Devils with the blue check on

Recently in this space, Twitter's position as the open sewer of the Internet and social media was highlighted. The ability of anonymous trolls, or those who hide behind screen names, to spew lies and filth was acknowledged and lamented.

But anonymity and pseudonymity aren't the only problems with Twitter.

If you're familiar with the site, you know that some users are verified with blue checks beside their names. These are people in the public eye -- politicians, entertainers, athletes, media personalities, and others -- who go through a process to prove that they're actually themselves. Anyone can claim to be Donald Trump or LeBron James or Brit Hume or George Takei, but through the use of the blue check, Twitter has verified that they're legitimate and authentic.

And the only thing that's worse than the way anonymous users behave on Twitter is the way that some of the blue-checks conduct themselves.

Some of the most vile garbage that trends on Twitter comes from verified accounts. Some of the most outrageous conspiracy theories, outright falsehoods, and scurrilous rumors have been spread by blue-checks.

This is most prominently seen from "journalists" and political analysts from left-leaning publications. They take their tendency to spread rumors by attributing them to unnamed sources to an entirely new level on Twitter. And quite often, they'll throw in a few vulgarities or profanities for emphasis. These staffers and contributors for outlets like CNN, MSNBC, Salon, Slate, etc., probably think sprinkling their tweets with f-words makes them look tough. It actually only makes them look like they have limited vocabularies and aren't qualified for the positions they hold.

How many blue-checks carried the water recently for unfounded allegations about Lindsey Graham? The furor actually ended up being legitimized in the mainstream press, much like the blatant lies that swirled on Twitter about former Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin.

Facebook really doesn't have this problem. But it's oddly entertaining to watch a certain commentator (who is unnamed here, because this person has a nasty vindictive streak and has an inflated view of self-importance and influence) who is one of Twitter's biggest stereotypical users rail about Facebook's toxicity. There's been far more garbage spread on Twitter than on Facebook. And a large percentage of it comes from verified blue-checks.

Don't believe it? Go to Twitter and take a look at what's trending at any given moment. On political subjects, a majority of the tweets will be anti-Trump or anti-conservative. And the blue-checks will be leading the way, spouting obscenities and promoting ideas so out of this world they appear to be fueled by a combination of meth and LSD.

Twitter is bad. Anonymous trolls are bad enough. But verified users with agendas and no sense of decency are worse. Verification of identity does not equal verification of intelligence or integrity. Keep that in mind when you wade into that bird poop-filled corner of social media.

Bird poop: In the world of social media, Twitter is an open sewer

The niche of the Internet known as social media has definitely changed the way we communicate. It's a great way to spread information quickly over a wide territory to a large number of people.

There's even a name for the phenomenon, which is ironic considering how news about COVID-19 dominates the headlines these days. When a social media post spreads rapidly, it's called "going viral."

There's a downside to this. Information can spread rapidly, but misinformation spreads just as rapidly. And given the proven biases inherent in the fact-checkers social media outlets use, there's no way to trust when a social media platform tells you something is true or false.

One example of a popular falsehood that spreads on social media is a long-running post that a handful of states have instituted drug-testing requirements for public benefits -- a/k/a welfare -- recipients. Kentucky's always listed as one of those states.

Of course, this isn't true. Kentucky has never required recipients of SNAP, AFDC, WIC, or any other alphabet-soup benefits program to pass a drug test to get those benefits, despite a number of people who would love to see that happen. What makes the whole situation worse is that many Kentuckians, who should know better, share the information on social media.

The proliferation of fake news sites doesn't help. And we're not talking about the agenda-driven mainstream outlets we all know and loathe (New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, the big-three networks, MSNBC, etc.) Nor is this about popular satire sites like The Online, DuffelBlog (a military news statire site), or Babylon Bee. The best satire has just enough truth in it to be believeable. Items from sources like BustATroll, TatersGonnaTate, PoliticusUSA, and others that are clearly made up of whole cloth get passed around as legitimate stories, and people believe them.

No social media platform is immune to this. In this regard, the Internet is something of a cesspool. But Twitter is the worst source of all. If Facebook is a septic tank, Twitter is an open sewer. It's like the big splotch of bird poop that lands on your windshield if you park under a tree.

Rush Limbaugh frequently voices his disdain for Twitter. As usual, his opinions are spot-on.

