Who will take the lead in getting us back to normal?

It's a pretty fair assumption that many people are tired of all the restrictions that surround the government's reaction to the Wuhan Chinese virus.

They're tired of the business limitations. They're tired of being unable to obtain unemployment benefits made necessary because government orders put them out of a job. They're tired of being nagged and scolded to wear masks and being told where not to go on vacation. Of constantly hearing that they are incapable of making their own decisions. Of not being able to celebrate weddings and properly mourn deceased friends and relatives. Of being told they can't worship as they see fit. Of being berated for protesting to have their lives and livelihoods restored while other protesters are celebrated for their passion and dedication to a righteous cause. Of not being allowed to have a certain number of guests at their homes. Of seeing their annual traditions disrupted and being told that things won't get back to normal until a vaccine is rushed to market and everyone will be strongly encouraged to get it as we become a nation full of guinea pigs.

And can you blame them? There are a lot of compliant folks out there who are perfectly happy to robotically smile behind a face covering and do whatever the government tells them without question, but there are a whole lot of others of us who are sick of it all and are ready to get back to living, knowing that freedom is never free and there's always a risk associated with living life.

Disruptions have already made this a year like no other. The state high school basketball tournaments were canceled -- the girls tournament was stopped in between games of a two-game afternoon session. The Kentucky Derby was postponed from May and won't be the first race of the Triple Crown. No fans were allowed at Kentucky Speedway's NASCAR Cup Series race, nor at the abbreviated Keeneland spring meet. The Fancy Farm picnic wasn't held. Kentucky and Louisville won't be playing their annual Governor's Cup football game. The primary election was pushed back a month and conducted mostly by early main-in voting, which probably affected the outcome of the Democrats' U.S. Senate race. School terms ended early and graduates were denied commencement ceremonies. The list goes on.

There's also a plethora of local events that are going by the wayside this year. A number of popular community festivals have been canceled. Among them are Jackson's Honey Festival, Campton's Swift Silver Mine Festival, Stanton's Corn Festival, Irvine's Mountain Mushroom Festival, the World Chicken Festival in London, the NIBROC Festival in Corbin, Hazard's Black Gold Festival, the Apple Festival in Paintsville, Pikeville's Hillbilly Days, and probably the biggest one of them all, Mt. Sterling's Court Days.

With all these communities caving in to fear and overbearing executive edicts, which may very well be ruled unconstitutional by the Kentucky Supreme Court, one has to wonder if there's a locale that will finally stand up and say, "We're tired of this nonsense. We're going to have our event and trust people to make up their own minds about whether or not they should attend."

It wouldn't be too surprising if that community is not my own hometown. Beattyville's Woolly Worm Festival is always held in mid- to late-October, the weekend after Mt. Sterling's Court Days. As of now, festival organizers are planning to go ahead with their popular annual event. Some of them have been pretty vocal about their disdain for all the government-ordered closures and restrictions. They might be feeing particularly rebellious, and even more so if the executive mandates continue into fall.

Lee County has already set a precedent for going ahead with something that was discouraged or prohibited elsewhere. At a time when the government was saying yard sales weren't allowed, and many of the well-known corridor sales were called off, local organizers went ahead with the 50-Mile Yard Sale along KY 52 in Breathitt, Lee, and Estill counties in early July. Participation from both shoppers and vendors was down from normal years, but the event still went off without a hitch. There's nothing to suggest that anyone came down with the virus at the yard sale -- Lee County still only has three recorded cases, and all three patients have recovered -- so all the fears that the purveyors of "panic porn" pushed were unfounded.

(It should be noted that the granddaddy of them all, the World's Longest Yard Sale along US 127 through Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, and then extending on down beyond 127's terminus in Chattanooga into Alabama, is still planned for this weekend. When asked about the event at a press conference last week, Gov. Andy Beshear said he had never heard of the 127 Yard Sale.)

Still, it would be encouraging to see the resistance start here in my little corner of the world. Someone needs to lead the charge back to some semblance of normal. Not a "new normal" that we hear so much about. Real "normal." The old "normal." A world where people arm themselves with the best available information, make their own decisions, and choose their own destinies. If people want to attend a street festival, they can, and should be free to do so. And if people choose to stay home and not attend, they will get that option as well.

As for me, I'm not a fan of these types of events. I don't like crowds, and I'm not particularly fond of the disruptions they cause for traffic and for businesses. So I typically don't attend. But lots of people love festivals. They love the food and the fellowship and the booths. And many who love them are choosing to forego attendance at such activities this year out of caution. Why not give them that choice? I might even go this year in a small gesture to stick it to "the man."

