From virtue signal to scarlet letter: The evolution of masks' symbolism

As a writer by trade and training, and as a staunch defender of the First Amendment, I'm hesitant to ever recommend the banishment of a word or phrase from the language. But there's one phrase I wouldn't mind to see disappear from the lexicon and never be used again: Virtue signaling.

It's not the concept -- the outward expression of values or principles -- to which I object. Indeed, I think that's something we should all strive to do. We should always demonstrate our closely-held beliefs and those standards in which we believe through our words and deeds. "Preach the Gospel at all times. When necessary, use words," is a quote often attributed (erroneously, some say) to St. Francis of Assisi. But the phrase "virtue signaling" itself has taken on a negative connotation, and those on both the right and the left use it derisively.

Last week, when federal guidelines on mask-wearing in public changed, and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear announced more rollbacks in the Wuhan Chinese virus restrictions as a result, it led some to ponder just how those on the left could demonstrate their moral superiority now that masks would no longer be required in most settings.  Since the mask-backers had long said they were wearing masks to protect others and show how much they care about the public's health, what would they do after this tool was taken away from them?

Then, the illegitimate president, Dementia Joe Biden, tweeted that people basically have two choices. "Either take the Wu-Flu vaccine, or wear a mask. The choice is yours" was the essence of the statement.

And suddenly, it became clear. No longer would masks become a symbol for those who care about others. Instead, they would be a mark of shame for people who don't care enough about society to take the shot. A mask doesn't mean, "I care." As of late last week, it means, "I don't care."

Last Saturday, I went to a grocery store. For the first time since last summer, the majority of shoppers weren't wearing masks. There were three or four customers who were still masked, and the checkout clerks were wearing masks, but most customers were maskless. It felt good. It felt free. It felt right. It felt normal.

There has been a spectrum of reaction to the announcement that fully vaccinated people -- and for the record, I identify as vaccinated -- don't have to wear masks in most public settings anymore. Many have said "It's about time." Others say they will continue to wear masks despite the lack of a requirement. But the oddest response came from Rachel Maddow, who proved herself worthy of her "Madcow" nickname. She said it would take her a while to deprogram herself from seeing unmasked people as threats.

Seriously? I never viewed any unmasked person I encountered in a store as a threat. If anything, I respected their desire to be civilly disobedient. Going maskless in the dollar store is certainly less harmful and disruptive to society than blocking traffic, destroying monuments and statues, looting, and rioting. The misguided idea that everyone has COVID and every unmasked person is spreading COVID is absolutely ridiculous, but people like Maddow bought into it. The amount of fear that the government and its partners in the press have spread over the last 15 months is shameful. Hopefully, if nothing else, we as a society have learned never to repeat so many of the mistakes that have been made in the overreaction to this situation.

In all honestly, it was refreshing to see so many people without masks at the store. More major retailers are dropping their mask requirements each day, and hopefully most if not all businesses will follow suit. People are still free to wear masks if they feel the masks offer them protection, or if they feel like they have something from which they need to protect others, but they're no longer a symbol of self-superiority. Mask advocates can drop their pretentiousness, as we are hopefully on track to a return to the way life was in January of 2020, when people lived normally without fear and panic dominating their lives.

They still just don't get it

As the left and the RINO Republicans -- that means you, Congressman Adam Kinzinger and Lincoln Project frauds, among others -- continue to melt down over the removal of Liz Cheney from her leadership position, they keep on demonstrating that they simply don't understand the amount of frustration American conservatives have with the political process.

"Party of Trump" and "Trump cult" are two phrases that are being thrown around by the same loud leftist social media voices that can always be counted on to get it wrong. And unsurprisingly, they're getting this wrong as well.

What they don't realize is that conservatives have years of pent-up anger and dissatisfaction with the establishment leaders of the Republican Party who haven't yet had a principle they wouldn't toss aside in order to try to get along with the Democrats, who are never going to approve of the GOP or its policies.

John McCain tried it, and all it got him was some bipartisan praise when he died. Mitt Romney seems more interested in getting liberals to say nice things about him than in standing for the ideals of the party he represents, and bore its standard in the 2012 presidential election.

If it hadn't been Donald Trump leading the charge against liberals and establishment Republicans, then it would have been someone else. Trump just happened to be the candidate to was able to harness the outrage. (Myself, I would have preferred Ted Cruz, but was not disappointed in the least with the way Trump governed.)

Grassroots voters are hungry for someone who will stand up to the left. They thirst for a leader who will make Republicans live up to the ideals they profess to hold. They crave officials who will put American interests and the American people above foreign governments and citizens. They lust for executives who are less concerned with precedent and tradition and more worried about results. And that was Trump's appeal. His candidacy offered those promises. Trump wasn't interested in caving in to the left. He wanted to defeat their policies. And he didn't feel obliged to do things the way they'd always been done in political campaigns.