Twitter's problem is rampant toxic anonymity. Anyone can create an account there and spew whatever nonsense they want, without having their real name attached to it. This leads to all sorts of wild and vile garbage being posted that has not a shred of truth behind it. Yet the peddlers of falsehoods can romp unchecked, ruining reputations of individuals and businesses, as the lies and libels trend on Twitter.

Remember the abject ignorance from a couple of weeks ago, when people actually started believing Wayfair was selling abducted children for five-figure dollar amounts? That got started on Twitter.

Or this past weekend, when President Trump replaced Brad Parscale as his campaign manager, and the rumor mill started that Parscale was having an affair with Hope Hicks? That the two of them had been spotted "canoodling" at a popular D.C. restaurant, and Trump fired Parscale because he was jealous? Again, thank -- or blame -- the little blue bird for that foolishness.

One of the most egregious examples in recent Kentucky history concerned former Gov. Matt Bevin. For weeks, a number of his critics -- mostly people associated with the KY 120 United activist group, not content with the fact that he's no longer governor -- spread a lie that Bevin had been having an affair with a former staffer who'd gone to work for the Trump administration, and had gotten her pregnant. The lie even went so far as to suggest Bevin had bought a house for her when she left D.C. and returned to Kentucky. An anonymous Twit calling himself or herself KyPolJunkie then tweeted that it had credible evidence of this and the story would be breaking. This prompted both Bevin and his wife to respond that the allegations were untrue, which then prompted a Courier-Journal story -- not on the veracity of the accusations, but the fact that they had been made and the ex-governor had responded on Twitter. There's still been no proof that the rumors are true, but they still float to the surface like the infamous Baby Ruth candy bar in Caddyshack when someone wants to get in a dig at Bevin.

It's shameful, really. While many whine and cry about Trump's tweets, wanting him censored or censured for his statements and opinions, they stand idly by while blatant untruths are spread. They don't care that lives and livelihoods are being assaulted through vicious rumors, fueled by malice. It's all a game to them.

The platforms are immune from damages. A court recently threw out a lawsuit by Congressman Devin Nunes against Twitter. The suit claimed Twitter allowed anonymous accounts to defame him. Nunes could sue the individual accounts, but that's a long, convoluted process. He'd have to file a "John Doe" lawsuit and then subpoena Twitter for IP addresses used by the anonymous posters, then subpoena the Internet service providers for details about the users who posted from those IP addresses. That tactic worked several years ago in a suit against an anonymous poster on the new-defunct infamous gossip site Topix, but there are so many hoops to jump through that it's a cumbersome and burdensome process.

Why spread rumors and lies if you can't vouch for their accuracy? Why make or repeat scurrilous allegations if you can't prove them? To do so shows a complete lack of integrity, character, and intellectual honesty.

In the meantime, use whatever mechanisms Twitter has to report falsehoods if you're a user of the platform and see something questionable. Facebook has plenty of options; Twitter not so many. It's what makes Twitter a much less pleasant environment.

And be sure to bathe thoroughly anytime you wade through the Twitter swamp. Reliable sources indicate it's infested with fecal coliform bacteria.

Reasons for healthy skepticism concerning the virus

One of the most troubling aspects as the Wuhan China virus continues to disrupt our way of life has been just how accepting the citizenry has been of government pronouncements and edicts.

Too many people are taking what elected, appointed, and career government personnel are saying at face value, without questioning the statements or orders.

Worse, those people show outright disdain and hostility for those who do object. Are you opposed to mandatory business shutdowns? Onerous capacity restrictions? Cancellations of events? Mask requirements? Then you're selfish. You want people to get sick and die. You favor profits over people. You're a science denier. You're vile and evil and since  you won't do the right thing on your own, you need to be forced to do it and punished if you don't.

Funny, isn't it? The same people who have challenged the government over so many things in the past are now demanding that the government be listened to and obeyed at all costs.

Never mind that the narrative on the virus is constantly changing. You can find conflicting information on just about every aspect of the matter, from the effectiveness of masks to the likelihood of asymptomatic transmission to the success of hydroxychloroquine in treating the virus or mitigating its symptoms.

But anyone with common sense and a penchant for observation should be casting a critical eye to what's being fed to the public. This isn't "Fauci-Gates-Soros New World Order" conspiracy stuff, either. It's what anyone who's capable of reason and independent thought should be doing. It's quite possible to scoff at the craziest of outlandish theories and still question what we're being told.

Two recent incidents centering on Kentucky, one with national implications and one local to me, show cause why a healthy skepticism over this ongoing public health situation is warranted.

