The #WalkAway movement is alive and well in Kentucky

When I was growing up and in school, one of the surest ways to spark an argument was to ask a fellow student if they were a Democrat or a Republican. Never mind that back in our school days, none of us really knew what either party stood for. We were what our families were. If a Republican asked a fellow Republican, all was well. But if a Republican asked a Democrat, some pretty good verbal sparring was likely to ensue.

Over the past several years, the Kentucky Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging registered voters. Each month, the Republican Party of Kentucky releases updated voter registration numbers from the State Board of Elections. Those figures have consistently been showing voters switching parties and new voters registering as Republicans. It's typical for Republicans to show +2,500 voters, Democrats to show -1,500 voters, and independents only around +250 or so. It's clear that Democrats are fleeing their party and becoming Republicans at an amazing rate.

There's a name for the transition. It's called the #WalkAway movement and the "#WalkAway" hashtag pops up from time time to time on social media. That movement is on fire in Kentucky.

I grew up in a Republican county, so I had more friends to agree with than to argue with, but that wasn't the case in most places in Kentucky in the 1970s. Back then, Democrats outnumbered Republicans statewide around 2:1. Voter registration was around 60 percent for the D's, around 30 percent for the R's, with independents making up the remainder. The GOP held power in the state only in the swath of south-central, east-central, and southeastern counties that made up the old Fifth Congressional District that was represented for years by Tim Lee Carter and then Hal Rogers. When Kentucky lost a congressional seat in the 1990s, Democrats controlled both houses of the General Assembly and the governor's office, and thus tried to gerrymander Rogers out of his seat by putting him in a district consisting mostly of old Seventh District counties where the late Carl D. Perkins had been in Congress seemingly since Noah put the animals two-by-two on the Ark. It didn't work. One might look to Rogers holding onto his seat when thrust into politically hostile territory as a sign of what was to come.

Lots has changed on the Bluegrass political landscape since those days. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who got elected in 1984 by upsetting the Democrat incumbent, was building the state GOP. First through party switches and then at the ballot box, Republicans took over the state Senate. Ernie Fletcher broke through in 2003 to become Kentucky's first Republican governor in 32 years, defeating the grandson of legendary Democrat A.B. "Happy" Chandler to do so. After eight years of Steve Beshear, Matt Bevin took the governor's office back for the GOP in 2015. And finally, the following year, after a couple of close calls, the Republicans flipped the House of Representatives and earned a supermajority in the process.

Now, the GOP dominates the federal delegation, with five of six representatives, plus both senators. For the first time, there are more Republican county judges-executive than Democrats. After twice giving Kentucky's electoral votes to Bill Clinton, the Bluegrass State has gone for the Republican in the last five presidential elections. And for the first time, the GOP has a majority of the statewide constitutional offices, with its eye on a complete sweep in next month's election.

What's amazing to me is how so many rock-ribbed Democrats have seen the light. After this state's suffering at the hands of Democrat control for so many years, they've decided they've had enough. It's gratifying to see so many of those hard-core Democrats with whom I argued politics back in high school turning into conservative Republicans. Even children of Democrats who were elected officials are abandoning the party of their parents. My own county judge-executive was a Democrat for years, and his father ran for that job 35 years ago as a Democrat. He changed parties and was elected last year as a Republican.

And it's not just them. One person I came to know years later was the daughter of a very powerful Democrat in her hometown. She, too, was a "yellow dog" for most of her life. But when I connected with her on Facebook and viewed her profile, I was shocked to see her political views listed as "Until Obama, Democrat."

It's obvious these people have seen Kentucky's past and who has been in control of state policies and purse strings for decades. They note our state's failures and know we can do better with the right people and philosophies in charge. Democrats have had the reins for years and have steered us in the wrong direction. They realize it's time for a change. They see Republicans putting new ideas and new energy into their local communities and national and state initiatives, and they want to be a part of the reversal and rebirth.

The national media has started referring to Kentucky as a Republican state -- or, given how they color presidential election maps, a red state. That's not wholly true yet. But we're getting there.

Don't be surprised if Republicans aren't the majority of registered voters in as little as five years, when enough people have finally walked away from the past policies that have held us back.

Democrats' positions on military force change with the seasons

It's been fascinating to watch the reactions to President Trump's decision to remove troops from Syria.

