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.

A streak in jeopardy -- Kentucky's primary voting rules put my participation in danger

One of the things of which I'm most proud in my life is my voting record. I have voted in every election for which I've been eligible with one exception. That came during my college years in either 1982 or 1983 (I'm not for sure which year). I was home in May between the spring semester and the summer session, we decided to take an impromptu family trip, and it was too late for me to request an absentee ballot. That's the only election I've ever missed.

I turned 18 in December of 1979, so my first vote came in the 1980 primary election. I voted absentee when I was away at college, and at my local polling place during every other election except one. I even briefly changed my registration to Rowan County when I was in college to vote in a special election in Morehead that was of personal interest. That's how important the electoral process is to me.

Voting was a big deal in my family. My brother and I always accompanied our parents to the polling place just a couple of miles out the road. I usually went into the voting booth with my dad, and my brother went in with our mom. I would turn the knob to close the curtain, pull the levers my dad indicated on the machine that was taller than I was, then turn the knob to cast the vote and open the curtain back up. Voting was instilled in me at an early age as my civic duty.

But this year I fear my streak could be in jeopardy, thanks to decisions made by Kentucky's governor, secretary of state, and Board of Elections. As a response to the coronavirus situation, the state has implemented guidelines for this year's primary election that run counter to the way I prefer elections to be administered.

I'm a firm believer that elections should be generally be conducted in person and on one designated day, with participation limited to those legally entitled to vote. Twelve hours on Election Day is plenty of time for anyone who wants to vote to be able to do so. Absentee balloting should be restricted to those who will be out of the county on Election Day, and mail-in votes should be allowed only for those physically unable to go to the polls.

I'm opposed to voting by mail on the premise that it makes it easier for voter fraud, specifically vote buying and selling, to occur. The time-honored way in Kentucky to buy votes was to do so via the use of absentee paper ballots. The buyer could easily verify if the seller voted the way they promised by being present with them when they marked their ballot. Kentucky made drastic cuts in vote buying when voting booths were put into use for absentee balloting, with paper ballots reserved only for those who would be out of the county during the entire absentee balloting period, or those who had physical ailments that prevented them from leaving home to go vote.

I'm also opposed to the use of paper ballots. Other than the times I voted absentee by mail when I was in college, I have never used a paper ballot. I have always voted via machine, first on those tall mechanical beasts of my childhood that actually had the retractable curtains surrounding them, then on various models of computerized touchscreen machines. Paper ballots provide too many possibilities for fraud, either from people stuffing the ballot boxes, or by ballots being stolen.

Finally, I'm against the concept of early voting. Too many things can happen between the advent of the voting period and the actual Election Day. Kentucky has already started its emergency early voting process, and a number of ballots had already been cast in the U.S. Senate race prior to the endorsements of Charles Booker by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Courier-Journal, and the Lexington Herald-Leader. No doubt there will be plenty of other developments in the race prior to the June 23 election.

Sadly, all three of these bad ideas are being put into practice for the Kentucky primary election, along with a strict limitation in the number of open voting locations that is dissuading voters from going to the polls on Election Day and instead utilizing some combination of early voting and vote-by-mail, or both.

In my own county, only one voting location will be open for the entire county. There will be two machines at that location, and both of them will be supplied by the state. They will use paper ballots. The county will not be using the computerized touchscreen voting machines it already owns. Voters are being urged to apply for absentee ballots, and to complete them at home and either mail them in or drop them off at the county clerk's office. Alternately early voting at the clerk's office is being allowed, but by appointment. The state is making it intentionally difficult to vote in the normal manner.

I'm in a quandary. My intent is to vote in person on Election Day, even though I'll be forced to use a paper ballot. I do not want to legitimize a faulty procedure with which I disagree by participating in it. I'm healthy and I'll be home on Election Day. Even though my mind is pretty much made up as to how I'll vote, I want to wait to make up my mind in case there are late revelations about the candidates that could sway me against my choices or in favor of someone else, so I don't want to vote in advance of Election Day. There's no good reason for me to participate in a process that is an open invitation for fraud.

But what happens if I get to the polling place and there's a very lengthy line? I have no desire to stand and wait for a long time, especially if there's a mandatory mask requirement (I'm not wearing a mask anywhere except when I go to my office, and that's only because it's required; I haven't worn one anywhere else and I don't plan to.) I'd hate to arrive on Election Day, see a line that exceeds the length of my patience, and then turn around and go home (and forego the four hours of paid leave I will get for voting that day).

This is an important election. My district has an open Kentucky House of Representatives seat, and a longtime friend of mine is one of the candidates for the Republican nomination. The state may claim it's making it easier to vote, but that's not the case with me. They're pushing me into a process that runs counter to my principles in a number of ways.

It's frustrating. Kentucky's new secretary of state, Michael Adams, ran his campaign on the slogan "easy to vote, hard to cheat," primarily by pushing for stronger voter identification laws in Kentucky. But he's either forgotten, or is conveniently ignoring, Kentucky's sordid history of vote buying by approving and promoting a system that uses paper ballots and allows voting by mail.