This is my hometown's chance to stand out and be a leader in the "Reopen Kentucky" movement. Let's hope festival organizers seize the opportunity. Maybe others will follow suit and we can reclaim our lives before 2020 ends.

Doctors of disinformation: Social media vs. medical professionals

A few years ago, I had a debilitating gout attack in my knees. Both times, I was basically immobilized for about 10 days. After the second one, in my right knee, even after I was able to stand up, straighten my leg, and walk, it was very painful for weeks afterwards. My co-workers noted that I appeared to be in misery when I hobbled across the parking lot from my car to the office.

I finally went to the doctor to see what could be done for the lingering pain. He prescribed a round of prednisone to eliminate the residual swelling, then another round to finish it off. He was a bit hesitant to do so because of the steroid's effect on blood sugar levels, but decided that the risk was worth it because of my pain and lack of ease of mobility.

That prescription did the trick. The last of the pain finally went away and I could move around without being in discomfort.

Now, imagine if my doctor had gone public with the details of my treatment. What if he had disclosed that prednisone is an effective treatment for gout that he had successfully employed? And what if the social media overlords basically called him a liar and removed any information he shared about how he'd done away with my problem and gotten me back to health?

That's exactly what's been happening to doctors who come forward with stories about how they've used hydroxychloroquine, either alone or in combination with other therapies, to treat the Wuhan Chinese virus. Facebook and Twitter have labeled this claim as untrue, misinformation, and even dangerous. Donald Trump Jr. found his Twitter account suspended for a few hours after retweeting video of a recent press conference in which several doctors announced their success using HCQ to treat the virus. Anytime some version of the press conference gets shared, it gets taken down with an admonition that the user shared false information.

Something like this, which happened when I shared a video of the America's Frontline Doctors press conference:

What makes social media the absolute arbiter of truth? Why should the judgments of technocrats override the actual experiences of doctors? Who should be trusted to determine what's accurate and what's not, medical professionals or Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg? Would it make any difference if the doctors showed their actual patient records (with names redacted, of course, to comply with privacy laws) to prove their assertions?

Hydroxychloroquine appears to be controversial merely because President Trump has been a proponent of its use. There are conflicting studies on just how effective it is, but the fact remains that doctors have successfully used it. Why do so many not want this information to be made public? Why do they not want to see an effective treatment deployed against a virus that so far has no cure and is said to be so dangerous that we have to crater the economy and drastically alter our way of life to respond to it?

HCQ is a generic medication. The only other drug mentioned as a possible treatment or cure for the virus, Remdesivir, is still under patent. So obviously, there's a financial stake in which solution is used. There's no money to be made by using HCQ; Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir, stands to reap huge profits if it's found to be the preferred way forward in treating the virus.

And, are there political ramifications in play? If the president is right about the effectiveness of HCQ, and if it's successfully deployed and the seriousness of the virus subsides, it benefits him in his re-election campaign. Would his haters seriously risk the health of millions of Americans just to get him out of office? Given the lengths to which they've gone the past three years, put nothing past them.

That's why, when a Democrat state lawmaker from Michigan announced that she'd been successfully treated for the virus with HCQ, her party moved to censure her, using language that basically said politicians belong to their parties, they don't belong to themselves, and aren't free to make their own decisions. It's almost as if they would have preferred that she die instead of taking a medication of which she became aware as a possible virus treatment when the president mentioned it.

Ponder this: What possible motivation could a doctor have to lie about how he or she successfully treated an illness? Why would a patient, especially a Democrat, lie about using a drug that a Republican president had touted? As we've seen with many other current events, there's a price to be paid for bucking the current popular or politically-correct narrative. Say "All Lives Matter" and you might lose your job or have your business vandalized. Say that you think the economy should reopen and people should be free to make their own decisions, and you'll be called a "covidiot." Freedom isn't free, and the truth is often costly.

Social media outlets actively serving as censors or gatekeepers is also contradictory to a position they've long held as they attempt to shield themselves from legal liability. For years, these services have claimed to be "dumb pipes" -- that is, they only serve as a conduit for user-supplied information and make no value judgments on what's presented. That's part of the argument Twitter recently used in defense of a lawsuit filed by California Congressman Devin Nunes over parody accounts. And their terms of service or community standards are extremely arbitrary. Spend any time at all on Facebook, and you'll see examples of content being removed and users suspended or pages banned while much more egregious and offensive posts are allowed to stay online. Indeed, the left clamors for Trump to be ousted from Twitter for his tweets, while they continue to make all sorts of outlandish claims about him that should offend the sensibilities of normal people.