It could be foreseen that many Republicans opposed this move. What's surprising is how most Democrats have spoken out against it, as well.

The Republican opposition is consistent with the conservative view on military intervention, but the Democrats are reversing course on a position they've held for years.

Think back to the early 2000s. How many Democrats opposed the use of force in Iraq, and how many even opposed retaliating against Afghanistan and the Taliban for the Sept, 11, 2001 attacks on America? Democrats have consistently been in favor of a smaller American military presence in the Middle East, but when it comes to Trump, their opposition to him outweighs their traditional positions. Many who opposed the use of force in the past have done a 180 and are now decrying the pullout.

The Democrats basically drummed Joe Lieberman, their 2000 vice presidential nominee and a reliable liberal vote on just about every issue, out of their party because of his views on national defense and the use of force. He won his last senatorial election from Connecticut as an independent. Will they apologize to him and welcome him back into the fold because they've now adopted his position?

While Democrats usually remained united in their position on the issue until their recent pivot, there have always been two camps among the Republicans. Those who championed the use of force, such as John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham, and the late John McCain, were often called "hawks" or the oft-misapplied pejorative "neocons." But there's always been a vocal libertarian-leaning contingent, including Kentucky's own Sen. Rand Paul and Rep. Thomas Massie, that has been opposed to the use of force in distant lands and have been loud "bring the troops home" advocates.

That's what most of the Democrats have been saying for years, too, until Trump did exactly that. Because Trump supported it, they suddenly had to oppose what they had been advocating.

But what's really been funny to watch is how the Democrats have turned on one particular presidential candidate who agrees with Trump's decision and the "bring the troops home" position in general.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii (she of the Jackson County, Ky., Gabbard lineage) is a down-the-line liberal on just about every issue they hold dear. But when she declined to condemn the withdrawal from Syria and expressed her support for the concept of ending American engagement in the Middle East, her fellow Democrats lost it. Hillary Clinton, in particular. Proving that she obviously hasn't gotten over losing the presidential election in 2016 and clinging to the belief that Trump was elected fraudulently (hint: he wasn't), she made allusions to Gabbard being "a Russian asset," and her spokesperson didn't deny she was talking about Gabbard when asked directly.

That's indicative of where many Democrats are today. They see Russians behind every tree. In Kentucky, they're even making Russia an issue in the governor's race because a proposed aluminum mill in the northeastern part of the state will have Russian investors. They've come a long way from 2012, when Mitt Romney said Russia was America's greatest threat and Barack Obama basically laughed him off.

Hillary, in particular, is a lost cause. She still can't accept that she's been twice rejected in her attempt to win the highest office in the land, once by her own party. I know of no one who voted for Trump because of Russian interference. They either voted for him because they liked what he was saying, or they saw through Hillary for what she was, or some combination of both. She thinks Green Party candidate Jill Stein was a Russian plant in 2016, and thinks Russia's grooming Gabbard to mount a third-party challenge after her inevitable departure from the Democrats' race. Either Hillary has forgotten that a lot of states have passed "sore-loser" laws that prohibit party primary candidates from running as an independent or third-party candidate in that same election, or she knows but chooses to ignore it since it doesn't fit her narrative. And now the whispers are starting once again that she's thinking about mounting yet another presidential bid. Gabbard even dared her to do so.

I can hear Donald Trump saying, "Please don't throw me in that briar patch," all the way from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the foothills of eastern Kentucky over that notion.

The idea that Gabbard is a Russian asset is beyond laughable. She serves in the Hawaii National Guard and has been deployed on combat missions in the Middle East. Sure, she's as much of a socialist as any of the rest of the presidential candidates on that side, but the notion that she's a Russian asset is just deranged. And only a few of her fellow presidential candidates have defended her from Hillary's goofy pronouncement. They were quick to admonish others not to talk about Joe Biden's Ukraine situation, but questioning Gabbard's patriotism wasn't a problem for them.

The Syrian situation has been fluid. It's complicated, and volumes have been written about it. Turkey and the Kurdish rebels have been battling for years. The Kurds helped us in the fight against Islamic terrorists, but the Turks are a NATO ally. At this writing, a cease-fire has been orchestrated. Trump was in a classic no-win situation here. Withdraw the troops, and we've abandoned a partner in the war on terror. Keep them there, and we're putting them in harm's way with no discernible American interest. Trump had campaigned on ending America's endless wars, and his message resonated with Americans who saw our troops continue to lose their lives 17 years after the 2001 attacks with no sight of a finish line.