This response to the coronavirus is overblown, as have been most of the state's actions the past few months. The state had already postponed the primary election by a month. It would have been more than sufficient to reduce the number of polling places in each county by half or by two-thirds, making sure the same number of voting machines was available as usual countywide, and using the traditional absentee balloting process. That would have cut down on the risk of illness for precinct workers and voters alike. It would have preserved the best aspects of the traditional voting process, which serves Kentuckians just fine, without introducing an increased possibility of fraud.

The only bright spot is that since there are federal races on the ballot this year, vote fraud becomes a federal offense rather than a state offense. The recent vote buying prosecutions in Kentucky have occurred in federal court, where convictions are more likely and punishments are harsher. If some sort of shenanigans do come into play, they'll be dealt with.

The state isn't communicating to the county clerks very well about what will happen this fall. My own county clerk is unsure about whether or not we'll go back to our usual touchscreen machines, which is her desire, or if the state will insist on using the paper ballots. The November election date is set by federal decree, and the state can't change it or push it back. And who knows if the governor will still be using the excuse of a viral emergency to impose his dictates upon the people? We already have organizations canceling events well into the fall. Who knows if the fall election will be a normal situation, or if we'll still be operating under the emergency provisions under which the primary is being conducted? And with the amount of pushback against the primary voting process that Republicans are giving, and with the pressure that President Trump is exerting against widespread mail-in voting, will Adams allow another altered election process?

I hope things go smoothly on Tuesday, May 23. I hope I can arrive at my county's single polling place, get access to one of the two voting machines quickly, and know the names of the winning candidates later that evening. But I'm fearful that something will happen and my long streak of election participation, dating back to that spring in the early 1980s, will be snapped.

Honestly? Abe would be scratching his head over this

If you follow politics, by now you have to be aware of something called "The Lincoln Project." This is a group of RINO "Never Trump" Republicans who'd rather give America over to the liberals and Joe Biden than see Donald Trump be re-elected president. Its leader and most visible face is George Conway, one of the most vocal "Never Trumpers" who happens to be married to one of Trump's closest advisers, Kellyanne Conway. (The two of them probably have dinnertime discussions that would make the dialogue between Mary Matalin and James Carville seem tame by comparison.)

The "Never Trump" movement had quite a few defectors between the 2016 GOP presidential nomination process and now. It originated as a curious mixture of conservative tea party types and liberal-to-moderate establishment RINOs who saw Trump as being both a conservative and a moderate, while at the same time being neither. Trump was a populist, a former Democrat with a liberal past, and he drew support from both wings of the party, although the establishment remained weary of him because his presence was a threat to their entrenched existence. But gradually, many of those who had opposed Trump came around to stand in his corner -- if not solidly, then at least on many issues and especially when the Democrats opposed him. This includes presidential rival Ted Cruz, frequent critic and John McCain disciple Lindsey Graham, and a certain former newspaper editor turned PR person and aspiring political blogger from the Kentucky River valley.

It's easy to see why the establishment dislikes Trump. As an outsider, he challenges their hegemony and their authority. The establishment is the swamp that Trump wants to drain. Trump isn't a politician. He didn't come up through the normal channels. He isn't beholden to the political power structure. Despite his wealth, he brings a common man's approach to governing. He speaks his mind. He doesn't abide by traditions or conventions. And the establishment is extremely wedded to traditions and conventions, at the expense of policy and getting things done. To the establishment, it's not that the end justifies the means, the means are the end. Procedure is the most important thing, not the results.

So while it's easy to see why the Lincoln Project is after Trump -- although, again, why they'd sacrifice America on the altar of the corrupt, senile, and liberal Joe Biden is a puzzler -- their entry into Kentucky politics is a real head-scratcher.

The Lincoln Project has come after Mitch McConnell. This defies all reason. McConnell embodies the establishment that the Lincoln Project represents. He values procedure above all else. He's stood in the way of the tea party movement at every opportunity. He'd rather strike a deal with Democrats to raise taxes and increase spending than to shut down the government to force cuts. He's a stickler for traditions and rules. His trademark is reserved, measured public comment. In short, he's pretty much everything Trump is not.

Why, then, would the Lincoln Project interject itself into Kentucky's Senate race? The only possible reason, and one that the participants have mentioned, is that McConnell didn't allow the partisan impeachment of Trump to succeed. But that act was common sense. No Republican Senate leader with any sense of decency would have allowed that politically motivated circus to come to the final act. McConnell recognized it for the attempted coup that it was, and took the appropriate steps to impede it. It's the only logical conclusion that can be drawn, since McConnell and the Lincoln Project have so much in common otherwise. Many regard McConnell as a Trump enabler, but the majority leader and the president have serious differences on a number of policy positions -- the aforementioned government shutdown being key; Trump urged it on while McConnell pledged it would not happen.