In the case of COVID-19 posts, Facebook links to the World Health Organization in an attempt to correct what it deems to be misinformation. Recall that the United States is leaving the WHO over its failures to address the virus. The WHO is hardly a credible source of truth about the virus.

Like just about everything, there are informed opinions on all sides of the debate. Man-made climate change is not "settled science," as you can find plenty of scientists and experts who dispute that claim. And there's evidence that some of the data has been manipulated or is otherwise fraudulent. Google "East Anglia" for plenty of information on that subject.

So while some doctors and scientists dispute the effectiveness of hydroxycholoroquine and related combination therapies (zinc and the ubiquitous Z-pack), actual doctors have treated actual patients using some regimen of those drugs. They probably could prove it through their medical records. Why would they possibly lie?

And more importantly, what qualifies social media outlets, or the mainstream press for that matter, to say they're lying or challenge their credibility? When the proof is put right in front of them, why do they still continue to insist otherwise?

There's a reason alternatives -- MeWe for Facebook, and especially Parler for Twitter -- are gaining in popularity. They don't silence or censor views that go against the popular narrative. They don't make value judgments on user content. They let all sides be presented so the populace can make its own determination. In short, they trust their users to employ discernment. If a doctor or patient says HCQ was successful, trust them and their experience.

You're just going to have to take my word here that a couple of "pred-packs" eliminated my gout pain and restored my mobility. If I post it to social media, the "experts" there might deem me a liar and remove my post.

The narrative doesn't match the facts in the Breonna Taylor case

Recently, I posted an undisputable truth to my Facebook page: If her boyfriend hadn't shot at police officers serving a warrant, Breonna Taylor would still be alive today.

This prompted a friend who used to live in Kentucky, but now lives out of state, to note that she'd seen no media coverage of the fact that Kenneth Walker shot first, and Taylor was killed only after the police returned fire. Only after I brought it to her attention did she find out what had actually happened.

The case has drawn national attention from media outlets and celebrity activists. And much like the situation with Kentucky's primary election, the facts of the matter don't match the narrative or the agenda.

With the election, it was suppression of votes, especially those of black voters, because a black man was running for the opportunity to challenge Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell. Similarly, with Taylor's death, she's no longer alive because cops are racist killers.

Some review of the facts of the case are probably in order. The first truth bomb is that Breonna Taylor was not murdered in cold blood by the police. An unfortunate set of circumstances started the process that ultimately led to her death.

What happened was this: Back in March, Louisville police served a warrant on the apartment Taylor and Walker shared. Because the warrant was in connection with a drug investigation, it was what's known as a "no-knock" warrant, meaning the police did not have to announce themselves before entering.

There is some legitimate dispute over whether or not the police went above and beyond what was legally required and actually did announce themselves. Even the New York Times, the "newspaper of record" that's pretty close to being a liberal Bible, reported that the police identified themselves and knocked on the door before forcing it open. The accuracy of that statement will probably go a long way in determining the outcome of the case.

Once police did enter, Walker shot at them, hitting a cop in the leg and causing a wound that required surgery. Police returned fire, as they're trained to do, and their shots killed Taylor.

Walker was originally charged with attempted murder and assault for firing on the police, and was indicted by a grand jury, but those charges were later dropped by Jefferson County Commonwealth's Attorney Thomas Wine. However, the charges were dropped without prejudice, meaning they can be reinstated once the federal and state investigations into Taylor's death are complete.

The popular phrase used on social media is that Breonna Taylor was murdered. This is a blatant falsehood. The police did not go into the apartment with the intent to take her life. That only happened as a result of her boyfriend shooting first. The view from here is that if charges are filed, reckless homicide and wanton endangerment would be the most appropriate ones.

Lots of facts need to be determined as the investigation proceeds. Did the police announce themselves and knock on the door, or not? Did an officer mislead the judge about the apartment being used as a drug delivery location based on information from a postal inspector? Were they seeking a suspect who was already in custody?

The incident has resulted in more scrutiny on the use of no-knock warrants. The Louisville-Jefferson County metro government has prohibited its officers from seeking them. Kentucky's General Assembly is considering legislation for its upcoming session to ban them statewide.

But absent any false statements police may have made to the judge who issued the warrant, police were serving a legally-valid and properly-issued warrant when they were fired upon.

