merit to his allegations to require that it be tried. Assuming he followed Nebraska law, there is probably no problem with jurisdiction and venue. It could be said that God's alleged threats have been made in Nebraska since God, according to the plaintiff, is everywhere and the threats apply to those in Nebraska as well as those in other areas. The main problem I see is in getting God served with a summons assuming that the senator will need personal service. Assuming that God can't be served personally, can he be served through a registered agent? If so, who would be the registered agent? The Pope? Billy Graham? How about one of the "plant seed money (to us, of course), get financial blessings" preachers on Daystar Network?

All of you blowing smoke about Woodson and UK might want to wait until early December.

Still behind Louisville.

Boy, Greybeard better cash in on all of these accolades and testimonials and run for public office- or at least for an office in the Ashland Booster Club. The clock on his 15 minutes is running.:thumb: To paraphrase oldrambler, unbelievable indeed.

If UK follows form, we can all bet on Arkansas next week.

Brohm was superior to Woodson in high school, is superior to Woodson in college, and will be superior to Woodson in the pros. However, I don't think either will be remotely confused with Peyton Manning or Carson Palmer.

Chad is nearing 6'5" and is a point guard.

Actually, it is Chase Jackson of Rose Hill. He is a senior but will not play this year due to a knee injury. Chad, a sophomore who has a definite big D-1 future, is Chase's younger brother.

All of these posts about fair weather fans brought to mind a comment made to me a couple of weeks ago by a longtime Rose Hill fan. It has nothing to do with the game last night but it ties into the fair weather fan angle and I think some of you will get a laugh out of it. I told the fan that I intended to go to some Rose Hill games this year to see Euton and Jackson play. His response was to ask me if I was allergic to moth balls. I asked him why. His response was that, now that Rose Hill is on the rise again, many of those fans who left with Mayo would be taking their Rose Hill sweatshirts out of storage and would be back in the stands. Thus, a strong possiblilty of the scent of moth balls. I think that the analogy can be made in regard to many fans who like to board the bandwagon in good times but are never around in lesser times.

Good points. However, it all demonstrates why he is so effective.