Still, it's really surreal to watch their positions change like the wind just because Trump took a position they've held for years. Should Trump change his mind, they'd probably change their minds about the issue as well.

Seeking intellectual honesty in Lee County's wet-dry election debate

There's been surprisingly little said about the upcoming wet-dry elections scheduled for the City of Beattyville and all of Lee County, to be held in conjunction with the Nov. 5 general election.

To date, there have been no newspaper ads, no community forums, and very little discussion on social media. Local option elections often rip localities apart,with each side digging in on its viewpoints and arguing vehemently against the other side's positions.

That could still happen as we count down to the local balloting, but to date, what is usually a controversial issue has been remarkably quiet.

Thankfully, none of the outlandish predictions that have marked recent local option contests in nearby places have been made. There have been some crazy promises made in other communities. When Breathitt County voted wet a few years ago, a lot of people predicted that an Applebee's or other national chain restaurant would locate in Jackson. Obviously, that hasn't happened yet, and no one with any common sense thinks that it will. Yet a lot of people believed that it would happen.

Currently, Lee County sits as a dry island, surrounded by a sea of wet communities. We have direct highway access to four of our neighbors. All allow alcohol sales. Wolfe County went wet first, more than 25 years ago, followed by Owsley and Breathitt, and then the city of Irvine. Lee also borders Powell County, which is wet; and Jackson County, which remains dry; but there's no direct highway connection between Lee and those neighbors. You have to go through another county to get to one of those places.

The arguments in favor of voting wet are the typical ones. It would increase economic activity and give our restaurants and other attractions the means to compete with those in neighboring communities that allow alcohol sales. (There might be a good counter-argument that with all those other places selling booze, Lee County could market itself as a family-friendly environment, but no one's raised that talking point yet.)

Alcohol sales certainly wouldn't be a panacea for Lee County economically. Owsley County has been wet for several years now, yet it's still regarded as one of the poorest communities in the entire country. Being wet hasn't exactly brought boom times to our neighbor to the south. And local coffers aren't going to fill with taxes and licensing fees should either the city or county, or both, go wet. Anything collected locally has to be plowed back into enforcement of the governing ordinances the city or county would have to enact should voters choose to go wet.

Accurate predictions and reasonable promises are all we can ask from those who are supporting the endeavor. So far, no one's saying Applebee's or a similar chain is going to come to Beattyville. About the best argument I heard recently came from a friend who said, "I hope it goes wet. It sure can't hurt anything." That honesty is refreshing. They aren't promising or expecting restaurants to flock to open locations here. They just want to do something different than what's being done now.

Personally, my mind is not yet made up. I could go either way. I won't be buying alcohol if it's sold locally. Whatever drinking days I may have had are long distant in the rear-view mirror, and I'm not one of those who has to have a beer or a glass of wine with my meal. I'm aware of the potential societal costs to the community, as well as any possible benefits. How the two sides conduct themselves will go a long way in determining how I vote. I didn't really have a position in the recent debate concerning allowing all-terrain vehicles to use public roads, until those on one side of the proposal alienated me to the point of pushing me away from them and to the other side. If the pro-wet forces start making unrealistic promises or predictions about how much money the county's going to make, or how many businesses will locate here, then that's a sure-fire way to get me to vote to stay dry.

So, the honesty of the person who said, "It can't hurt anything," was good to hear. So, too, would be people simply saying, "I don't want to have to drive to the next county to get my booze, it would be more convenient to me to buy it here." Don't give us pie-in-the-sky arguments to justify something that would merely be more handy for you. I'd prefer not to have to drive to West Irvine to get something from Pizza Hut, but that's reality.

Maybe this issue will explode to the forefront of local conversation in the next two weeks. Perhaps it's just a ticking time bomb waiting to explode between now and Nov. 5. But for one who has seen lots of controversy and heated discussion erupt over this issue many times in the past, the seeming lack of interest seems odd indeed.

Calling out the hypocrisy concerning Bevin's birthplace

The next time you hear someone call Gov. Matt Bevin a "carpetbagger," or criticizing him because he's not a Bluegrass native and thus not "one of us" or "a real Kentuckian," ask them for whom they voted in the 1991 gubernatorial election.