On July 3, just prior to the running of the 2020 Brickyard 400 NASCAR race at Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it was announced that Jimmie Johnson had tested positive for the coronavirus and would not be participating in the race. Johnson, a seven-time Cup Series champion who's in his final season before retiring, had never missed a race due to injury or illness in nearly 20 years of full-time racing. His wife had experienced symptoms of the virus and had tested positive, and then Johnson tested positive.

A funny thing happened just a few short days later. The next race after Indianapolis was the July 12 event at Kentucky Speedway. On Tuesday of last week, Johnson tested negative. A followup test the next day was also negative, so Johnson was cleared to run at Kentucky. (He finished 18th Sunday after a late-race wreck when he was running in the top three.)

So what happened? Why did he test positive on a Friday, but negative four days later? Sounds like a false positive occurred. But how did that happen if his wife was symptomatic and tested positive, as highly contagious as we're told this disease is?

It makes you wonder.

Concerning the local incident: So far, we only have one confirmed case of the virus in the small, rural county where I live. The positive case was a juvenile who was tested prior to a medical procedure. The individual is now listed as having recovered. But again, if this disease is so contagious, how did the kid's parents and other family members avoid being infected? Why didn't they test positive? It's another reason for skepticism and cynicism.

And what of the deaths? How many are truly from COVID-19 and how many are merely those with other issues who died with the virus? There is a difference. In one Kentucky case, an older person from the central part of the state died while hospitalized with chronic kidney failure. The death was listed as a virus casualty, and the family publicly objected. The patient was already in the hospital with terminal kidney issues when they contracted the virus. And in another case, an infant in western Kentucky died of SIDS, yet tested positive positive post-mortem and was listed as dying of COVID.

There's other anecdotal evidence floating around out there that should cause those with discernment to be concerned. It's not hard to find stories of people who signed up for tests, yet didn't wait in line for them, only to be notified that they'd tested positive even though they were never tested; nor is it difficult to hear where medical professionals have on a whim sent unused swabs off for testing and they come back positive.

Yet so many just expect people to sit back and blindly swallow what the government's feeding them. Fully two-thirds of Kentucky's deaths have been from nursing home residents, where the patients already have significant health problems, but we're told how this virus that is only fatal to around four out of every 1,000 people who get it is a major threat. We were told that the reason for the forced business closures was to "flatten the curve," but no business is yet open at 100 percent capacity months later, and our hospitals and ICUs aren't anywhere near their capacity despite increasing positive case numbers. Two field hospitals were built in Kentucky to accept the overflow from medical facilities, but neither of those ever saw their first patient.

People should not be afraid to question or challenge the government, especially when real-life experiences give plenty of reasons to do so. And no one should try to shame those who do. You may want businesses kept closed, but don't object when the people who are suffering real, tangible losses because of those shutdowns want to reopen. You can choose not to go out to eat, or to attend an event, or otherwise expose yourself to any perceived dangers. You may want to wear a mask to protect yourself, but mind your own business if someone else chooses not to partake of the "fear porn." Take care of yourself and let other people make their own informed decisions.

The term "sheep" has been thrown around a lot in recent weeks. It's not a description I prefer to use when talking about someone who just accepts the government's edicts and statements. And I certainly reject the labels (selfish, science denier, etc.) used on those who aren't blindly accepting. "Reasonable skeptic" is a much more accurate description.

Use your own eyes and ears. Read, listen, and watch. But be tolerant of those who draw different conclusions than you do from readily accessible information. They just may end up being right about things.

It's time to cancel "Karen"

I know a few people named Karen. Without exception, they are delightful people. I'm proud to call them friends. It's unfortunate that their names, which no doubt were given to them by their parents for some special reason, have become linked to a stereotypical meme character of a chronic female complainer who gripes loudly when they're not pleased with something.

In this day and age, we're seeing an increase in the number of "Karens" who are easily offended by differing opinions and seek to do harm to anyone who thinks differently than they do. These "Karens" aren't just middle-aged females. They consist of people of both sexes and all ages. They cannot abide disagreement and seek to punish it.