It's fitting that the last two serious candidates left in the 2016 GOP nomination were Trump and Cruz, the two most unconventional contestants in the race. Establishment favorites like Jeb Bush and Chris Christie had fallen by the wayside as Republican primary voters and caucus-goers rejected the old way of doing things. The party of Reagan had strayed far from its moorings before the tea party movement took the GOP by storm in response to the Barack Obama presidency, and then the populist surge led by Trump won the nomination and eventually the presidency.

Today's GOP isn't "the party of Trump." It's the party of "we're tired of business as usual, we're tired of losing to Democrats, we're tired of liberal policies ruining this nation, and we don't care if we hurt a few feelings or step on a few establishment toes to score some policy victories so we can fix this nation." It just so happened that Trump was the recipient of the votes from the disaffected electorate. If the results of the nomination process had been different, it could have been "the party of Cruz" or "the party of Rand Paul" or "the party of Marco Rubio."

Liz Cheney wasn't ousted because she wouldn't side with Trump. She was exorcised because she sided with liberals who are opposed to the things for which she says she stands. Like many of Trump's GOP detractors, she has put personality above policy. She'd rather go to battle alongside people who stand against her ideology than to stand with someone who shares her policy positions.

But the left and the liberals in the Republican establishment will continue to get it wrong. They'll keep on confusing loyalty to one man with the disdain for a political society that pushes aside American autonomy for global interests, and would rather acquiesce to liberal desires than stand strong on their beliefs. They underestimate us at their peril.

No Gov. Trump in 2023 after all -- Kentucky's residency requirements stand in the way

Some eyebrows were raised a couple of weeks ago when the name of Donald Trump, Jr., came up in discussions about who might be running for Kentucky governor in 2023.

One of the key combatants in the various legal battles against Gov. Andy Beshear and the state's executive orders regarding the Wuhan Chinese virus mentioned in an online discussion that he'd heard Trump's name brought up as a possible candidate. This person has his finger squarely on the pulse of Kentucky politics, and he'd be in a position to know the names of the players, the contenders, and the pretenders.

But there is absolutely no chance that the namesake son of the 45th president will be governor of Kentucky in two years. And unless Trump establishes residency in Kentucky by the end of this year, he can categorically be ruled out as a candidate in 2027.

Kentucky's constitution requires someone to be a resident of the state for six years before becoming eligible to run for or serve as governor. That means anyone planning on running in two years needed to be living here by 2017, thereby ruling Trump out.

This has to be a relief to any Republicans who were considering the race to be nominated to oppose Beshear. Trump would have brought money and a vast wealth of name recognition to the race, and judging from the amount of enthusiasm the mention of his name as a potential candidate generated, he would automatically have had the support of a majority of those who supported his father's presidential runs in 2016 and 2020.

So, where does that leave us when pondering the possible field of candidates? Agriculture Commissioner Ryan Quarles seems to be getting the most attention as a potential candidate, even as criticism mounts against him as an establishment candidate. There's still considerable speculation that Kelly Craft will run, and talk of her possible candidacy became louder when she recently accompanied Congressman Hal Rogers on a tour of flood-ravaged communities in eastern Kentucky. Former Gov. Matt Bevin seems to be leaning toward another run, and he'd be a formidable foe because of the money he could bring to the race, plus the fact that he already has a statewide network in place from his previous term as governor. The "Draft Savannah Maddox" movement continues to gain steam, and it doesn't take a genius to suspect that she has to be paying them at least a modicum of attention. Some are mentioning Attorney General Daniel Cameron and Secretary of State Michael Adams as possible candidates, but they've given no indication they're interested in the race. And Congressman Jamie Comer continues to be the X-factor in the race. He really hasn't signaled an interest in running, but he hasn't ruled it out, either.

Meanwhile, on the other side, there's a bit of possible intrigue. There are some loud voices on the left who are encouraging Lt. Gov. Jacqueline Coleman to mount a run against her boss. They point to the way she and her staff have handled Kentucky's unemployment fiasco and compare it to Beshear's treatment of the matter, and they use that to surmise that she'd be a better governor than he is. This isn't likely to happen, as no Democrat governor who's been eligible to succeed himself (Paul Patton and Steve Beshear) has faced credible, legitimate opposition for renomination in the primary. Unless...

An even more interesting rumor making the rounds is that Beshear is considering dropping Coleman from his re-election ticket in favor of Rocky Adkins, the former legislative leader who now serves as one of the governor's senior advisers. It's not clear from where this speculation  is originating, but there's been no media coverage of it. Keep in mind, though, that it was rumored for months that Bevin would boot Lt. Gov. Jenean Hampton from his slate with no replacement mentioned before Sen. Ralph Alvarado's name finally surfaced. Perhaps some inquisitive media sleuth should get Beshear on the record about this rumor. If Beshear did replace Coleman on his ticket, might she run against him as revenge?