All of these things need to come out in a thorough, methodical investigation. Both state and federal authorities are looking into the matter. And therein lies another problem. The real goal of many of the protesters and agitators seems not to be justice, but revenge. Justice would demand taking as long as necessary for all the facts to come to the surface, not adhering to some artificial timetable.

Last weekend, the leader of a militant group that calls itself the Not F--king Around Coalition led a demonstration in Louisville, then said if the probe wasn't complete in four weeks, they'd be back to "burn this motherf--ker down." And Gov. Andy Beshear (a white Democrat) got involved in the fray, most likely because he's involved in a legal dispute with Attorney General Daniel Cameron (a black Republican) over the legality of Wuhan Chinese virus restrictions. Beshear went on national television to say the investigation is taking entirely too long.

That doesn't hold water. The state's investigation is being run by the Kentucky State Police. At last check, KSP is a part of the executive branch of state government that ultimately answers to the governor, not the attorney general. The interests of justice require that all facts be presented to the prosecutors who will ultimately bring charges and present a case to a grand jury, no matter how long it takes to uncover those facts.

There's a real demand in certain circles for charges to be filed against the officers involved. There's a very real possibility that the facts of the case won't justify charges, and it's even more likely that if charges are filed, they won't include murder. Louisville has already been on edge for weeks, and the city has been devastated economically by the protests and the damage that's been done by rioters, along with the state-mandated virus-related closures. At least two other lives have been lost as a result of the riots, and dozens of injuries have been reported.

The misrepresentation of the facts by the agenda-driven mainstream press and the social media celebrity activists isn't helpful. Yet you won't see Twitter or Facebook flag the misinformation they spread; choosing instead to call doctors who have treated the virus with hydroxychloroquine liars.

This is another case where discernment is vital. People need to look beyond the agendas, seek out the truth that's not always readily available, and don't jump to the politically-correct popular conclusions that satisfy the intellectually uncurious.

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.

Tone deafness taken to an entirely new level in Louisville

State and local governmental agencies are suffering from what is largely a self-inflicted economic wound. And the residents of Kentucky are victims of that assault.

Because of the shutdown orders issued by Gov. Andy Beshear, people are starving for income. Businesses have been closed and people have been put out of work. Because of the unemployment situation, individuals are seeing their budgets stretched farther than they can afford. The slow reopening means that employees aren't back to earning their full pre-shutdown wages, and the well-documented problems with the unemployment system have resulted in many Kentuckians not getting their benefits.

With personal budgets in crisis, now is absolutely the worst time for any public agency to consider a tax increase. The populace is already overtaxed, and adding to their tax burden at a time when they're having trouble paying their living expenses is the epitome of ridiculousness.

But no one ever accused those public officials elected in Jefferson County of having a lot of common sense. In late May, in the midst of the economic meltdown from which we still haven't recovered, the Jefferson County Board of Education passed a huge property tax increase.

This is the height of irresponsibility. At a time when people are having trouble paying for their food, their utilities, their vehicles, and their housing, the Jefferson County school board saddled Louisvillians with a tax increase of nearly 10 percent.

Tax cuts, not tax hikes, should be on the agenda for every public agency with taxing authority. This applies at all times, but especially so now. The best method to help people rebound from this economic crisis is to let them keep more of their own money to spend on necessities. The easiest way to put money in peoples' pockets is to never take it out of their pockets in the first place.

Thankfully, not all Jefferson Countians are bereft of common sense. Since tax increases above 4 percent are subject to voter recall, there's an effort underway to put that recall proposal on the ballot this fall. A group of patriotic folks have created a Web site that outlines the reasons this tax increase is a bad idea, and it contains an online petition to get the matter placed on the ballot.

Tax recall petitions face an uphill battle in the best of times. A certain percentage of voters within the taxing district have to sign the petition, and you have to live within that district's jurisdiction to be eligible to sign. I participated in two recall petitions in my small rural county a few years ago, and we beat back ill-advised tax increases foisted upon us by our school district. It was a struggle to get the required number of verified signatures in a county of 7,000; imagine the task in the state's most populous county.

That the Jefferson County school board would pursue such a large tax increase with economic conditions the way they are is nearly unfathomable. Then again, the Jefferson County education community was the loudest voice against efforts to save teachers' pensions undertaken by former Gov. Matt Bevin, with their opposition to his re-election playing a key role in his defeat. And at least one Louisville education beat reporter is beating the drum in opposition to the recall effort via her Twitter feed. So it's a stretch to expect any whiff of intelligence or common sense with them.