The philosophy they promote has a name. It's called "cancel culture." It's applied to anyone who doesn't conform to the current politically correct narrative. Don't agree with a trending popular opinion? Hold a political position that conflicts with what's hot? Then you need to lose your job or have your business ruined, merely because you don't fall in line with the masses. It's almost as if First Amendment freedoms have been criminalized and weaponized. You don't even dare to defend yourself against verbal or physical assaults or unwelcome contact without it happening. A casual perusal of news stories from any state can confirm this. One of the most recent examples happened in Florida, when someone tried to shame a customer in a Costco for not wearing a mask, and he responded angrily. As a result of his taking up for himself, he lost his job. Since wearing a mask is the politically correct thing to do, under the current rules the mask-shamer was perfectly within their bounds, but the shamee was "canceled" because he argued back. Turn that scenario around, and if the person not wearing a mask jumped on the person who was wearing a mask for being a compliant sheep, then if the non-masked customer clapped back, they'd be hailed as a hero.

During his pro-America speech at Mount Rushmore on Independence Day weekend, President Trump mentioned "cancel culture" as something that runs counter to this nation's values. Dissent from acceptable viewpoints should never be punished if society truly treasures free and open debate. No matter how abhorrent the commentary, the answer to free speech is never silencing speech or punishing the speaker. The answer is always more speech. Provide counterarguments and reasoning to support why your position is right and the other side is wrong. If we claim to value diversity, then that claim rings hollow until diversity of thought is embraced.

No one condones the incitement of violence. That's certainly wrong, and there are laws against it. But if someone proclaims that one race is superior or inferior to another, shouldn't it be in society's best interests to find out why they hold that belief and try to present them with evidence that they're wrong? Instead of shaming, shouldn't we view this as a teachable moment?

Both sides have used "cancel culture" in the past, although sometimes it's taken other forms or names, such as boycotts of certain businesses. But in recent times, "cancel culture" has become almost exclusively a tool of the left. Every time Fox News Channel's Tucker Carlson skewers a liberal, there's an organized effort to get businesses to quit advertising on his show. They'd love nothing more to literally cancel Carlson's show because they don't agree with his viewpoints.

But you know "cancel culture" has gone too far when even liberals start decrying it. Just this week, Harper's Magazine published online a letter from a number of prominent liberals calling for it to come to an end. Names like Noam Chomsky, David Brooks, David Frum, Gloria Steinem, and Fareed Zakaria are the most recognizable signatories, along with others like author J.K. Rowling and musician Wynton Marsalis. They realize that nothing good can come from trying to silence those who disagree, and punishing that disagreement.

Instead of "canceling" those who hold differing viewpoints, we should instead "cancel" the "cancelers;" the "Karens" who yell and scream when someone doesn't think or believe exactly the way they do. Let people debate and disagree. If they seek to cause harm to another or advocate the same, then by all means they deserve to be called out for that. But if they're merely supporting an idea or policy you don't, or not supporting something you do, then live and let live. If you want to be a "Karen," be one of my friends with that name. Don't be the "Karen" of meme fame.

Kentucky's election experiment: Pass, fail, or somewhere in between?

We're two weeks past Kentucky's historic 2020 primary election, and it's been a week since the results were announced. Barring any changes as a result of any requested recanvasses, those statewide results should be certified by the Board of Elections this week.

The primary, postponed a month due to concerns over the Wuhan Chinese virus, incorporated a couple of items that have long been on the wish lists of Kentucky liberals: mail-in voting and early voting. The result was a near-record turnout, but at what cost?

Voting by mail was encouraged because counties severely limited the number of open polling locations. The reason given was a shortage of election officers because of virus fears. One polling place per county wasn't a huge issue in a small county like mine, but all sorts of problems were reported in the state's largest counties. Long lines were reported in Fayette County, which used the University of Kentucky football venue most of us still call Commonwealth Stadium. Voters were impeded in getting to Jefferson County's one location, at the state fairgrounds, due to road work and the frustrating one-way traffic pattern of the ring road surrounding the facility. The doors were locked promptly at 6 p.m. despite a state law that says anyone in line when the polls close is allowed to vote. The single polling places in the largest counties, which are the state's hotspots for the virus, didn't help with the distancing guidelines that are being stressed.

Traditionally, Kentucky allows absentee voting by mail only to those who will be physically unable to go to the polls on Election Day, or unable to cast a vote in person during the absentee voting period. The in-person absentee option was added years ago as a means to combat vote buying. Vote buying has traditionally been this state's most common method of fraud, and mail-in paper absentee ballots were the tool of choice. Limiting those to people with actual disabilities or other reasons that kept them from voting in person has helped cut down the number of vote fraud cases in recent years.