Although some note has been paid to next year's U.S. senate race, when Rand Paul stands for re-election and is expected to face a challenge from former state Rep. Charles Booker, the 2023 governor's race continues to be the main political attention-grabber in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The ongoing virus situation and the current governor's handling (or, if you ask many mishandling) of the matter continues to gain and hold the public's concern. State politics are infinitely more intriguing than are national politics, especially since there are more favors to be doled out on the state executive level than there are at the federal legislative level. So even as Paul continues to be a lightning rod for national attention due to his continuing scrutiny of Dr. Anthony Fauci, state political observers are going to be looking past next year to 2023.

The race will definitely be less interesting without the possibility of Donald Trump, Jr., in it, but it's still going to be a crowded and expensive GOP primary. There will be clear choices between establishment RINOs and conservative champions, with the possibility of several from each category in the race. It will be a spirited sprint to the nomination, but there will be races within the races. Will the establishment go for Quarles or Craft? Will the conservatives support Bevin or Maddox? Will someone surprise everyone the way Bevin did against Comer and Hal Heiner in 2015?

And keep an eye out for 2027 should Don Jr. move to the Bluegrass State this year.

Press again shows its bias, favoritism in coverage of Beshear-related incidents

On a day ironically promoted by the Washington Post as "World Press Freedom Day," Kentucky's leading media outlets have once again proven why they aren't worthy of the constitutional liberties they're granted, and why all those who criticize them as biased and "fake news" have valid points.

Both incidents involved newspapers and television stations, and the leading personalities who run social media accounts linked to their employers, failing to report or acknowledge two weekend events involving Gov. Andy Beshear, especially when compared to their past behavior in similar instances.

At the last Kentucky Derby that was open to the public, in 2019, Matt Bevin was governor and was involved in a re-election campaign. He was booed during his remarks as he presented the trophy to the Derby winner. Media outlets lapped that up, breathlessly tweeting about it from Churchill Downs and filing numerous reports that made their way onto broadcasts and into print.

Last year's Derby was delayed several months and not attended by crowds, but a limited number of spectators were present for this year's running this past Saturday. When Beshear appeared to present the trophy, he was met by a chorus of boos and jeers. Yet the press failed to report that and the reporters failed to tweet about it. Unless you follow various of the anti-Beshear activist accounts on social media, you wouldn't know it happened.

Now, why would the press hide the fact that Beshear got booed and not report it as gleefully as they did when it happened to Bevin? Surely it wouldn't be because all these journalists are in the tank for Beshear and his agenda, would it?

But that incident on Saturday was just an indication of a much more frightening incidence of the media being in Beshear's pocket. The day after the Derby, another in a series of protests against the government mandates concerning the Wuhan Chinese virus was held in Frankfort, outside the Capitol and Governor's Mansion. This time, a number of Beshear fans announced their plans to hold a counterprotest to show support for the executive orders.

Rewind to Memorial Day weekend 2020, when a huge rally took place there. Someone set up a display of Beshear being hung in effigy, and the condemnation of the symbolism was fast and loud and lengthy. Keep in mind that no actual threats were made by the display, and effigies have been used as political speech for centuries. Anyone who supported any of the "reopen Kentucky" protests that took place at the time was cast as some sort of domestic terrorist, worthy only of condemnation.

Fast forward back to this weekend. The governor and his wife came out from the mansion to visit with some of their supporters. Among those with whom they talked, and posed for a picture, was a woman identified as Karen Clark Ellis. Photos of Ellis talking to the Beshears have been shared on social media, and Ellis herself shared the photo of her with the Beshears on her own Facebook page before she took her page down,  for reasons that will become apparent later.

Sometime after her meeting with the Beshears, Ellis pulled a knife on one of the anti-Andy protestors. There are photos and videos of this incident freely available for public consumption. Although this happened in front of police, no arrests were made, and the person on whom she pulled the knife is said to be seeking criminal charges through the Franklin County Attorney's office.

As for Karen Ellis, the rest of us are lucky that screenshots last forever. She bragged about her act on her Facebook page, only later to pull her social media presence back to the point that you can't even find her profile if you search for it. She probably got tired of hearing from people telling her what they thought about her actions.

With all the physical proof of the incident, and with all the social media play it got, doesn't it seem odd that as of this writing, no Kentucky media outlet has covered the story? Especially since so many reporters seem to base their news stories on social media postings and use tweets and Facebook posts as sources for information? And also especially since a symbolic gesture (a hanging in effigy) generated so much coverage while an actual physical threat goes ignored?

Journalists constantly wonder why members of the public don't trust them, consider them to be biased and unreliable, and call them "fake news." There are none so blind as those who will not see. Until they cover the Derby booing of Andy Beshear with the same fervor they used with Matt Bevin, and until they give the same weight to actions of Beshear supporters as they do Beshear opponents, they just simply will never get it.