Odds are they'll not have an answer, because you've either exposed their hypocrisy, or the governor's birthplace didn't matter when a Democrat was in charge.

Brereton Jones, Kentucky's governor from 1991 until 1995, was born in Gallipolis, Ohio, and grew up in Point Pleasant, W.Va.  He served as a Republican in West Virginia's House of Delegates, but moved to Kentucky in 1972, and changed his party registration three years later to -- surprise, surprise -- ingratiate himself to Kentucky's political elite.

When Jones was elected lieutenant governor in 1987, back when the governor and lieutenant governor were elected separately, one of his opponents was Kentucky native Paul Patton. His Republican general election opponent was Larry Webster, the infamous Pikeville columnist and Owen County native who seems to have abandoned any pretense of being a Republican these days, if his Lexington Herald-Leader writings are any indication.

Then, four years later, Jones ran for governor and his major primary opponents were native Kentuckians Scotty Baesler and Dr. Floyd C. Poore. Gatewood Galbraith was also in that race. His predecessor's wife, Martha Wilkinson, was also a candidate before dropping out. His fall opponent in 1991 was Larry Hopkins. Although Hopkins was born in Michigan, he grew up in western Kentucky and had lived in Lexington for years before being elected to the Kentucky General Assembly and then to Congress.

The same political types that were silent about Jones' state of origin are critical of Bevin because he was born in Colorado and grew up in a rural, mountainous area of New Hampshire that's more like rural Kentucky than it is Concord or Portsmouth or any other cities in that state. He's frequently described his home county as being twice the size of Pike County, Kentucky's largest, but with about half the people. It's the northernmost county in New Hampshire, bordering both Maine and Vermont, as well as Quebec. His hometown has fewer than 400 people, making it smaller than several Kentucky county seats, including my own. Bevin has often noted that he fell in love with Kentucky while stationed at Fort Knox during his Army days, and wanted to live here because it reminded him of where he grew up.

So, why would Matt Bevin's home state matter, but Brereton Jones' home state apparently didn't? And why do people never answer the question about whether or not they voted for Jones when they complain about Bevin's background?

It reeks of hypocrisy, but we've come to expect that from one side of the aisle. If you voted for a West Virginian in 1991, you shouldn't complain when a New Hampshirite gets elected from the other party.

More intellectual dishonesty from those who educate Kentucky's children

Kentucky's efforts to preserve pensions for its public employees and teachers, and to reform and improve the failing public education system, have met with protests by people who are mistaking an effort to help them for a vendetta against them.

A number of advocacy groups have sprung up from those protests. One of the most odious calls itself KY 120 United, also known as #120Strong. Its motto is "We support KY teachers and public employees."

Let me be clear. As a public employee, I can unequivocally state that you have done nothing in support of me. You have undermined efforts to preserve my pension should I ever be able to retire. You advocate for the election of politicians whose views are diametrically opposite from mine.

What's sad is that the heart of this group's support comes from educators who are supposed to be intelligent. The arguments that KY 120 United is putting forth show a complete lack of understanding of how things work.

One meme the group recently pushed out is a complete and blatant lie, yet their supporters are lapping it up the way a cat would drink a bowl of milk.

That meme blames Gov. Matt Bevin for last year's repeal of the state's pension income tax exclusion and the extension of the sales tax to services such as car repairs and veterinary services.

The truth is that Bevin vetoed that legislation, but was overridden by the Republicans in both chambers of the General Assembly. (That, incidentally, is to their shame. We elect Republicans to lower taxes, not raise them. Some Republicans already see that move was a mistake and are moving to walk it back, wanting to reinstate the pension exclusion in next year's legislative session.)

The truth doesn't matter to those with a political agenda, however.

The educational bureaucracy has always opposed conservatives and their proposals, and not just on educational issues (witness their stances on gun control and elective abortion). They don't want school choice, they don't want greater accountability, and they don't want the process reformed in any way. One of the biggest opponents has been the Jefferson County Teachers Association. After recent school test results came out that showed Jefferson County dominating the bottom of the statewide rankings at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels, it's easy to see why. They're probably afraid that real reforms would cost them their positions because they're obviously not getting the job done now. When some school districts in the poorest areas of rural Kentucky showed up at the top of the rankings, what's the excuse for Kentucky's wealthiest county performing so badly?