This election was not one that typically lends itself to vote buying. That usually occurs in local elections. This year's balloting was for federal and state races (president, U.S. Senate, state House of Representatives, and half of the state Senate seats) so one wouldn't expect a lot of vote buying in those contests. There will be school board races on the ballot this fall, but those seats aren't as valuable as they once were since the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 stripped much of the power from elected school board members.

There were reports of a number of mail-in ballots being rejected for technical reasons, but not at a rate to seriously impact any races. But other problems were reported as well -- voters getting ballots for the wrong party (Democrats getting Republican primary ballots, and vice versa), absentee ballot requests not being received, completed ballots not arriving at the county clerk's office. These are roadblocks that make vote-by-mail problematic.

One difference between how vote-by-mail was conducted in Kentucky, as opposed to how it's done in other states, is that ballots weren't mailed to everyone on the voter rolls. Kentucky has a problem with people who aren't eligible to vote still remaining on the registration lists, such as people who have moved out-of-state, should be purged due to not voting within a certain number of years as the law requires, and yes, dead people. Every time Kentucky attempts a legal purge of the voter rolls, it seems some advocacy group challenges that move (last year, the Kentucky Democratic Party did so), despite the state being under a federal order to do exactly that. The Kentucky process required those who wanted to vote by mail to request a ballot. For those who wanted to vote in person, they could either vote early at a centralized location (typically the county courthouse), or could vote as usual on Election Day.

That leads to a discussion on early voting. Lots can happen between the time that polls open for universal early voting and Election Day. The term "October surprise" refers to late-breaking news items just prior to the November general election day that could impact the balloting. The most famous one is probably a revelation that President George W. Bush had faced a DUI charge, which came out just a few days before his 2004 faceoff with John Kerry.

Kentucky Democrats had the textbook example of this in their Senate race. As early voting opened, Amy McGrath had a commanding lead over her nearest challenger, state Rep. Charles Booker. But the tide shifted when racial protests broke out and Booker took a prominent role in them. Booker did well on Election Day voting, but when the early votes were counted, McGrath emerged victorious. Many pundits have said that if there'd been no early voting, and all the voting except traditional absentee balloting had been conducted on Election Day, Booker would have won.

Watching national commentators and clueless celebrities weigh in on Kentucky's electoral process was comical. Without the slightest idea about what was really going on, they screamed "voter suppression" and tried to blame Mitch McConnell for silencing those who supported a black candidate (Booker). They pointed to only one polling place in Louisville, with the state's largest black population, as evidence. Kentuckians from both political parties kept trying to point out that the state had conducted no-excuse mail-in voting as a bipartisan effort by a Democrat governor and a Republican secretary of state, and the federal government and McConnell had no role whatsoever in it.

So, what's the verdict on the state's groundbreaking process? And what can we expect for the future? Both Gov. Andy Beshear and Secretary of State Michael Adams seem pleased with the process. Adams called it "a qualified success." But the question is, will this same process be used in November?

Because this is a presidential election, governed by federal law, the date can't be changed. November is a long way off. Surely this nation can be back to some semblance of normalcy over this whole virus thing by then. Can Beshear and Adams come together on a plan again? Will Kentucky still even be in a declared state of emergency that allows them to make changes without legislative approval?

At the very least, there should be more polling places open for those who want to vote in person on Election Day. Ideally, every polling place in every precinct will be open, like normal. We should be at a point in November, concerning the virus, to where that can happen. But if not, there definitely must be more polling places available than what there were last month. At least half of a county's voting stations should be open. Allow voters to vote at any polling place in their county if necessary. But don't restrict voting locations to only one, or just a handful, in each county. Presidential elections typically draw higher turnouts than local and state elections, so that needs to be taken into consideration.

It's long been argued that Kentucky makes it hard for people to vote, and one of the chief complaints is that the polls are open for only 12 hours on Election Day, with no provisions for early voting except bona fide absentees. I've never bought into that argument. That should be plenty of time for anyone who wants to vote to be able to vote on Election Day. But perhaps a couple of hours could be tacked onto the time. Instead of closing the polls at 6 p.m. local time, keep them open until 8. And continue to ensure that anyone in line at closing time be able to cast a ballot.

The hope here is that Adams decides that the process used in June worked well enough for that particular election, but that such drastic measures won't be necessary for November. We should return to Election Day balloting at regularly designated polling places, and leave the mail-in absentees only to those who have traditionally used them. It's time for Kentucky to get back to normal. Conducting a normal November election would go a long way in that process.