What's the Lincoln Project's ultimate goal in Kentucky? They're certainly not going to support Wesley Morgan in the Senate race. McConnell's chief challenger in the GOP primary, a business owner and former state representative from nearby Madison County, is an outspoken Trump supporter. If they hate Trump, they're certainly not going to back Morgan. It would appear, then, that they're positioning themselves for the general election this fall.

If these are the loyal Republicans that they claim to be, then their actions belie that statement. They couldn't actually want to see Amy McGrath, Charles Booker, or Mike Broihier elected to the Senate, could they? That would spit in the face of their professed Republican values. So far, they've released an ad attacking McConnell for his wealth he's accumulated since he was elected in 1984 (hint: he married into it) and authored an opinion piece for the Courier-Journal. Whether they will remain involved in the Senate race this spring or this fall remains to be seen.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. There are Republicans out there who would rather see liberal Democrats take control of the country than having a president in office that is in agreement with their policies and beliefs more often than not. They're making the perfect the enemy of the good. As for me, I supported Ted Cruz in the 2016 presidential nominating process. I voted for him in the Kentucky caucus. I still think he would be a better president than Trump. And I hope he is elected president someday. But I'm certainly not going to let that wish override the reality that if you're a Republican or a conservative, Trump is infinitely preferable to Biden or any Democrat. That a group that claims to be Republicans would surrender the country to liberals who ideologically oppose everything they profess to stand for is unfathomable. But that's the extent to which they'll go because Trump has disturbed their comfortable little establishment nest and ruffled their feathers.

Ol' "Honest Abe" would be scratching his head over this. No one can know how Lincoln would have perceived Trump, but the only Kentucky native ever to have been elected president is no doubt the Bluegrass State's most influential politician. And McConnell -- love him or loathe him, and I've loathed him for a decade and a half -- may not be a native Kentuckian, but he's spent most of his life as a resident, and he has to be regarded as the state's second-most influential political figure. So he and Lincoln have that in common. And you have to think the 16th president would appreciate that accomplishment.

"Don't You Dare Think Different!" Beshear administration adopts modified Apple ad campaign as its motto

As a Macintosh computer user for more than 30 years, I've seen various Apple advertising campaigns and slogans over the decades. One that stands out is the "Think Different" slogan that was heavily used from 1997 to around 2002, and still makes its way onto Apple packaging from time to time.

Conceived when the personal computer was becoming an integral part of everyday life, the slogan coincided with the advent of the iMac household computer that was intended to be a substitute for the Windows-based PCs that were gaining in popularity.

Now, it would be entirely appropriate for the administration of Gov. Andy Beshear to modify that hoary Apple tag line and apply it to its own philosophy.

"Don't You Dare Think Different!"

Shortly before this column went live yesterday with a critique of the way the administration has railed against those who would dare to challenge the governor's response to the "kung flu" Wuhan China virus,  news broke that another rally to oppose Beshear's edicts is being planned for this weekend. The event is being organized by Dr. Frank Simon, a well-known Louisville religious leader and Christian activist.

This certainly didn't go over well with Dear Leader's camp. Consider this statement from his mouthpiece, Crystal Staley:

“This is another attempt to create fear and terror.” She added, “Holding another event just six days after shows his true intentions. Gov. Beshear will not back down or be bullied. All elected officials should condemn this rally and its organizer.”

Staley, like most of the governor's key staffers, came over with him from the attorney general's office. She must have a selective memory. Has she forgotten that her boss grabbed a megaphone and addressed a Capitol rally attended and organized by educators who staged an illegal sickout in order to be able to go to Frankfort? Is she really saying that it was OK for her boss to protest against former Gov. Matt Bevin, but it's not OK for anyone else to criticize her boss?

It's becoming increasingly apparent that this administration does not like it when people publicly express disagreement with its actions. Indeed, they seem incredulous that anyone would question or defy what they are doing. How dare anyone not appreciate them and their actions? They continue to accuse Republicans of pandering to extremists and inciting bad behavior without any evidence whatsoever, as if the mere act of speaking out in opposition to the governor's actions is throwing red meat to a hungry, angry mob.

There's lots to be upset about, from the way the state has ordered businesses closed and put people out of work to the way the broken unemployment system has been addressed. The executive branch has acted unilaterally in most cases; only when legislators started complaining about a plan to close a handful of state parks to keep them in reserve in case quarantine internment camps were necessary did Beshear act in a bipartisan, cross-branch manner.

People want to be able to express that unhappiness. But the administration does not seem to want to hear their pleas.

Dr. Simon has long been a thorn in the side of liberals. His vocal pro-life, pro-Christian stances have long angered Democrats. He's a lightning rod for criticism, but he's indicated that this weekend's event will be a prayer rally and acts that might be perceived as hostile or intimidating will not be welcome.

But still, it's painfully obvious that this administration doesn't like being told its emperor has no clothes. The citizenry dare not "think different." That's all the more reason to keep fighting, keep rallying, keep protesting, and to make sure the voices of opposition are heard as patriots struggle to get Kentucky and America back on its feet.