And now the "educracy" is steadfastly opposing efforts to preserve pensions for retirees and current teachers, while ensuring that future teachers have a sustainable retirement option. The Kentucky Education Association even opposed a plan that would have moved future hires into the Social Security system and a defined contribution pension plan, the same as current state employees. They probably did that so they could continue to point out that teachers aren't eligible to draw Social Security, even from their spouses' accounts or from jobs they had where they participated in Social Security.

People of good will can disagree on policy positions. Not everyone totally agrees with every politician or official, even those from within their own party. Feel free to oppose Matt Bevin. I don't agree with everything his administration has done the past four years. But if you do disagree, then do it for truthful reasons. He didn't call all teachers "thugs," which is another big lie that's been spread.  He didn't unlawfully access or use the state educational email system to glean addresses for which to send campaign materials. And he didn't try to steal anyone's pension.

It's fine if you oppose charter schools, or tuition tax credits, or school choice in general. If you want taxes increased to fund pensions or other educational programs, that's your prerogative. Campaign against Bevin and for his opponent on those matters. Just don't spread lies, half-truths, or out-of-context statements to further your agenda.

We should hold our educators, public servants, and public officials to a higher standard. We should expect them to be honorable in their conduct when the expenditure of taxpayer dollars is at stake. Blaming the governor for a tax increase he actually vetoed is not honorable conduct. It doesn't set a good example for those children they claim their acts are supporting. But what else can you expect from a group that thinks it's OK to lie about being sick, in violation of state law, to go to Frankfort to protest, then gets upset when their improper acts are called out?

When did doing the right thing become wrong?

Reform-minded candidates are popular. The message they bring when they run for office is usually well-received. They want to root out corruption in government; do away with waste, fraud, and abuse; and start doing things by the book, according to laws and policies. They campaign on eliminating political favors, hiring public employees based on qualifications and not on party registration or support for the winner, spending public money on public projects, and other things that in theory we should all support.

But what happens when such a candidate wins and actually starts implementing those good-government policies? When certain members of the public see that their new officials are keeping their promises, they get upset.

We've all seen it, especially in small towns and rural counties. When ordinances are enforced, laws are followed, and policies are adhered to, people get their feelings hurt. Things they took for granted in the past are no longer permitted. They want the right thing done unless doing the right thing means they don't get any favors anymore. When officials stop spending public money on private property, insist that legal agreements and contracts be abided by, and demand accountability and transparency in government, their popularity can tank in a hurry when members of the public find out they actually meant what they said when they were running for office.

Tax dollars are scarce. The populace is overtaxed at every level -- federal, state, and local. We entrust our elected officials to be good stewards of that money and use it for legally-intended purposes. We elect administrative and legislative officials to set budgets, enact policies, and establish guidelines for how that money is spent. We want the best people to be hired for the positions they hold based on their qualifications, and not their politics. But let an official decide not to gravel a private driveway, actually make personnel decisions based on qualifications, or insist on procedures being followed, and see how quickly they come under fire.

It's no wonder so few people decide to take the plunge to run for elective office. If their efforts to do the right thing are met with disdain and scorn, why bother?

Doing the right thing may often be unpopular, but it's never wrong. The swamp needs to be drained. It's vital that we support those who are trying to drain it, and not help those who put the stoppers back in the drains. We must insist on accountability, honesty, transparency, and legality in our government.

These people are in charge of educating your children?

Sometimes I have to scratch my head at the supposed intelligence of those we entrust to the education of our children.

For reasons known only to them, the vast majority of educators are liberals. Kentucky is no exception. For the most part, they'd vote for a Democrat even if the venerable Dr. Thomas Boysen -- the first education commissioner hired after Kentucky passed its education reform act in 1990 -- was running as a Republican.

But even then, teachers resist most efforts to substantially change education by their own ideological and political fellow travelers. They seem to prefer the status quo and loudly oppose ideas to implement new ideas. When Democrat Martha Layne Collins, herself a former classroom teacher, suggested a number of reforms in the 1980s, she was roundly criticized by the Kentucky Education Association. I personally sat in a room in Lexington when Collins addressed the KEA and saw and heard the chilly reception she got.

Forget for a moment, though, the political leanings of what I call the "educracy" (the educational bureaucracy). Sometimes the words and actions of the teachers' union defy all logic.

