High schools need level playing field
I applaud Mr. Gaskins’ article of Nov. 27. His remarks of the joke that is the IHSAA football finals is right on the money.
However, unlike Mr. Gaskins, I did attend the finals in Indianapolis this past weekend, as well as the 2011 finals.
One only has to look at the teams who have played in the past. One only has to look at the schedules and player rosters. If you happened to look at the IHSAA finals program, you would know what I mean. These teams are either in the finals or have won the finals.
The kids I saw playing in 2011 and 2012 seemed to be bigger and faster and, dare I say, more talented. They played better than IU and Purdue.
Private and parochial schools absolutely have a wider geographic area to draw from. Anyone who would tell you otherwise is in some serious denial.
In California, where I am from originally, we played against private and parochial high schools. Bishop Amat High School in Southern California comes to mind as one of the perennial powerhouses. And it has been that way for as long as I can remember.
If I wanted my kid to play college ball and assuming he had talent, his best chance would be to play for a private or parochial school.
Athletic scholarships? You bet! I guarantee a lot of these athletes are on some kind of “athletic scholarship,” whether or not it is called such.
Mr. Gaskins closes his comments with the following: “If parochial schools swept all five titles in 2013, maybe we’d get the change we needed – separate classes for private schools.” DON’T HOLD YOUR BREATH! We are not the only state with this problem.
It is not even a matter of sour grapes. How about working with a level playing field?
Good job, Mr. Gaskins.
Dave Watanabe, Kokomo
What to expect, more or less, in 2nd term
Our presidential election is now history, and America has made its choice known. Barack Obama has been chosen to lead this country for another four years.
I realize I am not telling you anything you do not already know, but here are just a few of the things we are sure to see in the years ahead.
More taxes required from all. Less money for our families. More tolerance demanded for unethical behavior. Less tolerance for those with opposing views. More regulations on businesses. Fewer job opportunities for you and me.
More wedges being driven between different groups of Americans. Less love for our fellow man. More regulations on firearms and ammunition. Less freedom for all.
More tolerance demanded from Christians. Less tolerance given to Christians. More foreign languages being spoken. Less English being spoken. More liberal Supreme Court justices appointed. Less respect for the U.S. Constitution.
More baby girls and boys being aborted. Less respect for life. More persecution of Israel. Less support by the U.S. for Israel. More resentment of those with money. Less respect for success.
More division in our nation. Less united in the United States of America. More regulations on the oil, natural gas and coal industries. Less affordable energy sources for our homes and automobiles. More First Amendment rights for liberal views. Fewer First Amendment rights for conservative views.
President Barack Obama did not even attempt to run as a more conservative candidate as most Democratic candidates feel is necessary to get elected. He did not even attempt to disguise his true agenda until after the election. President Obama promised us more of the same if his re-election campaign was successful, and that is exactly what we are going to get, and more.
The things listed above are exactly what 51 percent of Americans voted for and therefore apparently support. Just remember, elections have consequences.
Marty Kemp, Greentown