If you know someone who lives in Louisville, share the recall link -- https://nojcpstaxhike1.com/ -- with them and encourage them to sign the petition and spread the word. Let it be known that asking a financially burdened citizenry to pay more in taxes when they're struggling to pay their bills is beyond reprehensible.

McGrath's nightmare is McConnell's dream (or, please don't throw us in that briar patch!)

Last week was a terrible one for Amy McGrath, the frontrunner for the Democrat Senate race in Kentucky.

On Tuesday, one of her opponents, State Rep. Charles Booker, received endorsements from Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and the editorial nod from the Lexington Herald-Leader. Two days later, Booker was endorsed by his hometown Courier-Journal in Louisville.

There's a reason Kentucky Republican operatives and Sen. Mitch McConnell campaign staffers greeted the avalanche of bad news for McGrath with glee.

Despite what some of her detractors say, McGrath is extremely liberal. She's certainly not a Trump supporter, as her opponents are claiming she is. But Booker and the other leading contender, Mike Broihier, are farther to the left than is McGrath. They're out of touch with the average Kentuckian.

And there's nothing that McConnell and the GOP would like more than for one of them to knock McGrath off and be McConnell's opponent this fall.

You have to think that the McConnell camp is looking at this surge of momentum for Booker at McGrath's expense and are doing their best Brer Rabbit imitation.

You know... this.

Despite what Booker's supporters may think, McGrath represents the best chance the Democrats have to defeat McConnell. Booker, and Broihier for that matter, are far too liberal for the average Kentucky voters. Booker will appeal to a certain constituency from his hometown -- indeed, he's used the current racial unrest to his full advantage to rally his core supporters -- but his ultra-leftist stances will hurt him in the rest of the state. There's really no difference between Broihier and Booker in terms of policy, but Booker's been out in front at various protests.

Kentuckians by and large don't support socialized medicine -- call it Medicare for all, single-payer, universal healthcare, or whatever you want -- nor a universal basic income. Yes, there's an entitlement mentality present among certain populations, but the majority of Kentuckians have a strong work ethic. They want to earn their keep and not have the government give it to them. And the Green New Deal would further damage the energy industry that's already reeling, especially since there's still plenty of coal (some estimates place the state's reserves at 150 years), and fracking for gas and oil hasn't even been explored yet in the state.

The chief knock on McGrath seems to be that she fits the mold of every Democrat that's run against McConnell and failed to unseat him, so it's time to try something different. At a time when Kentucky is trending more and more conservative, and Republicans aren't that far away from taking a majority in voter registrations for the first time, the idea that Democrats think they can win with a candidate from the extreme left seems to be fueled by a bad batch of hallucinatory drugs. Why would you think you could win an election with an extreme liberal in a state that's going in the opposite direction?

Of course, McConnell has to win renomination first, and he does face a primary. He's being challenged from the right by former state Rep. Wesley Morgan, but the overwhelming odds are that McConnell will win and be on the ballot this fall.

It's obvious that the McConnell camp regards McGrath as its biggest threat. His campaign ads have ignored the primary and have gone directly after McGrath. That's in contrast to six years ago, when he was running ads against his top intra-party challenger. Matt Bevin. This time around, McConnell has all but ignored the primary to get an early start on the general election.

Current polling indicates that despite the endorsements and some seeming momentum for Booker, he still trails McGrath with only a couple of weeks to make up the difference. And those endorsements likely won't mean much to Kentucky voters. Neither Bernie nor AOC are particularly popular in Kentucky, even among Democrats, and they will certainly turn voters off this fall if their candidate is the nominee. Sanders did overperform in the 2016 presidential primary, but that's only because he received votes due to the backlash from Hillary Clinton's comments about putting coal miners out of work. And newspaper endorsements don't carry much weight among the populace. The ultra-leftists among Kentucky Democrats might cheer the support from Bernie and AOC, but those endorsements will be a huge liability for Booker should he somehow manage to be the nominee.

If "Team Mitch" wasn't worried about McGrath's chances, its leading voices wouldn't have been cheering the Booker endorsements. If they really believe Booker to be a true threat, they wouldn't be applauding these developments. They would have stayed silent instead of taunting McGrath.

You have to think that the McConnell campaign is salivating at the thoughts of Booker being their opponent this fall. This state has not produced a more shrewd politician than Mitch McConnell. If he's happy about bad news for McGrath, there's certainly a message being sent.