This week, the KEA is all upset because a private citizen sent an email critical of their chosen gubernatorial candidate, Andy Beshear, to some school employees' work email address. They're demanding an investigation and calling this an illegal act.

If this demonstration of a lack of common sense is reflective of the intelligence level of those whom teachers choose to lead their statewide organization, I'm thinking we might be better off letting eighth-grade dropouts educate our children.

The last time I checked, there is nothing illegal about a private citizen sending an email to someone at their work address, as long as there's nothing nefarious about the act. If Albert Wells, the person who sent the email, had distributed a virus, or sent a huge file attachment intended to overload the server, then he would have committed a crime. But simply sending information critical of Andy Beshear and his former governor father isn't a crime. In fact, it's -- dare I say it -- educational.

To his credit, Kentucky Education Commissioner Wayne Lewis is having none of the KEA's nonsense. He correctly notes that citizens are legally permitted to email public employees, especially those with publicly available email addresses.

There are legal prohibitions against public employees sending political information via their work email accounts, but none against such information being sent to them. Why does the KEA fear having their members exposed to alternative views, and facts that might correct the misinformation the organization has been spreading about the gubernatorial candidates?

Why abortion is an important state issue

Gov. Matt Bevin has made abortion a key part of his re-election campaign. He opposes legalized abortion as an elective method of voluntary birth control. Democrat Andy Beshear, his opponent, is in favor of legalized abortion. There could not be a more stark contrast between the two.

Some wonder why abortion is such an issue in the gubernatorial election. After all, they say, elective abortion is legal on a federal level, and states can do nothing to change that. So why should voters care which candidate supports abortion and which candidate opposes it?

Forget the moral factors for a moment, and focus on the policy-making process. It's simple, really. It was a federal court case in which a state abortion restriction law was challenged, that being the infamous United States Supreme Court Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. And it will be another state law, challenged in federal court, that may bring a reversal of Roe v. Wade.

And that's where state elections come into play.

Since Bevin's election in 2015, and Republicans gaining a supermajority in the Kentucky House of Representatives a year later, the state has passed a number of laws restricting abortion. Bevin has happily signed them into law. And they have been challenged in court, by entities such as Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union, both staunch abortion supporters.

If Bevin is re-elected, it's guaranteed that the state will continue defending its laws as the court cases progress through the system. It's also a safe bet that the legislature will continue to pass anti-abortion laws that Bevin will sign. Should Beshear win, no doubt he'd veto any anti-abortion bills, although it's quite likely the House and Senate would override his vetoes.

But the biggest problem is that if Beshear is governor, he'll quit defending Kentucky's duly-enacted laws in court.

The goal behind the passage of anti-abortion laws in Kentucky and many other states is to eventually get a case before the Supreme Court that could overturn Roe v. Wade and allow individual states to restrict or prohibit abortion as they see fit. With the current makeup of the court leaning toward a conservative originalist philosophy, and with the next vacancy most likely to come with a liberal justice's departure, abortion foes see their best opportunity ever to reach their goal.

This has its best chance of happening if a number of cases make their way to the Supreme Court, and that won't happen unless states continue defending their laws as lower courts reach decisions and appeals are filed.

So, when someone tells you that abortion is a federal issue, and state laws on the subject are irrelevant and it's not a proper issue for a state election, they're not being truthful with you. Although the ultimate decision will be made at the federal level, any changes to the current abortion laws will begin with state action. That's why abortion is an important issue in this year's gubernatorial race.

in defense of the baby boomers

It seems I can't go very long these days without seeing scathing criticism of the generation that's come to be known as the baby boomers, or boomers for short.

Anywhere you look, someone is tossing barbs at the boomers. There seems to be a growing sentiment among younger generations that the boomers are at fault for everything that's wrong with the world and in their lives.

I do not write this in self-defense. I was born in December 1961. Although the baby boomer generation is broadly defined as those who were born between 1946 and 1964, I've never regarded myself as a boomer. I always saw them as being older than I was. To me, the boomers were those who were born to families after the fathers returned from World War II. In truth, I don't feel like I fit in with either the boomers or Generation X, which is the group that came after the boomers.

If the Wikipedia entry on baby boomers is to be believed -- and anything posted there should be viewed very skeptically -- you'd think the modern batch of young liberals would be thrilled at how the boomers as portrayed on Wiki blazed the trail for their beliefs. The counterculture movement, drifting away from religion, acceptance of deviances from societal norms -- all of these things that are being embraced by millennials were pioneered by the boomers.

The truth is that instead of being villainized, boomers should have the eternal gratitude of the younger generations. Most every modern convenience that these younger people enjoy and take for granted today was developed or perfected by the boomers. The standard of living they're used to wouldn't exist if not for their elders, the boomers.

When pressed why they hate or resent boomers, many young people will provide some reason that won't hold water. They can't provide specifics, and when they try to, their premise is faulty.

The best thing I can think of is they resent boomers for living longer, working longer, and keeping jobs that they feel like they're entitled to. They want boomers to retire or die so they can take over. They aren't content to wait their turn in the generational hierarchy. They want the boomers to go away so they can have their homes and their careers and their power as a voting bloc.

I'm still waiting to hear someone, anyone, provide a logical reason about why they don't like boomers, or what boomers have done to them. I'm appreciative of the boomers for the technological advances they developed and what they've contributed to society, even if Bill Clinton was their choice for president twice in the 1990s.

In the meantime, don't expect me to take your blanket generational condemnations seriously. It just makes you appear ungrateful and disrespectful.

Making the messenger the message: The left's new tactic to avoid scrutiny

Until impeachment hearings became the flavor of the day, earlier in the week you couldn't avoid Greta Thunberg even if you wanted to.

The 16-year-old Swedish girl became the left's latest new hero when she gave a speech on the "impending climate crisis" (quotes intentional) at the United Nations. She sounded the usual Chicken Little sky-is-falling alarms about how we are all doomed unless we go back to an 18th Century way of life, and kill all the evil old people -- especially the white male power structure -- who are intentionally trying to kill her and all the young people because they're greedy and uncaring.

She is the perfect person for the global warming freak-outers to put on display as their mouthpiece. You can't dare challenge her, because if you do, you're attacking an autistic child. It doesn't matter that her ideas are nuttier than the proverbial squirrel droppings. We're big, bad bullies because we dare to disagree with her.

Seems like the left has found the perfect way to marry the message and the messenger. Send sympathetic personalities, preferably young people, front and center to spread their gospel and then attack the motives of their critics and accuse them of bullying children.

Although Thunberg is the most recent example of this, she is by no means the first. She's following in the footsteps of David Hogg, the Florida student whose school was the site of a mass shooting, who became a gun control advocate after that tragedy.

No one disputes that Hogg grieves over the loss of his schoolmates, that he was impacted tremendously by what happened, and that no one wants to ever see that event repeated. But many of us disagree with the solutions he's put forth. And when we say that, we're labeled as insensitive and uncaring adults with no compassion for a kid's grief.

Funny how that didn't work for Kyle Kashuv, isn't it? Kashuv was equally impacted by the Parkland massacre, yet he didn't become a vocal anti-Second Amendment advocate. He championed sensible, constitutional changes to ensure school safety while preserving a vital God-given right enshrined in the Constitution. But since Kashuv's narrative doesn't mesh with the left's priorities, he became fair game for criticism.

And this whole "you shouldn't be critical of children" narrative? It's also funny how that went out the window when Nick Sandmann and his fellow Covington Catholic students were unfairly and untruthfully maligned for something they didn't do. Liberals wasted no time calling Sandmann a racist and a bully merely because one photograph, captured at a moment in time when a certain look appeared on his face for the fraction of a second it took for the camera shutter to open and close. And even when the subsequent facts proved the young northern Kentucky kids did absolutely nothing wrong, the falsehoods continued, even from some of the nation's biggest media outlets.

When the difference between the reactions to Thunberg and Sandmann is pointed out, the left shrieks, "false equivalency." Oh really? How so? Was Sandmann criticized merely because he's white, male, and Catholic? Yes, he was. Is Thunberg being criticized for being young, female, and autistic? Nope.

Maybe there is a false equivalency there, but not the way liberals would like to proclaim.

Expect more of this to continue. Anytime liberalism needs to make a public point, be it climate change or gun control or whatever, expect a sympathetic young spokesperson to be paraded in front of the cameras, and then anyone who criticizes their message will be accused of hating the messenger.

In the meantime, conservatives must continue to make their points known, even if we take heat for it. We have to challenge the left's policy proposals to preserve our republic and our way of life.